Quoted message said:DougC said:I try to avoid buying running shoes that have air pillows in them,
because it's been my experience (a couple times) that the air pillows
must be filled under /pressure/, and that pressure tends to leak out
relatively quickly--in my experience, in only about a month of use both
times. The shoes worked great when they were brand-new, but after they
had gone flat I was wondering why I paid $100 a pair for them.
Quoted message said:Sorbothane (soft urethane) is pretty shock-absorbent, and basically
flat-proof. It /is/ a bit heavy however.
~
Regarding running shoe technology: Nike recently started marketing
marketing the Free shoe (http://www.nike.com/nikefree/) to mimic, as
much as possible, barefoot running.
Supposedly, the rationale was twofold: first, it was observed that
runners who ran barefoot at least part of the time, ran faster.
Second, it was observed that Nike (and competitors) had worked for
decades to design and build ever-more-protective footware, yet runners
were getting foot and leg injuries at the same rate.
IOW, all the fancy, advertised, "scientific" protection didn't work.
Parallels are left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
Quote:
Government puts brake on MP's helmet compulsion campaign
10:45, Oct 23rd 2007 by Carlton Reid
Minister says helmet compulsion unlikely because it leads to decreased
cycle use
Peter Bone, the Tory MP for Wellingborough and Secretary of the All-
Party Road Traffic Group, wants all under 14 year olds to be forced to
wear helmets when cycling. In a 10 Minute Bill on October 16th he
argued his case and has subsequently raised the matter again in
Parliament.
However, Jim Fitzpatrick, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the
Department for Transport, said:
"We have no proposals to bring forward legislation on compulsory cycle
helmet wearing...A 2002 review commissioned by the DfT concluded that,
overall there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be effective at
reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial
injuries... However, the report also concluded that, making cycle
helmet wearing compulsory may in some cases discourage some people
from cycling, leading to decreased bicycle use."
Fitzpatrick stressed that at the current levels of helmet use,
enforcement would be a problem. Teenage boys, in particular, are
eschewing helmets and forcing this group to wear helmets would make
many turn away from cycling. Such a result would be a net loss to the
health of the nation because the amount of lives saved by helmet
compulsion would be dwarfed by the loss of life caused by sedentary
lifestyles.
"Our regular surveys of helmet wearing rates show that cycle helmets
were worn by 28 per cent of all cyclists on major roads in built up
areas in 2004; this compares to 16 per cent in 1994." said
Fitzpatrick.
"The corresponding figures for child cyclists are 14 per cent in 2004
compared to 18 per cent in 1994. The wearing rate for teenage boys has
decreased from 16 per cent to 11 per cent. The 2006 helmet wearing
rate survey will be published later this year.
"While compulsion remains an option that we will review from time to
time, it has been our view that, at current helmet wearing rates,
making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and
without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of
cycling."
Roger Geffen, CTC's Campaigns and Policy Manager, said:
"Peter Bone's wish to 'do his bit' for safer cycling is no doubt
sincere, but totally misguided. He has blinded himself to the mass of
data showing that helmet laws drastically reduce cycle use and that a
cull of cyclists only makes things worse for those who remain. With
new evidence just out showing that the obesity crisis is far worse
than we had previously realised, it is clear that Bone's proposals
would shorten thousands more lives than they could possibly hope to
save."
End quote.
Quoted message said:From http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/29186/Government-puts-brake-on-MPs-helmet-compulsion-campaign
