On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/
Emmy-award- winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-
LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center
pull brakes! 36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And
she's not in a "protected" bike lane! Is it even possible to
ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet
on, wore pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her
waist" is nonsense. There is no helmet regulation that
applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good
idea, although it's at least better than tying it around the
handlebars. I know a guy who did that and had a sleeve
dangle into his front wheel. His next couple seconds were
far from fun.
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open
shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes! >>>> 36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected" >>>> bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense. >>>> There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this
clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open
shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary ><mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws >>>> by not wearing one.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes! >>>>> 36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected" >>>>> bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense. >>>>> There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel. >>>>> His next couple seconds were far from fun.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous. >>>
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken >>> on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this
clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet >>> and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open
shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws >>>>> by not wearing one.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes! >>>>>> 36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected" >>>>>> bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense. >>>>>> There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel. >>>>>> His next couple seconds were far from fun.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous. >>>>
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken >>>> on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this >>>> clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet >>>> and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open
shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>
helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws >>>>>> by not wearing one.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes! >>>>>>> 36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected" >>>>>>> bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense. >>>>>>> There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel. >>>>>>> His next couple seconds were far from fun.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous. >>>>>
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken >>>>> on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this >>>>> clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet >>>>> and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open
shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>>
helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There >>> are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a >>> car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem
to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of >thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly >some places have gone that way, and some organisations just cant help >themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it >legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to
give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise
it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be >discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel. >>>>>>>>> His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this >>>>>>> clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >>>>> helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There >>>>> are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a >>>>> car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem >>> to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of >>> thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly >>> some places have gone that way, and some organisations just cant help
themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it >>> legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to >>> give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise >>> it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A
LAW!
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel. >>>>>>>>> His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this >>>>>>> clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >>>>> helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There >>>>> are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a >>>>> car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem >>>to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of >>>thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly >>>some places have gone that way, and some organisations just cant help >>>themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it >>>legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to >>>give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise >>>it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A
LAW!
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:28:34 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank KrygowskiWell...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like >>>"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be >>>discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into >>>question. Wolfgang knows this.
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>>
I have no problems with someone believing and saying "generally it is
much safer to wear a helmet. I think it's ridiculous to argue
otherwise. It's total nonsense to claim that it's generally safer to
not wear a helmet; therefore.....
I believe it'd also be true of riding a motorcycle, riding in a motor >>vehicle, or even riding a horse. It seems to me that when doing
something where a head injury is possible, a helmet would lessen the
risk of it.
The issue, of course, is not whether or not it's safer to wear a
helmet, but whether or not an individual is willing to accept the >>discomfort and hassle of wearing a helmet.
It seems to me that it should be a subjective decision and it makes no >>sense to argue anything other than about the legal right to make that >>decision.
Some people favor a nanny government. I do not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140518302731
Head injury was the secondary cause of death for 269 cyclists, 1324 >pedestrians and 1046 drivers, accounting for 46%, 42% and 25% of road
travel deaths at all ages in each mode respectively. Head injury was
the commonest cause of death in cyclists, but most pedestrian and
driver deaths were from multiple injuries.
On 10 Nov 2024 10:27:50 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>>>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>>>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this
clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >>>>>>> helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or >>>>>>> using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't. >>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem
to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesn?t harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of
thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly
some places have gone that way, and some organisations just can?t help >>>>> themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it >>>>> legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to >>>>> give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise >>>>> it, it doesn?t pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A
LAW!
That for me hits the causes others harm, as positive as motor vehicles are, >> do need some regulation to keep the negatives lower.
Roger Merriman
Which is what the helmet advocates argue. And what the anti alcohol
people did and , and, and...
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
On 10 Nov 2024 11:23:20 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 10:27:50 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this
clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>>>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >>>>>>>>> helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or >>>>>>>>> using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't. >>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem
to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesn?t harm others, crack on as you were! >>>>>>>
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of
thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly
some places have gone that way, and some organisations just can?t help >>>>>>> themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it
legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to
give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise
it, it doesn?t pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a >>>>> greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A
LAW!
That for me hits the causes others harm, as positive as motor vehicles are,
do need some regulation to keep the negatives lower.
Roger Merriman
Which is what the helmet advocates argue. And what the anti alcohol
people did and , and, and...
No helmets only affect the person wearing it, doesnt increase risks or not >> to 3rd parties like motor vehicles.
Err.. you are single I assume but if you are not and your 5 year old
child rides a bicycle ?
And yes as CatTrike has noted plenty of other sports where helmets may or
may not be used. Let alone various other types of mobility where helmets
are used or not from scooters and so on.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:28:34 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank KrygowskiWell...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>>
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
I have no problems with someone believing and saying "generally it is
much safer to wear a helmet. I think it's ridiculous to argue
otherwise. It's total nonsense to claim that it's generally safer to
not wear a helmet; therefore.....
I believe it'd also be true of riding a motorcycle, riding in a motor
vehicle, or even riding a horse. It seems to me that when doing
something where a head injury is possible, a helmet would lessen the
risk of it.
The issue, of course, is not whether or not it's safer to wear a
helmet, but whether or not an individual is willing to accept the
discomfort and hassle of wearing a helmet.
It seems to me that it should be a subjective decision and it makes no
sense to argue anything other than about the legal right to make that
decision.
Some people favor a nanny government. I do not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140518302731
Head injury was the secondary cause of death for 269 cyclists, 1324 pedestrians and 1046 drivers, accounting for 46%, 42% and 25% of road
travel deaths at all ages in each mode respectively. Head injury was
the commonest cause of death in cyclists, but most pedestrian and
driver deaths were from multiple injuries.
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>>>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this >>>>>>>> clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >>>>>> helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There >>>>>> are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a >>>>>> car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or >>>>>> using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem >>>> to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of
thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly
some places have gone that way, and some organisations just cant help >>>> themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it >>>> legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to >>>> give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise >>>> it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A
LAW!
That for me hits the causes others harm, as positive as motor vehicles are, do need some regulation to keep the negatives lower.
Roger Merriman
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>>
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
And yet places with low rates such as the Netherlands or even as helmets
have high useage be that cultural or legal the rate hasnt been shown to >decrease, judging helmets wearing and none is full of problems ie they tend >to differ more likely to see kids helmets less in poorer areas which also
are generally have more dangerous roads and so on.
Just because Frank has one viewpoint doesnt mean you have to take the >opposite you know!
Roger Merriman
On 11/10/2024 3:52 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:28:34 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank KrygowskiWell...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
I have no problems with someone believing and saying "generally it is
much safer to wear a helmet. I think it's ridiculous to argue
otherwise. It's total nonsense to claim that it's generally safer to
not wear a helmet; therefore.....
I believe it'd also be true of riding a motorcycle, riding in a motor
vehicle, or even riding a horse. It seems to me that when doing
something where a head injury is possible, a helmet would lessen the
risk of it.
The issue, of course, is not whether or not it's safer to wear a
helmet, but whether or not an individual is willing to accept the
discomfort and hassle of wearing a helmet.
It seems to me that it should be a subjective decision and it makes no
sense to argue anything other than about the legal right to make that
decision.
Some people favor a nanny government. I do not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140518302731
Head injury was the secondary cause of death for 269 cyclists, 1324
pedestrians and 1046 drivers, accounting for 46%, 42% and 25% of road
travel deaths at all ages in each mode respectively. Head injury was
the commonest cause of death in cyclists, but most pedestrian and
driver deaths were from multiple injuries.
What proportion of your own lifetime bicycle riding was
under a brain bucket?
On 10 Nov 2024 14:51:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
And yet places with low rates such as the Netherlands or even as helmets
have high useage be that cultural or legal the rate hasnt been shown to
decrease, judging helmets wearing and none is full of problems ie they tend >> to differ more likely to see kids helmets less in poorer areas which also
are generally have more dangerous roads and so on.
Just because Frank has one viewpoint doesnt mean you have to take the
opposite you know!
Roger Merriman
To argue against mandatory helmet laws is one thing, but to argue
against someone choosing to wear one is stupid and ugly.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/10/2024 4:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>>>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>>>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this
clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a >>>>>>> helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or >>>>>>> using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't. >>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem
to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were! >>>>>
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of
thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly
some places have gone that way, and some organisations just cant help >>>>> themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it >>>>> legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to >>>>> give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise >>>>> it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A
LAW!
That for me hits the causes others harm, as positive as motor vehicles are, >> do need some regulation to keep the negatives lower.
Roger Merriman
What sort of regulation?
There are already laws to prevent people from stealing cars,
eluding police at high speed, driving drunk/high, running
red lights and stop signs, wrong way driving, hitting people
and objects adjacent to the roadway and even changing lanes
without both a signal and due care.
Despite all that, peruse any city's overnight police reports
on any given morning.
On 10 Nov 2024 14:51:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:"There's ample data available calling your statement into
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
And yet places with low rates such as the Netherlands or even as helmets
have high useage be that cultural or legal the rate hasnt been shown to
decrease, judging helmets wearing and none is full of problems ie they tend >> to differ more likely to see kids helmets less in poorer areas which also
are generally have more dangerous roads and so on.
Just because Frank has one viewpoint doesnt mean you have to take the
opposite you know!
question."
Roger Merriman
On 11/10/2024 8:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet. >>>
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be
discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into
question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
"... MIGHT have," says the propaganda source.
But only for bicycling, which last I looked was the cause of only 0.6%
of America's brain injury deaths? Why let the other 99+% go without
helmets?
On 11/10/2024 4:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
So do you now retract your statement in favor of mandatory helmets for
kids?
On 11/10/2024 11:55 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
To argue against mandatory helmet laws is one thing, but to argue
against someone choosing to wear one is stupid and ugly.
Because it's blasphemy to question the helmet religion?
Because no one should ever examine all the relevant data?
