Fat kids - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-03-2004, 02:57 PM

In article <x1DJb.5377$Oo1.623@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "Cathy Kearns"
<cathy_kearnsnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Peter Keller" <muzh@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news

an.2004.01.03.07.19.02.391744@ihug.co.nz...
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
> >
> > > I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> > > evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > Bob C.
> > Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
> > now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
> > In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
> > police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
> > been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
> > among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
> > has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
> > has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
> > But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --
>
> This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls.
> It's hard to find hair styles that won't be affected by helmet
> ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
> and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school
> bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
> don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
> to do with it.

That's interesting. A friend of mine who works in a bike shop says he sees
lots of young boys (teens) and young adults coming in and buying bikes,
but almost no girls! The guys are often into BMX and downhill. But he says
girls don't even buy road bikes! I suppose the helmet factor is there, but
the downhillers and BMXers all buy helmets.

01-03-2004, 02:59 PM

In article <bt6798$2tue$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Kamus of Kadizhar
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
> > Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
> > kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
> > anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
> > police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
> > back into the garages.
>
> No, they'll go back into garages like every new toy to gather dust, and
> the kids will return to watching TV.
>
> I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood
> schools, so kids could walk to school, instead of 50 acre campuses
> located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US federal
> gov't 'guideline, BTW.)
>
> With urban planning like that, it's no wonder kids get fat...
>
> -Kamus

I bet that's a lot do to with it. It seems that a lot of suburban high
schools are so far that no one can walk or bike there. We used to walk to
school every day, up until junior high (which was too far) but in high
school, most of us who lived nearby walked. Some kids were bused and a few
had souped up cars.

01-03-2004, 04:47 PM

In news:9JrJb.5179$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.co m,
Cathy Kearns <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> scribbled:
>> Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
>> kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
>> anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
>> police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
>> back into the garages.

It may be illegal but it's hardly enforced. At least here in the East Bay
Area. We see little kids on those things all the time, zipping around.
Sometimes with a helmet, sometimes not. I hope the police do start noticing.
I've seen more than one very close call.

As for the fat kids... it must be at least partially due to those fricking
scooters and cable tv. Baby fat doesn't last that long.

--

FlyingCoyote
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--

01-03-2004, 05:17 PM

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:01:12 -0500, frkrygow wrote:

> Peter Keller wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
>>>evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Bob C.
>>
>> Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
>> now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
>> In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
>> police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
>> been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
>> among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
>> has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
>> has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
>> But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --
>
> And why would they? The helmet manufacturers who financed the "safety"
> groups campaigns are still ahead. And the "safety" handwringers still
> think they've done a good thing.
>
> Why? "Well, if only ONE life can be saved..." they figure any downsides
> are negligible. Even if the downsides include 100 early heart attacks.

But it appears as though lives are NOT being saved! Quite the reverse!
(unless you consider scaring people off bicycles is a way of stopping
fatal bicycling injuries --
As I say, the proportion of fatal injuries have gone down LESS than the
proportionate reduction of bicyclists.
The safety handwringers are too much swayed by heart-rending anecdote; "If
I wasn't wearing my helmet I would be dead!" etc. This is not scientific
or truthful at all! Two troubles with anecdotes:
1) It is not possible to say what would have happened in the other
condition. It is difficult to run an experiment using a living human
twice, once with helmet and once without. To say nothing about people
without helmets tending to ride more carefully --
2) If the anecdotes were true, we should see a marked blip in the head
injury statistics with the wholesale uptake of helmets. This has simply
not happened. If anything, the rate of head injuries has INCREASED!!!

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

01-03-2004, 05:24 PM

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:35:13 +0000, Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Cathy Kearns" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:lZCJb.5375$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.co m...
>>
>> I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
>> neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
>> school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
>> jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
>> school on their own.)
>
> So do I. And kids USED to ride their bikes to school here. They had
> both sides of a long walkway leading to the school entrance lined
> competely with bike racks and they were overfilled with bikes all over
> the ground and leaning against the buildings.
>
> Then they passed the helmet laws and the principals of the schools
> announced that anyone that came to school on a bike without a helmet
> would be in trouble. So now instead of kids who might get in an
> accident once in 20 years, we have not a single bike ride to school.
> Overnight the bikes disappeared. The law was timed to come into effect
> over the Christmas break and the first day in January (around 1992?)
> instead of a thousand bikes there were a dozen. Then there were none.
> Then they removed the bike stands. And now there is a 30 minute
> traffic jam out in front of the schools each morning and afternoon.
>
> The fact that there was only a microscopic chance of a kid being
> injurred without a helmet and the fact that now the leading causes of
> death are becoming weight related doesn't seem to register with those
> in power whose only means of expressing something is to pass laws
> against it.