Because you, personally, believe parents should not have the right to
make this decision regarding their own children? That is what you said.
As helmets seem to at a population level be statistically insignificant in >> that no effect can be found at population levels.
Absolutely true. Almost all bike helmet propaganda is based on
dishonestly labeled "case-control" studies - dishonest because there's
been solid evidence that the two groups being compared typically varied
in many more ways than helmet use. The most famous example being the
1989 study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, in which helmets had been
worn by over 20% of the kids brought to hospitals for bike crashes. That
was at a time when street surveys by the same team found only 3% of kids
were wearing helmets. So helmeted kids were FAR more likely to be
brought in. We could discuss likely reasons why - if this were a more >rational group.
When data (mostly time series data) is examined for entire populations
of cyclists, helmet benefits vanish. In fact, as bike helmets became
more common over the years, bicyclist concussions increased, not decreased.
But to me, the biggest fallacy is pretending that the rate of bicycling
brain injury is so extreme that helmets should be recommended, let alone >mandated. There's been propaganda like "You could fall over in your
driveway and die," which is exactly as true as "You could fall while
walking in your home and die." Except that the latter happens far, far
more often than the former. Ditto for fatal brain injuries inside cars.
Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.
On 11/10/2024 11:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:05:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 11/10/2024 3:52 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:28:34 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank KrygowskiWell...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be >>>>>> discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into >>>>>> question. Wolfgang knows this.
I have no problems with someone believing and saying "generally it is >>>>> much safer to wear a helmet. I think it's ridiculous to argue
otherwise. It's total nonsense to claim that it's generally safer to >>>>> not wear a helmet; therefore.....
I believe it'd also be true of riding a motorcycle, riding in a motor >>>>> vehicle, or even riding a horse. It seems to me that when doing
something where a head injury is possible, a helmet would lessen the >>>>> risk of it.
The issue, of course, is not whether or not it's safer to wear a
helmet, but whether or not an individual is willing to accept the
discomfort and hassle of wearing a helmet.
It seems to me that it should be a subjective decision and it makes no >>>>> sense to argue anything other than about the legal right to make that >>>>> decision.
Some people favor a nanny government. I do not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as
184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140518302731 >>>> Head injury was the secondary cause of death for 269 cyclists, 1324
pedestrians and 1046 drivers, accounting for 46%, 42% and 25% of road
travel deaths at all ages in each mode respectively. Head injury was
the commonest cause of death in cyclists, but most pedestrian and
driver deaths were from multiple injuries.
What proportion of your own lifetime bicycle riding was
under a brain bucket?
As for me, I've never worn a helmet, I never will, but I have no
problems with other people wearing one. I also have no problems with
laws mandating helmets for children.
You have no problem with removing a parent's right to decide whether his
kid should wear a helmet.
Yet you complain about people telling other people what to do. Hypocrite.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/
Emmy-award- winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-
LA.html
If that's _really_ sally struthers, she's done wonders for
her fitness.
The last time I saw any pictures of her she was obese, to
the point that South Park lampooned her by juxtaposing her
with Jabba The Hut
This is from 2022: https://www.legit.ng/1383563-sally-struthers-biography-age- height-net-worth-husband.html
This is from this past may,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EOdeYs3dmw
Sally The Hutt?
https://giphy.com/gifs/southparkgifs-l2SpZc9hqfgnDB7RC
Based on a quick image search for recently posted imagery of
Sally Struthers, I'm not convinced that really her, but if
true, the headline of 'unrecognizable' is true!
On 11/10/2024 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:05:15 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
What proportion of your own lifetime bicycle riding was
under a brain bucket?
I honestly don't know as I spent much of my military
career "overseas"
where we were somewhat protected from local laws, if for
no other
reason then that few of the local police spoke English :-)
Then when I
retired I went back overseas to work and riding a bicycle
on your
break was sort of "blah" and money was plentiful so take a
taxi :-)
I don't think that was honest at all. What were the years
you did your bicycle riding? I'd assume most were before
1980. Bike helmets (other than the rare racer's leather
strap kind) were almost nonexistent until 1980.
Perhaps that is a solution. A state law that for anyone
killed or
injured while riding a bicycle without a helmet any
insurance policy
for medical care and/or death shall be deemed to be null
and void.
Would that apply to _all_ victims of brain injury? Let's
recall that in the U.S., bicyclists comprise less than one
percent of fatal brain injuries. For serious but not fatal
brain injuries, the percentages probably aren't much different.
Falls when walking around the home are one of the top causes
of serious brain injuries. Riding in automobiles is also a
big cause, as are assaults. Bicycling is rarely mentioned as
a source in articles listing causes. See https:// www.myshepherdconnection.org/abi/Introduction-to-Brain- Injury/Statistics-and-Causes as an example.
And don't think that bicyclists are a significant portion of
the "falls" or "motor vehicle" categories. Here's a more
detailed table that deals with total (not just TBI)
fatalities. Note what a tiny portion bicyclists make up. https://probablyhelpful.com/injury_death.htm
It's a propaganda generated myth that riding a bike is
likely to cause serious brain injury.
On 11/10/2024 10:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/10/2024 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:05:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
What proportion of your own lifetime bicycle riding was
under a brain bucket?
I honestly don't know as I spent much of my military career "overseas"
where we were somewhat protected from local laws, if for no other
reason then that few of the local police spoke English :-) Then when I
retired I went back overseas to work and riding a bicycle on your
break was sort of "blah" and money was plentiful so take a taxi :-)
I don't think that was honest at all. What were the years you did your
bicycle riding? I'd assume most were before 1980. Bike helmets (other
than the rare racer's leather strap kind) were almost nonexistent
until 1980.
Perhaps that is a solution. A state law that for anyone killed or
injured while riding a bicycle without a helmet any insurance policy
for medical care and/or death shall be deemed to be null and void.
Would that apply to _all_ victims of brain injury? Let's recall that
in the U.S., bicyclists comprise less than one percent of fatal brain
injuries. For serious but not fatal brain injuries, the percentages
probably aren't much different.
Falls when walking around the home are one of the top causes of
serious brain injuries. Riding in automobiles is also a big cause, as
are assaults. Bicycling is rarely mentioned as a source in articles
listing causes. See https:// www.myshepherdconnection.org/abi/
Introduction-to-Brain- Injury/Statistics-and-Causes as an example.
And don't think that bicyclists are a significant portion of the
"falls" or "motor vehicle" categories. Here's a more detailed table
that deals with total (not just TBI) fatalities. Note what a tiny
portion bicyclists make up. https://probablyhelpful.com/injury_death.htm
It's a propaganda generated myth that riding a bike is likely to cause
serious brain injury.
In the morning news, another tragic sans-helmet death:
https://www.audacy.com/wbbm780/news/local/nw-indiana-hunter-dies-in- tree-stand-fall
On 10 Nov 2024 14:46:29 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 11:23:20 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 10:27:50 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mcleary08@comcast.net>:I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>>>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken
on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this
clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet
and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open
shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a
helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or >>>>>>>>>>> using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't. >>>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem
to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesn?t harm others, crack on as you were! >>>>>>>>>
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of
thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly
some places have gone that way, and some organisations just can?t help
themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it
legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to
give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise
it, it doesn?t pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop >>>>>>>> passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone >>>>>>>> would simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a >>>>>>> greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A >>>>>>> LAW!
That for me hits the causes others harm, as positive as motor vehicles are,
do need some regulation to keep the negatives lower.
Roger Merriman
Which is what the helmet advocates argue. And what the anti alcohol
people did and , and, and...
No helmets only affect the person wearing it, doesn?t increase risks or not
to 3rd parties like motor vehicles.
Err.. you are single I assume but if you are not and your 5 year old
child rides a bicycle ?
I was Married that is but am a widower now, but either way children wearing >> a helmet isnt going to effect 3rd parties, only American football where
players use the helmets as battering rams which is one unintended
consequence.
You seem to have lost the part of my post "when the next 5 year kid
runs out in front of a car and ends up a greasy spot on the road
people will be"
Does that imply that you wouldn't care whether your 5 year old
daughter (if you had one) is run over?
Rugby the move to professional vs amateur and massively upscaling of the
players and hence the impacts has had effects on brain injuries.
And yes as CatTrike has noted plenty of other sports where helmets may or >>>> may not be used. Let alone various other types of mobility where helmets >>>> are used or not from scooters and so on.
Roger Merriman
Roger Merriman
Am 11.11.2024 um 14:59 schrieb AMuzi:
On 11/10/2024 10:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/10/2024 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:05:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
What proportion of your own lifetime bicycle riding was
under a brain bucket?
I honestly don't know as I spent much of my military career "overseas" >>>> where we were somewhat protected from local laws, if for no other
reason then that few of the local police spoke English :-) Then when I >>>> retired I went back overseas to work and riding a bicycle on your
break was sort of "blah" and money was plentiful so take a taxi :-)
I don't think that was honest at all. What were the years you did your
bicycle riding? I'd assume most were before 1980. Bike helmets (other
than the rare racer's leather strap kind) were almost nonexistent
until 1980.
Perhaps that is a solution. A state law that for anyone killed or
injured while riding a bicycle without a helmet any insurance policy
for medical care and/or death shall be deemed to be null and void.
Would that apply to _all_ victims of brain injury? Let's recall that
in the U.S., bicyclists comprise less than one percent of fatal brain
injuries. For serious but not fatal brain injuries, the percentages
probably aren't much different.
Falls when walking around the home are one of the top causes of
serious brain injuries. Riding in automobiles is also a big cause, as
are assaults. Bicycling is rarely mentioned as a source in articles
listing causes. See https:// www.myshepherdconnection.org/abi/
Introduction-to-Brain- Injury/Statistics-and-Causes as an example.
And don't think that bicyclists are a significant portion of the
"falls" or "motor vehicle" categories. Here's a more detailed table
that deals with total (not just TBI) fatalities. Note what a tiny
portion bicyclists make up. https://probablyhelpful.com/injury_death.htm >>>
It's a propaganda generated myth that riding a bike is likely to cause
serious brain injury.
In the morning news, another tragic sans-helmet death:
https://www.audacy.com/wbbm780/news/local/nw-indiana-hunter-dies-in-
tree-stand-fall
Sure, and a friend's mother died sans-helmet last year when she fell
down a few marble stairs when stumbling on the way to the theatre.
On 11/11/2024 5:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:12:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2024 4:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
So do you now retract your statement in favor of mandatory helmets for
kids?
No, as I said elsewhere:
I believe parents do not and should not have absolute total control
over their children. I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
You seem to be pretending that allowing a kid to ride a bicycle as every
kid did until 1980 must now be classified as child abuse.
You're like a vegetarian wanting to take away a parent's right to give
their kid meat.
On 11/11/2024 3:47 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 14:51:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:"There's ample data available calling your statement into
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be >>>>>> discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into >>>>>> question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as >>>>> 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
And yet places with low rates such as the Netherlands or even as helmets >>>> have high useage be that cultural or legal the rate hasnt been shown to >>>> decrease, judging helmets wearing and none is full of problems ie they tend
to differ more likely to see kids helmets less in poorer areas which also >>>> are generally have more dangerous roads and so on.
Just because Frank has one viewpoint doesnt mean you have to take the >>>> opposite you know!
question."
No there are selective studies, which much like modelling ideas can’t and >> don’t cover everything.
Hence population studies all come to the same conclusions ie no effect can >> be found.
Doesn’t mean might not be useful individually but for a population..
Of course there may be individuals who for whatever reason may benefit
from a styrofoam helmet.
Some years ago I stopped in a fast food restaurant while traveling. A
man entered with his teenaged son, who was severely handicapped. He was
able to walk, but only with assistance, and he seemed unable to express himself verbally. He was wearing a bike helmet just for walking. For
him, that may have been reasonable.
On 11/11/2024 5:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:16:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 5:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:12:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2024 4:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone
would simply mind their own business.
So do you now retract your statement in favor of mandatory helmets for >>>>> kids?
No, as I said elsewhere:
I believe parents do not and should not have absolute total control
over their children. I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
You seem to be pretending that allowing a kid to ride a bicycle as every >>> kid did until 1980 must now be classified as child abuse.
Oh my, Krygowski is building strawmen again...
Let's note that you can't tell the difference between an analogy and a
straw man argument.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:11:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 5:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:16:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 5:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:12:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2024 4:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop >>>>>>> passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone >>>>>>> would simply mind their own business.
So do you now retract your statement in favor of mandatory helmets for >>>>>> kids?
No, as I said elsewhere:
I believe parents do not and should not have absolute total control
over their children. I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
You seem to be pretending that allowing a kid to ride a bicycle as every >>>> kid did until 1980 must now be classified as child abuse.
Oh my, Krygowski is building strawmen again...
Let's note that you can't tell the difference between an analogy and a
straw man argument.
Let's note that your fallacious, dishonest claim of what I "seem to be pretending" precisely fits the definition of a strawman.
"Straw man fallacy is the distortion of someone else’s argument to
make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual
argument of the opponent, one may present a somewhat similar but not
equal argument.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/
On 11/12/2024 3:52 AM, Catrike Ryder ...
... woke at 3:52 AM to run to the computer and yap at my every post again!
What a strange thing to make one's life objectives!
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 3:52 AM, Catrike Ryder ...
... woke at 3:52 AM to run to the computer and yap at my every post again! >>
What a strange thing to make one's life objectives!
As long as you control your tendency to display your narcissism, I'll
back off. You do pretty well for a while, and then, I suspect
something happens in your life where you need to go into your
narcissistic mode. Once I remind you of it, you start behaving
yourself again.
I'm actually performing a sevice for you. You should thaank me.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/11/2024 3:47 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 14:51:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:No there are selective studies, which much like modelling ideas
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:"There's ample data available calling your statement into
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:57:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:13 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I
wear a helmet.
Since this is a discussion group, when you make a statement like
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet" you can expect it to be >>>>>> discussed. There's ample data available calling your statement into >>>>>> question. Wolfgang knows this.
"Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/
An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head
injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were
related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as >>>>> 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented
annually if these riders had worn helmets.
And yet places with low rates such as the Netherlands or even as helmets >>>> have high useage be that cultural or legal the rate hasnt been shown to >>>> decrease, judging helmets wearing and none is full of problems ie they tend
to differ more likely to see kids helmets less in poorer areas which also >>>> are generally have more dangerous roads and so on.
Just because Frank has one viewpoint doesnt mean you have to take the >>>> opposite you know!
question."
can’t and
don’t cover everything.
Hence population studies all come to the same conclusions ie no
effect can
be found.
Doesn’t mean might not be useful individually but for a population..
Of course there may be individuals who for whatever reason may benefit
from a styrofoam helmet.
Some years ago I stopped in a fast food restaurant while traveling. A
man entered with his teenaged son, who was severely handicapped. He
was able to walk, but only with assistance, and he seemed unable to
express himself verbally. He was wearing a bike helmet just for
walking. For him, that may have been reasonable.
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch.
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this: >https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
They still do. The entire post is:
"Children under 10 need to cross the street with an adult. Every child
is different, but developmentally, most kids are unable to judge the
speed and distance of oncoming cars until age 10."
See: >https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/kids-can-t-accurately-judge-speed-of-approaching-cars-study-646577.html
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/study-claims-children-cannot-judge-speeds-above-20mph-1334/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123101539.htm >https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2010/11/26/children-cannot-accurately-see-vehicles-going-above-20-mph/38323/
https://www.parenthub.com.au/news/kids-news/why-children-struggle-to-cross-busy-streets-safely/
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/26119/-kids-can-t-perceive-fast-traffic
https://swov.nl/en/fact/children-how-do-children-develop-and-how-does-affect-road-safety
And there's this: >>https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this: >>>https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more >dangerious then the road?
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:06:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
They still do. The entire post is:
"Children under 10 need to cross the street with an adult. Every child
is different, but developmentally, most kids are unable to judge the
speed and distance of oncoming cars until age 10."
See:
https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/kids-can-t-accurately-judge-speed-of-approaching-cars-study-646577.html
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/study-claims-children-cannot-judge-speeds-above-20mph-1334/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123101539.htm
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2010/11/26/children-cannot-accurately-see-vehicles-going-above-20-mph/38323/
https://www.parenthub.com.au/news/kids-news/why-children-struggle-to-cross-busy-streets-safely/
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/26119/-kids-can-t-perceive-fast-traffic
https://swov.nl/en/fact/children-how-do-children-develop-and-how-does-affect-road-safety
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/13/2024 2:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:06:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
They still do. The entire post is:
"Children under 10 need to cross the street with an adult. Every child
is different, but developmentally, most kids are unable to judge the
speed and distance of oncoming cars until age 10."
See:
https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/kids-can-t-accurately-judge-speed-of-approaching-cars-study-646577.html
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/study-claims-children-cannot-judge-speeds-above-20mph-1334/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123101539.htm
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2010/11/26/children-cannot-accurately-see-vehicles-going-above-20-mph/38323/
https://www.parenthub.com.au/news/kids-news/why-children-struggle-to-cross-busy-streets-safely/
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/26119/-kids-can-t-perceive-fast-traffic
https://swov.nl/en/fact/children-how-do-children-develop-and-how-does-affect-road-safety
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Where's the line? I'm glad it's not my decision but I always
told my daughter, regarding grandsons, 'If you carry your
babies everywhere, you're raising cripples'. I gave her a
copy of:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6250260-free-range-kids
which lit that light in her, to everyone's benefit.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a >>>>>> thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional >>>> side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one. Not sure why a black helmet is better and tying
things around your waist is not a good idea. Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer. Long pants are a better
idea if you go down.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:44:01 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch.
In the eighteenth century they were called "pudding caps".
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull
brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a
"protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is
nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front
wheel. His next couple seconds were far from fun.
laws by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the extra clothes on and sweat. That would be
safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become
dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be
taken on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for
which this clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me
here: the helmet and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a
misunderstanding and open shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a
helmet.
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this: https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:50:31 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:06:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a >>>>>> thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
They still do. The entire post is:
"Children under 10 need to cross the street with an adult. Every child >>>> is different, but developmentally, most kids are unable to judge the
speed and distance of oncoming cars until age 10."
See:
https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/kids-can-t-accurately-judge-speed-of-approaching-cars-study-646577.html
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/study-claims-children-cannot-judge-speeds-above-20mph-1334/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123101539.htm
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2010/11/26/children-cannot-accurately-see-vehicles-going-above-20-mph/38323/
https://www.parenthub.com.au/news/kids-news/why-children-struggle-to-cross-busy-streets-safely/
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/26119/-kids-can-t-perceive-fast-traffic
https://swov.nl/en/fact/children-how-do-children-develop-and-how-does-affect-road-safety
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Where's the line? I'm glad it's not my decision but I always
told my daughter, regarding grandsons, 'If you carry your
babies everywhere, you're raising cripples'. I gave her a
copy of:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6250260-free-range-kids
which lit that light in her, to everyone's benefit.
You're talking to the gallery, here. I was raised on a farm, where,
preschool rainy day playtime was up high in the haymow or in the
machine shed. There were more days where I went to bed with a band
aide to keep from bleeding on the sheets than days when I didn't.
That said, there is government responsibility to protect children. I
don't know where the line should be. That's for the voters to decide.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >positions are convincing anybody.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a >>>>>>>> thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional >>>>>> side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more >>>>> dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and >>>> much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a >>>>>>>>>> thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional >>>>>>>> side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more >>>>>>> dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and >>>>>> much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
On Sun Nov 10 00:38:19 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a laws >>>>>>> by not wearing one.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes! >>>>>>>> 36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected" >>>>>>>> bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense. >>>>>>>> There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel. >>>>>>>> His next couple seconds were far from fun.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the
extra clothes on and sweat. That would be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not >>>>>> less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the >>>>>> clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become dangerous. >>>>>>
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be taken >>>>>> on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for which this >>>>>> clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me here: the helmet >>>>>> and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a misunderstanding and open >>>>>> shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a helmet.