And the stupid thing is, places which have introduced helmet laws have
seeen the percentage of head injuries dropping less than the percentage
reduction in cycling! In other words, the chances of an individual
cyclist getting a head injury have actually INCREASED!

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

01-03-2004, 08:44 PM

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:26:44 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:

>How about;
>
>Has a chin on the back of their neck

More chins than the San Francisco phone book...

01-03-2004, 08:47 PM

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:55:08 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Marlene
Blanshay) wrote:

> It's always
>encouraging to see kids who at least arent' sitting at home on a nice day
>playing Xbox and eating Cheesies! Yeah, freeriding can get you injured
>but it's no worse for your health than being a rug rat!

Cheesies leave some yellow stuff in your body, and it eventually works
its way into those stupid yellow lumps that grow under fat peoples'
eyes.

It would be better to have some proper surgical scars from freeriding
when you get old than to have your belly flopping around your knees
and yellow cheesy lumps under your eyelids, now, wouldn't it?

01-03-2004, 09:00 PM

Marlene Blanshay <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
> It really is discouraging. Canada is not as bad as the US in terms of
> obese kids but we're getting there. And teens- I see slack, pasty
> teenagers with their fat love handles pouring out of their jeans. Okay,
> not everyone has to be a size 5 but what about HEALTH? Imagine how they'll
> be at 50 if they are already so out of shape!

Well, it's not always irreversible. I spent most of my life (from about
10 - 26 ) either overweight or obese. Only in the last two years did I
get on the bike and become fit.

It's strange meeting people I haven't seen for years.

I met up with my friend Julie in Vegas this year. We were both attending
a conference there, so we met up at the airport. I spotted her coming
through the crowd, wandered over and waited for her out of the lane of
foot traffic. She stopped a couple feet away from me and started
scanning the crowd. She looked me in the face a couple times and just
kept looking around for me. I realized after a little bit she didn't
recognize me. I've known her for about a decade so it was a little
wierd...

A lot of things would help most of these kids:

1. Throw out the television [0]
2. Go out into the big blue room. Yes it has a distinct lack of ethernet
ports, but you won't actually burst into flame from that bright light
in the sky. [1]
3. Cut down on the fast food
4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that kids
consume twice as much soda as milk.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Hopefully as a society we'll figure out a way to discourage some of the
suicidal behaviours we're currently engaging in.

[0] I think I regret the most all the time I spent in my youth rotting
in front of the idiot box. I spent a lot of time in front
of the computer, but at least I learned things there and eventually
ended up using it in real life.
[1] Except my friend Ross. That boy would turn bright red in literally
five minutes on a sunny summer day. Poor jerk.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Are you overweight? Take this simple medical test to find out:

Stand with your arms hanging by your sides and your feet slightly
apart. Now look out the window. If you see the United States of America,
then you are overweight, because everybody here is. That's why your
arms are hanging by your sides at a 45-degree angle.

01-03-2004, 09:22 PM

"Zippy the Pinhead" <the_corporate_hose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news

0afvv8ka75e9sjg52j3s8pak2uncaa5rc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:26:44 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >How about;
> >
> >Has a chin on the back of their neck
>
> More chins than the San Francisco phone book...

His neck looks like a pack of franks...

01-03-2004, 09:31 PM

"Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
<snip>
> The fact that there was only a microscopic chance of a kid being
> injurred without a helmet and the fact that now the leading causes of
> death are becoming weight related doesn't seem to register with those
> in power whose only means of expressing something is to pass laws
> against it.

It probably does register with them, but to actually do something about it
.... something effective ... would cost MONEY. If they really want to reduce
injuries to bicyclists, then they would have to improve the roads, educate
riders and drivers, enforce traffic laws (as opposed to only enforcing the
artificially low cash cow speed limits) and such things as that. This way
they pass a law, which costs nothing to them since you're the one footing
the cost of purchasing those silly things, and people who don't know
anything about bicycles (save for the fact they're always in the way of
their SUV) believe their wonderful leaders are accomplishing something.

Pretty soon nobody will be able to ride a bicycle on the road. These helmet
laws are only the first nail in the coffin. It seems utterly ridiculous
today, but just think about all the other things that have been outlawed or
severely restricted which people never thought would happen.

C.Q.C.