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a
helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There >>>> are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a >>>> car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do seem >> to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesn?t harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right sort of >> thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be legislated sadly >> some places have gone that way, and some organisations just can?t help
themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get it
legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a government to
give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it gets a MP to raise
it, it doesn?t pass.
Roger Merriman
I don't know what sort of people you live around but my wife is a church lady and teaches bible classes to those interested. She couldn't care less if you're a non-believer since you will either find out for yourself or not.
.
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull
brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a
"protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore >>>>>> pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is
nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I >>>>>> know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front
wheel. His next couple seconds were far from fun.
laws by not wearing one.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of cars. >>>>
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the extra clothes on and sweat. That would be >>>>> safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, not
less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed by the
clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become
dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be
taken on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for
which this clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me
here: the helmet and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a
misunderstanding and open shoelaces next to a chainring are dangerous. >>>>
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a
helmet.
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a
helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? There
are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use a
car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Are you saying that you don't follow the laws of your country? Here in the
US helmets are not madatory any longer and I published information that helmets in car collisions do nothing.
After that the helmet mandates had
no support.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>> positions are convincing anybody.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more >>>>>>>> dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are worthless.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/13/2024 12:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side
crank fall off and
no one to call so I walked 5 miles back home.
Just gonna leave that there....
On 11/13/2024 3:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 12:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side crank fall off
and
no one to call so I walked 5 miles back home.
Just gonna leave that there....
By the side of the road?
Good idea. That crank is obviously possessed by demons.
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side crank fall off and
no one to call so I walked 5 miles back home.
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>> that no
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>> wrote.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
On 11/13/2024 4:31 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
He certainly is fascinated with me! He jumps out of bed at ~ 4 AM to yap
at most of my posts, and he often yaps at fresh posts of mine within
just a few minutes of their appearance.
I guess he considers yapping at me a meaningful life goal. That's
further evidence that he has never accomplished much.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>> that no
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski^^^^^^^^^^
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>> that no
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
Hmmmm, if bike trails are more dangerous than streets and roads, it
must take a courageous individual to choose to ride on them.
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at >something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
Am 14.11.2024 um 10:16 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski^^^^^^^^^^
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
Hmmmm, if bike trails are more dangerous than streets and roads, it
must take a courageous individual to choose to ride on them.
Pelase keep searching synonyms for "reckless" and "careless".
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:They very much do, aka potholes are very much a motor traffic thing, ie >caused by the weight of traffic, weather doesnt by its self seem to do
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>> that no
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
this even over decades.
Roads are most definitely more likely to have you dont want to hit that, >sort of road defect as they have the mechanisms to cause it.
My old Parkway cycleway uses part of the of the old road in the centre of
the roundabout, complete with a very old bike icon any resurfacing would
have been pre 1959 when the roundabout was built.
And various old railway cycles ways have only needed resurfacing once >converted, and so on.
And roads very much do need cleaning or just get tire tracks in the lane
with debris to the sides and down the center of the lane, and debris is
again motor vehicle derived.
Get vegetation on cycleways absolutely, and painted or lightly segregated
can absolutely get debris sprayed into them.
My old Parkway doesnt bar one flyover, which has a light sprinkling of >glass/rubber/plastics other sections are shielded by distance or
vegetation.
Roger Merriman
On 11/13/2024 4:31 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating
"all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
He certainly is fascinated with me! He jumps out of bed at ~ 4 AM to yap
at most of my posts, and he often yaps at fresh posts of mine within
just a few minutes of their appearance.
I guess he considers yapping at me a meaningful life goal. That's
further evidence that he has never accomplished much.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>>> wrote.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:positions are convincing anybody.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:25:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:31 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
He certainly is fascinated with me! He jumps out of bed at ~ 4 AM to yap
at most of my posts, and he often yaps at fresh posts of mine within
just a few minutes of their appearance.
Actually, I'm usually up by three. I also usually go for a short walk
before firing up a computer.
I guess he considers yapping at me a meaningful life goal. That's
further evidence that he has never accomplished much.
I don't need to boast and exaggerate my accomplishments and make up
imaginary friends to brag to.
"I became a dedicated cyclist in the early '70s. Since then my family
and I have done everything from day rides to overnight trips to a
couple overseas tours. We've been active in our bike club, with both
my wife and I being president. I ride my bike for transportation as
well as recreation, including riding to work a lot. I'm also a League Certified Instructor through the League of American Bicyclists. And by
the way, Fred, I've ridden 200 miles in one day."
--Krygowski
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred001.htm
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>> that no
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
Hmmmm, if bike trails are more dangerous than streets and roads, it
must take a courageous individual to choose to ride on them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the >>trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >>suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>>>> wrote.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:positions are convincing anybody.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, overAnother undocumented anecdote.....
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your >intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his
friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>>>>> wrote.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank KrygowskiThis guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>>>
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowskiwhich is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, overAnother undocumented anecdote.....
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>>>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank >>>> File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all >>>> are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your
intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his
friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
He just said what he was
told to say.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank KrygowskiThis guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowskiwhich is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>>>>>> wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, overAnother undocumented anecdote.....
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>>>>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank >>>>> File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all >>>>> are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your
intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy >>>>> access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his >>>> friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two
hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed.
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are
not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the >constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum
that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
C'est bon
Soloman
On 14 Nov 2024 11:35:13 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:They very much do, aka potholes are very much a motor traffic thing, ie
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
caused by the weight of traffic, weather doesnt by its self seem to do
this even over decades.
Roads are most definitely more likely to have you dont want to hit that, >> sort of road defect as they have the mechanisms to cause it.
My old Parkway cycleway uses part of the of the old road in the centre of
the roundabout, complete with a very old bike icon any resurfacing would
have been pre 1959 when the roundabout was built.
And various old railway cycles ways have only needed resurfacing once
converted, and so on.
And roads very much do need cleaning or just get tire tracks in the lane
with debris to the sides and down the center of the lane, and debris is
again motor vehicle derived.
Get vegetation on cycleways absolutely, and painted or lightly segregated
can absolutely get debris sprayed into them.
My old Parkway doesnt bar one flyover, which has a light sprinkling of
glass/rubber/plastics other sections are shielded by distance or
vegetation.
Roger Merriman
Resurfacing here:
https://www.floridastateparks.org/parks-and-trails/withlacoochee-state-trail
This is the trail where I was attacked a few years ago, but it's still
one of my favorite trails. It took a long 50 mile drive in the truck
to get there, but now there's a connecting bidirectional sidepath
trail alongside a highway. I could actually ride to it from my usual
starting location, but it would be 48 miles one way, just to get
there. Now I can get to the connecting trail with only a 30 mile
drive. I'll be doing that when the resurfacing is done.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago.
The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid aLets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes
thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken
tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking
several ribs.
upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the
obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
chunks of wood.
He certainly should have been paying attention. He
apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my
best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots
had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he
was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do
know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I
occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we
approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on
a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had
washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One
of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a
normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance
people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement.
Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or
ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more
crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's
necessary to repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people
seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank KrygowskiThis guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating ofAnother undocumented anecdote.....
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank >>>>>> File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all >>>>>> are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your
intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and >>>>>> hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy >>>>>> access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his >>>>> friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two
hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed.
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are
not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the
constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum
that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he
was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your
life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't
approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank
Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike
Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank
Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking
helmet", and got pages of
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of
touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside
without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the
general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a
street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers
actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were
dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely
much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more
dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency
room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the
roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/
FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous.
Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading
comprehension on display again
obvious distortions of my
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided
documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous
than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room
from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the
roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/
FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between
"ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the
incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research
Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States"
by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different
surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members
in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one
of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the
resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in
chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88. >>>>>>>>>>>
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be
much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or
mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the
same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even
though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks
ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to
avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of
broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down,
breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where
car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists
were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on
MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the
results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all
are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message
from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said
"All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related
to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the
4th grade. Your
intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of)
character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his
messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the
website he and his
friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op.
There was a two
hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press
was allowed.
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler
did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-
executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the
officer corp based on political affiliation. Your link is
appointments, not firings.
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of
those who are
not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip
back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really
believe you're too
intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The
campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of
any substance is going to change.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of
following the
constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power,
unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a
temper tantrum
that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when
he lost.
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written
by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole
world that he
was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really
believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really
believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a
peaceful transition of power, unlike the asshole about to
pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum that
lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last
resort, campaign
rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election
when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to
change in your
life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things
that you don't
approve of, but very little is going to change, even
though there is
considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress
should stand aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote
and argue against it, but don't bother with any of the
procedural games that delay or torpedo their agenda. This is
what america voted for, let them have it.
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If
however - as every reasonably intelligent economist and non-
maga legal expert predicts - it turns out to be a disaster,
we got what we deserved. It's the only way people are going
to see how they've been bamboozled.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago.
The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid aLets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes
thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken
tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking
several ribs.
upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the
obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
chunks of wood.
He certainly should have been paying attention. He
apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my
best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots
had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he
was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do
know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I
occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we
approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on
a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had
washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One
of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a
normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance
people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement.
Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or
ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more
crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's
necessary to repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people
seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for
no reason.
As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a
different demographic than urban commuting in traffic,
different than large Sunday morning touring clubs, different
than Cat 5 criteriums, etc. All of those contribute to the
overall non-path rate per mile yet each subgroup's rate is
different.
There may be reasons for a higher overall path injury rate
per mile which are severe for some subgroups and minimal for
others (a recumbent piloted by experienced rider for example
would expect fewer injuries from falls than an elderly
infrequent cyclist, especially with power assist).
I don't know that, but it's one plausible explanation.
On 11/14/2024 6:35 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They very much do, aka potholes are very much a motor traffic thing, ie
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
caused by the weight of traffic, weather doesn’t by its self seem to do
this even over decades.
Re-read, Roger. Yes, potholes are more common on roads than on bike
trails. But the crashes I described were not caused by potholes, in part because potholes are a well known hazard that road cyclists watch for.
Separate bike paths are touted as so, so safe that riders tend to zone
out. That's a bad situation if (and when) the rider is surprised by
large debris, sharp ridges caused by tree roots, thick coatings of mud
and other hazards that are vanishingly rare where cars' tires roll.
Also, potholes generate motorist complaints, and so get filled by repair crews. Surface problems on bike trails can go for years without repair, despite complaints. I have examples.
And roads very much do need cleaning or just get tire tracks in the lane
with debris to the sides and down the center of the lane, and debris is
again motor vehicle derived.
Autumn leaves and stout fallen branches are definitely _not_ motor
vehicle derived. Instead, they are kicked or blown aside by passing
cars. They may possibly, occasionally, lie in the dead center of the
lane for a short while if the road has near zero car traffic, but that's
no a problem for a cyclist smart enough to ride in the tire track zone.
If you don't believe surface debris and surface maintenance problems contribute to the higher per-km crash rates found for bike paths, please
do give your alternate explanation.
On 11/13/2024 12:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:44:01 -0500, Radey ShoumanThanks for that, it seems they may date back even further than that.
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch.
In the eighteenth century they were called "pudding caps".
I had never heard of them or their modern equivalents, nor of babies
head injured by falls when learing to walk. I suppose it can happen
when falling into a coffee table or learning to climb tall objects.
There's this: https://copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.html
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy,
they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in
a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryderaward-
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people do >>>seem to care intensely what others do!I always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a >>>>>> helmet.Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking >>>>>>>> a laws by not wearing one.winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull >>>>>>>>> brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a
"protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, >>>>>>>>> wore pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" >>>>>>>>> is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the
handlebars. I know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle >>>>>>>>> into his front wheel. His next couple seconds were far from fun. >>>>>>>>>
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of >>>>>>> cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the extra clothes on and sweat. That would >>>>>>>> be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, >>>>>>> not less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed >>>>>>> by the clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might
become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be >>>>>>> taken on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for >>>>>>> which this clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me >>>>>>> here: the helmet and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a
misunderstanding and open shoelaces next to a chainring are
dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear
a helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? >>>>> There are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or
use a car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when
walking or using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon Soloman
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right
sort of thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be >>>legislated sadly some places have gone that way, and some organisations >>>just cant help themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get
it legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a
government to give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it
gets a MP to raise it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone would >>simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A LAW!
On 11/14/2024 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause
more crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's
necessary to repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people
seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for
no reason.
As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a
different demographic than urban commuting in traffic,
different than large Sunday morning touring clubs,
different than Cat 5 criteriums, etc. All of those
contribute to the overall non-path rate per mile yet each
subgroup's rate is different.
True. As with many issues, people can excuse the broad data
by claiming it applies only (or more?) to subgroups. But as
with many issues, we can never get 100% granular data. We
have to make do with the data we have.
If nothing else, the links I've given should indicate that
on linear park bike trails, people should be a bit more
alert than they typically are.
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy,
they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in >> a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
On 11/14/2024 10:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The rail trails leisure cycle routes if tarmac seem to last almost
indefinitely, ...
That's not what we've seen locally. In two local trails, the destructive culprit seems to have been tree roots running laterally under the trail.
Yes, it took a while - more than ten years - but the roots have raised
series of sharp "speed bump" ridges, probably 2" high. One trail has
just a few of them, spaced so I can hop over them on the bike; but the
other has such a dense network that the only way through is to stand and
slow to about five mph until one's past that section.
On Fri Nov 8 19:49:24 2024 AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Imagine something as mildly interesting as Sally Struthers riding a bicycle leading to a hundred postings! The stupid 3 are really at it.
On Wed Nov 13 16:15:09 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 12:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side crank fall off >>>>> and
no one to call so I walked 5 miles back home.
Just gonna leave that there....
By the side of the road?
Good idea. That crank is obviously possessed by demons.
We all know tommy's bike mechanic prowess would never have allowed that
to happen, so demonic possession, it must be....
--
Add xx to reply
First you say that you're an atheist and then you talk about demons. I guess that shows your mind.
On Tue Nov 12 07:32:24 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/12/2024 3:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:11:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 5:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:16:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 5:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:12:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2024 4:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop >>>>>>>>> passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone >>>>>>>>> would simply mind their own business.
So do you now retract your statement in favor of mandatory helmets for >>>>>>>> kids?
No, as I said elsewhere:
I believe parents do not and should not have absolute total control >>>>>>> over their children. I believe governments have an obligation to >>>>>>> protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
You seem to be pretending that allowing a kid to ride a bicycle as every >>>>>> kid did until 1980 must now be classified as child abuse.
Oh my, Krygowski is building strawmen again...
Let's note that you can't tell the difference between an analogy and a >>>> straw man argument.
Let's note that your fallacious, dishonest claim of what I "seem to be
pretending" precisely fits the definition of a strawman.
"Straw man fallacy is the distortion of someone else?s argument to
make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual
argument of the opponent, one may present a somewhat similar but not
equal argument.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/
Watch as the silly floriduh dumbass continues to think cut-n-paste
indicates understanding.
--
Add xx to reply
Gee am I surprised that you comment not at all when Liebermann does the same thing.
On Wed Nov 13 16:31:50 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>>> wrote.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:positions are convincing anybody.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
The truth is that you're a two bit thief cheating your employer and expecting us to think you know something that you don't.
You are not an EE and never were.
On Wed Nov 13 15:57:24 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>>>>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>> that no
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
Add xx to reply
Tell us all how you're an aethist
and believe in demons again. I like that sort of thing coming from you.
On Thu Nov 14 07:15:49 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you >>>>>>> wrote.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank KrygowskiThis guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>>>
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowskiwhich is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, overAnother undocumented anecdote.....
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be >>>>>>> inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank >>>> File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all >>>> are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your
intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his
friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
Add xx to reply
I'm trying to imagine a man stealing from his employer talking about "character".
You are really the lowest scum of the Earth.
On 11/14/2024 10:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The rail trails leisure cycle routes if tarmac seem to last almost
indefinitely, ...
That's not what we've seen locally. In two local trails, the
destructive culprit seems to have been tree roots running laterally
under the trail. Yes, it took a while - more than ten years - but the
roots have raised series of sharp "speed bump" ridges, probably 2"
high. One trail has just a few of them, spaced so I can hop over them
on the bike; but the other has such a dense network that the only way
through is to stand and slow to about five mph until one's past that
section.
On 11/14/2024 12:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy,
they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in >>> a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
When carers take brain damage victims out for a (halting) walk, they
use something like this:
https://shop.tbb-bike.com/pro-tec-cult-v2-full-cut-helmet-matt-black/
I assume because risk of falling/tripping is higher and also the
cumulative effect of another brain injury would be more serious.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Nov 2024 11:35:13 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Curious only resurfacing on bike stuff tends to be off road MTB type stuff >which point bikes can be quite abrasive not as bad as a 4x4 but even so get >some impressive breaking bumps and what not.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:They very much do, aka potholes are very much a motor traffic thing, ie
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood. >>>> He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:positions are convincing anybody.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at >>>> something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some >>>> of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the >>>> trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >>>> suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road. >>>> Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not >>>> put up with those.
caused by the weight of traffic, weather doesn?t by its self seem to do
this even over decades.
Roads are most definitely more likely to have you don?t want to hit that, >>> sort of road defect as they have the mechanisms to cause it.
My old Parkway cycleway uses part of the of the old road in the centre of >>> the roundabout, complete with a very old bike icon any resurfacing would >>> have been pre 1959 when the roundabout was built.
And various old railway cycles ways have only needed resurfacing once
converted, and so on.
And roads very much do need cleaning or just get tire tracks in the lane >>> with debris to the sides and down the center of the lane, and debris is
again motor vehicle derived.
Get vegetation on cycleways absolutely, and painted or lightly segregated >>> can absolutely get debris sprayed into them.
My old Parkway doesn?t bar one flyover, which has a light sprinkling of
glass/rubber/plastics other sections are shielded by distance or
vegetation.
Roger Merriman
Resurfacing here:
https://www.floridastateparks.org/parks-and-trails/withlacoochee-state-trail >>
This is the trail where I was attacked a few years ago, but it's still
one of my favorite trails. It took a long 50 mile drive in the truck
to get there, but now there's a connecting bidirectional sidepath
trail alongside a highway. I could actually ride to it from my usual
starting location, but it would be 48 miles one way, just to get
there. Now I can get to the connecting trail with only a 30 mile
drive. I'll be doing that when the resurfacing is done.
The rail trails leisure cycle routes if tarmac seem to last almost >indefinitely, even stuff in wales with reasonable weather range ie 30c to >below freezing temperatures and significantly wet!
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago.
The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid aLets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes
thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken
tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking
several ribs.
upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the
obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
chunks of wood.
He certainly should have been paying attention. He
apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my
best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots
had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he
was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do
know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I
occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we
approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on
a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had
washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One
of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a
normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance
people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement.
Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or
ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more
crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's
necessary to repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people
seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for
no reason.
As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a
different demographic than urban commuting in traffic,
different than large Sunday morning touring clubs, different
than Cat 5 criteriums, etc. All of those contribute to the
overall non-path rate per mile yet each subgroup's rate is
different.
There may be reasons for a higher overall path injury rate
per mile which are severe for some subgroups and minimal for
others (a recumbent piloted by experienced rider for example
would expect fewer injuries from falls than an elderly
infrequent cyclist, especially with power assist).
I don't know that, but it's one plausible explanation.
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more crashes per >kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's necessary to
repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people seldom really
grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
On 11/14/2024 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended >>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes >>>>>>>> are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again >>>>>>> I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my >>>>>>> positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a >>>>>> distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on >>>>>> the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be." >>>>>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No. >>>>> 98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz >>>>>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the >>>>> earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a >>>>> thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American >>>>> Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW >>>>> first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than >>>>> ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
Hmmmm, if bike trails are more dangerous than streets and roads, it
must take a courageous individual to choose to ride on them.
Not necessarily. People who are ignorant of the hazards will do.
On 11/14/2024 7:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:31 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your
"Frank File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All",
conflating "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
He certainly is fascinated with me! He jumps out of bed at ~ 4 AM to
yap at most of my posts, and he often yaps at fresh posts of mine
within just a few minutes of their appearance.
I guess he considers yapping at me a meaningful life goal. That's
further evidence that he has never accomplished much.
Exactly - trying to fill a vast void in his empty life by chasing you
around the internet.
I've begun to wonder about his psychology. Aside from obsessively
yapping at me, there's his weird habit of demanding documentation of
anything I mention doing; then accusing me of bragging when I do provide >documentation.
He's been obsessed enough to track down evidence of my Professional >Engineering license, and of my professorship. I don't remember, but it
may have been he who linked newspaper articles about my bike commuting
or my family's bike touring. And he's obviously reading my articles at >www.bicyclinglife.com - so yes, it's an obsession.
Here's my guess: He was once a man who was proud of his physical
abilities. (Remember the fuzzy photo he posted, bragging about his
muscles of yore?) But he's now at a point where he can't balance a two >wheeler, and even has trouble rising out of his three wheeler. His
feebleness has scared him into never leaving home without his gun. And
he's handling that sense of feebleness badly.
Beyond that, I suspect he's never had a career that involved more than >twisting knobs and doing exactly what his boss says. That's why he's
never given a clue about any professional accomplishments.
He has bragged a little about writing self published paperback novels
that are so bad that they're all out of print, with no mention of any
sales at all. He's bragged about playing a little guitar - as if those
are worth bragging. (Anybody can self publish, and probably half of
Americans know "all three!" chords on a guitar.)
So he's dealing with age and infirmity - which we will all deal with.
But he's handling it badly. And when he looks back so see what he's >accomplished, he sees too little, and that makes him jealous of those
with better records.
It's kind of sad. Or would be, if he weren't so aggressively obnoxious.
On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank KrygowskiThis guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per >>>>>>>>>>> million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating ofAnother undocumented anecdote.....
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the >>>>>>>>>>> pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank >>>>>>> File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all >>>>>>> are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your >>>>> intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and >>>>>>> hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy >>>>>>> access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his >>>>>> friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two
hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed.
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the officer corp >based on political affiliation. Your link is appointments, not firings.
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are
not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too
intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of any
substance is going to change.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the
constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum
that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he
was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a peaceful >transition of power, unlike the asshole about to pollute the white house >again who had a temper tantrum that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol
police officers when he lost.
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign
rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your
life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't
approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is
considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress should stand
aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote and argue against it,
but don't bother with any of the procedural games that delay or torpedo
their agenda. This is what america voted for, let them have it.
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If however - as
every reasonably intelligent economist and non-maga legal expert
predicts - it turns out to be a disaster, we got what we deserved. It's
the only way people are going to see how they've been bamboozled.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more crashes
per kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's necessary to
repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people seldom really
grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for no reason.
As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a different
demographic than urban commuting in traffic, different than large Sunday
morning touring clubs, different than Cat 5 criteriums, etc. All of
those contribute to the overall non-path rate per mile yet each
subgroup's rate is different.
True. As with many issues, people can excuse the broad data by claiming
it applies only (or more?) to subgroups. But as with many issues, we can >never get 100% granular data. We have to make do with the data we have.
If nothing else, the links I've given should indicate that on linear
park bike trails, people should be a bit more alert than they typically
are.
On 11/14/2024 12:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/14/2024 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause
more crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's
necessary to repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people
seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for
no reason.
As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a
different demographic than urban commuting in traffic,
different than large Sunday morning touring clubs,
different than Cat 5 criteriums, etc. All of those
contribute to the overall non-path rate per mile yet each
subgroup's rate is different.
True. As with many issues, people can excuse the broad data
by claiming it applies only (or more?) to subgroups. But as
with many issues, we can never get 100% granular data. We
have to make do with the data we have.
If nothing else, the links I've given should indicate that
on linear park bike trails, people should be a bit more
alert than they typically are.
Fair enough. Which applies much more broadly than merely
segregated bicycle paths!!
On 11/14/2024 2:24 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Gee am I surprised that you comment not at all when Liebermann does the same thing.
Jeff uses links to support his explanations, the dumbass just copy/pastes.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:48:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood. >>>> He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over >>>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at >>>> something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some >>>> of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the >>>> trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >>>> suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road. >>>> Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not >>>> put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and
the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more crashes per >>kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's necessary to
repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people seldom really >>grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
You post:
"in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down"
" tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking
at something off to the side"
"who crashed on a different local bike trail due to slippery, slimy
mud that had washed across the trail where it had a significant
side-to-side slope. "
I comment that
"Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?"
All your examples show, from your descriptions, a definite lack of
attention on the part of the Cyclist.
Who (can't)"really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it."? Or,
in your case, the third they say it.
On 11/14/2024 12:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy,
they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in >>> a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
When carers take brain damage victims out for a (halting)
walk, they use something like this:
https://shop.tbb-bike.com/pro-tec-cult-v2-full-cut-helmet-matt-black/
I assume because risk of falling/tripping is higher and also
the cumulative effect of another brain injury would be more
serious.
On 11/14/2024 1:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy,
they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in >>> a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
Some Japanese schools have mandated walking helmets. See https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html
On 11/14/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
As ever Frank has found some that support his position ...
Of course! The alternative strategy seen here is (usually) to just make
a proclamation and claim it's _obviously_ true.
I think referring to documented data is a superior strategy.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:42:15 +0700, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:51 -0500, Catrike Ryderaward-
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2024 00:38:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-
As with number of things particularly religion and politics people doI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free >>>>>>> county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a >>>>>>> helmet.Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking >>>>>>>>> a laws by not wearing one.winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull >>>>>>>>>> brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a >>>>>>>>>> "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, >>>>>>>>>> wore pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" >>>>>>>>>> is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the
handlebars. I know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle >>>>>>>>>> into his front wheel. His next couple seconds were far from fun. >>>>>>>>>>
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your >>>>>>>> car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of >>>>>>>> cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color >>>>>>>> complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the extra clothes on and sweat. That would >>>>>>>>> be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more, >>>>>>>> not less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed >>>>>>>> by the clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might
become dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound. >>>>>>>> Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be >>>>>>>> taken on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for >>>>>>>> which this clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me >>>>>>>> here: the helmet and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a
misunderstanding and open shoelaces next to a chainring are
dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear >>>>>> a helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about? >>>>>> There are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or >>>>>> use a car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when
walking or using a car?
Why does anyone care if other people wear a helmet? I sure don't.
--
C'est bon Soloman
seem to care intensely what others do!
Personally as long as it doesnt harm others, crack on as you were!
Helmets also fit into the simple but wrong vs complicated and right
sort of thing. And definitely not the sort of thing that should be
legislated sadly some places have gone that way, and some organisations >>>> just cant help themselves in a something must be done sort of way.
Luckily the uk political and cultural norms means that attempts to get >>>> it legislated have always failed as the time and effort for a
government to give time to a bill vs the benefits, means even if it
gets a MP to raise it, it doesnt pass.
Roger Merriman
The world would be a better place if nanny governments would stop
passing laws for the individual's own good; basically if everyone would
simply mind their own business.
And when the next 5 year kid runs out in front of a car and ends up a
greasy spot on the road people will be shouting, "THERE OUT TO BE A LAW!
There are laws protecting children in school zones where it is most likely that kids will run out in front of cars. The trouble here now is that they have changed the 15 mph speed limit to 25 mph - that is 3 car lengths per second and beyond the capacity of small children to judge.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 04:02:35 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:59:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:48:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood. >>>>>> He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot >>>>>> that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but >>>>>>> can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted >>>>>> large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at >>>>>> something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some >>>>>> of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use, >>>>>> and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them. >>>>>>
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different >>>>>> local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the >>>>>> trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >>>>>> suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road. >>>>>> Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow >>>>>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not >>>>>> put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and >>>>> the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more crashes per >>>>kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's necessary to >>>>repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people seldom really >>>>grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
You post:
"in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down"
" tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking
at something off to the side"
"who crashed on a different local bike trail due to slippery, slimy
mud that had washed across the trail where it had a significant >>>side-to-side slope. "
I comment that
"Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?"
All your examples show, from your descriptions, a definite lack of >>>attention on the part of the Cyclist.
Who (can't)"really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it."? Or,
in your case, the third they say it.
I rode fifty miles yesterday, almost all of it a bike trail. I had no >>accidents on the bike trail, but I almost hit a squirrel while riding
a quarter mile or so on a country road.
Does hitting a squirrel qualify as an accident?
Only if you crash after you hit him. And you must remember to notify
Frankie so he can add it to his "bike trails dangers" list.
On 11/14/2024 1:37 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Nov 8 22:18:33 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Virtually every main street in California has bike lanes. Even many wide
enough neighborhood streets do as well So how do you know she isn't in one.
I said she wasn't in a "protected" bike lane. If she were, there would
have been parked cars, or concrete walls, or at least plastic posts to
her left. But the frontal photo of her standing with one foot on the
curb seems to show there's not even a bike lane stripe.
Since none of those features are present, then according to the current
crop of hand wringing lobbyists, her riding is intensely dangerous. Oh,
the humanity!
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 11/14/2024 10:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The rail trails leisure cycle routes if tarmac seem to last almost
indefinitely, ...
That's not what we've seen locally. In two local trails, the
destructive culprit seems to have been tree roots running laterally
under the trail. Yes, it took a while - more than ten years - but the
roots have raised series of sharp "speed bump" ridges, probably 2"
high. One trail has just a few of them, spaced so I can hop over them
on the bike; but the other has such a dense network that the only way
through is to stand and slow to about five mph until one's past that
section.
Same here, 11 or 12 years before some sections required repaving. The
layer of asphalt and the structure underneath seem much thinner than in actual roads. The other problem is that the trails don't seem to be
cambered at all. Water (or ice) just sits.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:No its finding a cherry picked data to support ones viewpoint.
As ever Frank has found some that support his position ...
Of course! The alternative strategy seen here is (usually) to just make
a proclamation and claim it's _obviously_ true.
I think referring to documented data is a superior strategy.
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:30:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank KrygowskiThis guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small >>>>>>>>>>>> portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating ofAnother undocumented anecdote.....
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are >>>>>>>>>>> worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank >>>>>>>> File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your >>>>>> intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and >>>>>>>> hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy >>>>>>>> access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his >>>>>>> friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two >>>> hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed.
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the officer corp
based on political affiliation. Your link is appointments, not firings.
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are
not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too
intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of any
substance is going to change.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the >>>> constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum >>>> that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he
was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a peaceful
transition of power, unlike the asshole about to pollute the white house
again who had a temper tantrum that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol
police officers when he lost.
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign
rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your
life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't
approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is
considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress should stand
aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote and argue against it,
but don't bother with any of the procedural games that delay or torpedo
their agenda. This is what america voted for, let them have it.
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If however - as
every reasonably intelligent economist and non-maga legal expert
predicts - it turns out to be a disaster, we got what we deserved. It's
the only way people are going to see how they've been bamboozled.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really should stop ranting and raving. Many people will just point
and laugh at you.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/14/2024 6:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:30:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with >>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating ofAnother undocumented anecdote.....
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>>>>>
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your >>>>>>> intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and >>>>>>>>> hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy >>>>>>>>> access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his >>>>>>>> friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two >>>>> hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed. >>>>>
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the officer corp >>> based on political affiliation. Your link is appointments, not firings.
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are >>>>> not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too >>>> intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of any
substance is going to change.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the >>>>> constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum >>>>> that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he
was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a peaceful
transition of power, unlike the asshole about to pollute the white house >>> again who had a temper tantrum that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol
police officers when he lost.
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign >>>> rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your
life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't
approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is
considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress should stand
aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote and argue against it,
but don't bother with any of the procedural games that delay or torpedo
their agenda. This is what america voted for, let them have it.
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If however - as
every reasonably intelligent economist and non-maga legal expert
predicts - it turns out to be a disaster, we got what we deserved. It's
the only way people are going to see how they've been bamboozled.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really should stop ranting and raving. Many people will just point
and laugh at you.
Like we do at you?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:37:42 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 6:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:30:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your >>>>>>>> intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>>>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it. >>>>>>>>
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and >>>>>>>>>> hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his
friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two >>>>>> hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed. >>>>>>
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the officer corp >>>> based on political affiliation. Your link is appointments, not firings. >>>>
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are >>>>>> not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac >>>>>> while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too >>>>> intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of any
substance is going to change.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the >>>>>> constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the >>>>>> asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum >>>>>> that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost. >>>>>>
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he >>>>> was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a peaceful
transition of power, unlike the asshole about to pollute the white house >>>> again who had a temper tantrum that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol
police officers when he lost.
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign >>>>> rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your >>>>> life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't >>>>> approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is >>>>> considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress should stand >>>> aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote and argue against it,
but don't bother with any of the procedural games that delay or torpedo >>>> their agenda. This is what america voted for, let them have it.
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If however - as
every reasonably intelligent economist and non-maga legal expert
predicts - it turns out to be a disaster, we got what we deserved. It's >>>> the only way people are going to see how they've been bamboozled.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really should stop ranting and raving. Many people will just point
and laugh at you.
Like we do at you?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Insignifiant people like you and Krygowski do post childish insults.
Like most people on RBT, I simply roll my eyes at them and move on.
Whining and complaining about other people's posts, like you and
Krygowski do, is a good indication of how much they bother you.
other hand, I encourage you and he to continue, and sometimes bait
into into doing it.
You both are very easy to trigger.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/15/2024 7:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:37:42 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2024 6:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:30:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your >>>>>>>>> intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages ofThat'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?
No, I did not argue that.
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quit emulating Tom.
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are] more dangerous then the road?"
spelling corrected and context clarified.
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again
positions are convincing anybody.
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
Here it is again....
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail: 181, 91, 88.
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
Didn't you admit that you used them?
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
Another undocumented anecdote.....
That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply >>>>>>>>>>>> quoted Krygowski's nonsense.
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.
I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it. >>>>>>>>>
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?
Got it, you're both.
* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and >>>>>>>>>>> hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.
Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his
friends made.
https://bicyclinglife.com/
gee, that's not obsessive at all.
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two >>>>>>> hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed. >>>>>>>
Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)
Not buying that they speak to you.
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
and come on, you didn't *really* believe allhttps://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you? >>>>>>>
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the officer corp >>>>> based on political affiliation. Your link is appointments, not firings. >>>>>
Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are >>>>>>> not loyal to the political agenda.
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac >>>>>>> while the executions for treason are scheduled.
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too >>>>>> intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of any
substance is going to change.
Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the >>>>>>> constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the >>>>>>> asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum >>>>>>> that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost. >>>>>>>
He just said what he was
told to say.
For the photo op.
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he >>>>>> was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US >>>>>> Democracy was over announce it to the world?
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a peaceful >>>>> transition of power, unlike the asshole about to pollute the white house >>>>> again who had a temper tantrum that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol
police officers when he lost.
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign >>>>>> rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
C'est bon
Soloman
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the >>>>>> Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your >>>>>> life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't >>>>>> approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is >>>>>> considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress should stand >>>>> aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote and argue against it, >>>>> but don't bother with any of the procedural games that delay or torpedo >>>>> their agenda. This is what america voted for, let them have it.
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If however - as
every reasonably intelligent economist and non-maga legal expert
predicts - it turns out to be a disaster, we got what we deserved. It's >>>>> the only way people are going to see how they've been bamboozled.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You really should stop ranting and raving. Many people will just point >>>> and laugh at you.
Like we do at you?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Insignifiant people like you and Krygowski do post childish insults.
Like most people on RBT, I simply roll my eyes at them and move on.
Whining and complaining about other people's posts, like you and
Krygowski do, is a good indication of how much they bother you.
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
On the
other hand, I encourage you and he to continue, and sometimes bait
into into doing it.
You both are very easy to trigger.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
[... ]But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 1:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a >>>>>> thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy, >>>> they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in
a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
Some Japanese schools have mandated walking helmets. See
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html
They do but Japan is definitely outside the bell curve, and an outlier with that!
Roger Merriman
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:34:13 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 04:02:35 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:59:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:48:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood. >>>>>>> He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot >>>>>>> that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of >>>>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>>Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but >>>>>>>> can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding >>>>>>> friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted >>>>>>> large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at >>>>>>> something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some >>>>>>> of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use, >>>>>>> and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them. >>>>>>>
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different >>>>>>> local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the >>>>>>> trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >>>>>>> suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road. >>>>>>> Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not >>>>>>> put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and >>>>>> the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more crashes per >>>>> kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's necessary to
repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people seldom really >>>>> grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
You post:
"in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down"
" tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking
at something off to the side"
"who crashed on a different local bike trail due to slippery, slimy
mud that had washed across the trail where it had a significant
side-to-side slope. "
I comment that
"Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?"
All your examples show, from your descriptions, a definite lack of
attention on the part of the Cyclist.
Who (can't)"really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it."? Or, >>>> in your case, the third they say it.
I rode fifty miles yesterday, almost all of it a bike trail. I had no
accidents on the bike trail, but I almost hit a squirrel while riding
a quarter mile or so on a country road.
Does hitting a squirrel qualify as an accident?
Only if you crash after you hit him. And you must remember to notify
Frankie so he can add it to his "bike trails dangers" list.
The incident made me wonder what qualifies as a "crash." It's pretty
clear that a motor vehicle "crash" must involve, at the very least,
marks left on a vehicle's paint. There are, of course, single vehicle "crashes." How much damage needs to be done if a car hits a light or
power pole for it to qualify as a "crash." Does a little ding or a
scratch qualify?
Is it a "crash" if a stone hits my windshield and cracks it. Is it a "crash" if a tire or a piece of trim flies off a passing car and
damages another? Do both cars have to be moving?" Shortly after I
bought my truck a someone in a car parked next to me slammed open a
door and left a substantial ding. Was that a "crash?"
On to bicycle "crashes."
The leading and trailing edges of most bicycles is often rubber, so
would contact between two bicycle wheels that left marks on a tire be
a crash? Must a "crash" have to involve damage to the bikes, or is
damage to a rider enough? Is it a crash if two bicyclist's handlebars
come into contact and leaves one or both with a bruised or bloody
finger? How about if neither rider goes down? Was it a crash when Joe
Biden couldn't unclip and went down?
Is it a crash if I get stung by a wasp as I ride? Is it a crash if I
hit a dog? How about if I get bit by a dog? How about if I'm only
walking or running?
It seems to me that "studies" about "crashes" should define what
constitutes a crash, otherwise, the "study" is meaningless."
Actually, I believe that most "studies" are meaningless." Polling is a
study of sorts. The recent election polls is indicative of how
meaningless they can be."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 11/15/2024 9:14 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got
pages of stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I
guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one
day we'll see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
[... ]But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids
recommended that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
But what about seniors who dwell at home?
The home is a dangerous place. Deaths from falls at home
outnumber
deaths from falls outside by a large factor.
True. A few months ago I got a phone call from one of my
best friends from my college days. He told me his twin
brother had just died from a fall in his home. And the first
wife of a bike club friend of mine died of a brain injury
when she fell down the stairs when visiting someone else's
home.
Yesterday I installed a handrail on the basement steps of
one of our best friends. Those tales were my inspiration.
On 11/15/2024 4:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:34:13 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 04:02:35 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:59:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:48:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood. >>>>>>>> He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot >>>>>>>> that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in >>>>>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, overLets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an >>>>>>>>> obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but >>>>>>>>> can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs. >>>>>>>>>>
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding >>>>>>>> friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted >>>>>>>> large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at >>>>>>>> something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some >>>>>>>> of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use, >>>>>>>> and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them. >>>>>>>>
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different >>>>>>>> local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the >>>>>>>> trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys >>>>>>>> suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road. >>>>>>>> Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over, an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and >>>>>>> the trail is at fault.
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more crashes per >>>>>> kilometer than ordinary roads.
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's necessary to >>>>>> repeat the information.
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people seldom really >>>>>> grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
You post:
"in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down"
" tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking
at something off to the side"
"who crashed on a different local bike trail due to slippery, slimy >>>>> mud that had washed across the trail where it had a significant
side-to-side slope. "
I comment that
"Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?"
All your examples show, from your descriptions, a definite lack of
attention on the part of the Cyclist.
Who (can't)"really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it."? Or, >>>>> in your case, the third they say it.
I rode fifty miles yesterday, almost all of it a bike trail. I had no
accidents on the bike trail, but I almost hit a squirrel while riding
a quarter mile or so on a country road.
Does hitting a squirrel qualify as an accident?
Only if you crash after you hit him. And you must remember to notify
Frankie so he can add it to his "bike trails dangers" list.
The incident made me wonder what qualifies as a "crash." It's pretty
clear that a motor vehicle "crash" must involve, at the very least,
marks left on a vehicle's paint. There are, of course, single vehicle
"crashes." How much damage needs to be done if a car hits a light or
power pole for it to qualify as a "crash." Does a little ding or a
scratch qualify?
Is it a "crash" if a stone hits my windshield and cracks it. Is it a
"crash" if a tire or a piece of trim flies off a passing car and
damages another? Do both cars have to be moving?" Shortly after I
bought my truck a someone in a car parked next to me slammed open a
door and left a substantial ding. Was that a "crash?"
On to bicycle "crashes."
The leading and trailing edges of most bicycles is often rubber, so
would contact between two bicycle wheels that left marks on a tire be
a crash? Must a "crash" have to involve damage to the bikes, or is
damage to a rider enough? Is it a crash if two bicyclist's handlebars
come into contact and leaves one or both with a bruised or bloody
finger? How about if neither rider goes down? Was it a crash when Joe
Biden couldn't unclip and went down?
Is it a crash if I get stung by a wasp as I ride? Is it a crash if I
hit a dog? How about if I get bit by a dog? How about if I'm only
walking or running?
It seems to me that "studies" about "crashes" should define what
constitutes a crash, otherwise, the "study" is meaningless."
Actually, I believe that most "studies" are meaningless." Polling is a
study of sorts. The recent election polls is indicative of how
meaningless they can be."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The term 'crash' became popular once The Powers That Be
decided there are no 'accidents', possibly excepting being
hit by a meteorite.
On 11/15/2024 7:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Insignifiant people like you and Krygowski ... are very easy to trigger.
:-) Says the guy who leaps to his keyboard to respond to almost
anything I post!
On 11/14/2024 1:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They still kill and injure cyclists, potholes that is, and tend to be more >> significant hazards in general with sharper edges deeper, and obscured by
Re-read, Roger. Yes, potholes are more common on roads than on bike
trails. But the crashes I described were not caused by potholes, in part >>> because potholes are a well known hazard that road cyclists watch for.
traffic, mind you in a self selecting way I’m more concerned about potholes
with the car than my bikes.
Do potholes kill and injure cyclists? Perhaps to some degree. But the
data I posted still showed bike trails to cause far more crashes than ordinary roads, despite the horror of potholes on roads.
Autumn leaves and stout fallen branches are definitely _not_ motorThe segregated stuff in london, doesn’t seem to get sprayed leaf
vehicle derived. Instead, they are kicked or blown aside by passing
cars. They may possibly, occasionally, lie in the dead center of the
lane for a short while if the road has near zero car traffic, but that's >>> no a problem for a cyclist smart enough to ride in the tire track zone.
litter,
generally caught by whatever is the segregated, I can only think of one
cycle lane that gets fair bit of leaf litter, which seems to be from the
overhead trees than kicked by cars, seems to have enough cycle traffic to
keep it as just muck than leaves.
Please remember the data I referenced was talking about not on-street
bike lanes, but instead about separated rail trails and linear parks.
Around here, anyway, such trails do have nearby trees. Oddly enough,
those trees drop leaves in autumn. They lay on the trails until the
governing authority blows them off - if indeed they ever do.
On 11/14/2024 1:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy,
they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in >>> a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
Some Japanese schools have mandated walking helmets. See https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:44:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/15/2024 7:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Insignifiant people like you and Krygowski ... are very easy to trigger.
:-) Says the guy who leaps to his keyboard to respond to almost
anything I post!
It's an approved method to annnoy braggarts, liars, and people who try
to tell others what to do.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 11/14/2024 1:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They still kill and injure cyclists, potholes that is, and tend to be more >>> significant hazards in general with sharper edges deeper, and obscured by >>> traffic, mind you in a self selecting way I’m more concerned about potholes
Re-read, Roger. Yes, potholes are more common on roads than on bike
trails. But the crashes I described were not caused by potholes, in part >>>> because potholes are a well known hazard that road cyclists watch for. >>>>
with the car than my bikes.
Do potholes kill and injure cyclists? Perhaps to some degree. But the
data I posted still showed bike trails to cause far more crashes than
ordinary roads, despite the horror of potholes on roads.
Autumn leaves and stout fallen branches are definitely _not_ motorlitter,
vehicle derived. Instead, they are kicked or blown aside by passing
cars. They may possibly, occasionally, lie in the dead center of the
lane for a short while if the road has near zero car traffic, but that's >>>> no a problem for a cyclist smart enough to ride in the tire track zone. >>> The segregated stuff in london, doesn’t seem to get sprayed leaf
generally caught by whatever is the segregated, I can only think of one
cycle lane that gets fair bit of leaf litter, which seems to be from the >>> overhead trees than kicked by cars, seems to have enough cycle traffic to >>> keep it as just muck than leaves.
Please remember the data I referenced was talking about not on-street
bike lanes, but instead about separated rail trails and linear parks.
Around here, anyway, such trails do have nearby trees. Oddly enough,
those trees drop leaves in autumn. They lay on the trails until the
governing authority blows them off - if indeed they ever do.
Here they have a miniature street sweeper that actually vacuums up the leaves; it's kind of cute. On the other hand, nothing is done to clear
paths during the winter.
On 11/15/2024 4:52 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/14/2024 1:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of stuff on >>>>>>> helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk. I guess that's a >>>>>>> thing these days; I must be out of touch. Perhaps one day we'll see a >>>>>>> generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger! >>>>>> Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended that no >>>>>> kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)
This i suspect like the bike holsters for guns, while available to buy, >>>>> they aren’t seen in the flesh.
I see lots of kids and babies with families and friends let alone living in
a large city, not a walking helmet to be seen!
I have never seen one in real life either, except for those somehow
medically compromised, which is why I was surprised to see so many
online. Don't know whether it's the start of an actual trend or just
over hopeful selling.
Some Japanese schools have mandated walking helmets. See
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html
They do but Japan is definitely outside the bell curve, and an outlier with >> that!
Roger Merriman
The Japanese are on average among the longest lived peoples.
Unfortunately others ascribe that to a bazillion vagaries
of Japanese culture, some relevant and some not.
On 11/15/2024 12:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:44:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/15/2024 7:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
:-) Says the guy who leaps to his keyboard to respond to almost
Insignifiant people like you and Krygowski ... are very easy to trigger. >>>
anything I post!
It's an approved method to annnoy braggarts, liars, and people who try
to tell others what to do.
"Insignifiant people like you and Krygowski do post childish insults.
Like most people on RBT, I simply roll my eyes at them and move on.
Whining and complaining about other people's posts, like you and
Krygowski do, is a good indication of how much they bother you. On the
other hand, I encourage you and he to continue, and sometimes bait
into into doing it.
You both are very easy to trigger. "
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
On Fri, 08 Nov 2024 22:18:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a "protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on, wore
pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea,
although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. I
know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front wheel.
His next couple seconds were far from fun.
What single intelligent thing could possiboly come from Frank who probably has never ridden a French bike,
On 11/13/2024 12:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:35:57 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:13:53 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/9/2024 2:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:06:26 -0600 schrieb Mark J clearyI always wear a helmet and if you don't want to wear one it is free
<mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/8/2024 9:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2024 8:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:Generally it is much safer to wear a helmet although no breaking a >>>>>> laws by not wearing one.
Check the photos here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award- >>>>>>>> winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
Whoa! Exposed cables! Down tube friction shifting! Center pull
brakes!
36 spoke wheels! Full sized frame pump! And she's not in a
"protected"
bike lane! Is it even possible to ride that way? ;-)
"She adhered to safety regulations by having a black helmet on,
wore pink trainers and had a red jacket tied around her waist" is >>>>>>> nonsense.
There is no helmet regulation that applies to her.
And the jacket around her waist is not a particularly good idea, >>>>>>> although it's at least better than tying it around the handlebars. >>>>>>> I know a guy who did that and had a sleeve dangle into his front >>>>>>> wheel. His next couple seconds were far from fun.
So why don't you wear a helmet while walking or while driving your
car*)? People die while walking and as drivers or passengers of
cars.
Not sure why a black helmet is better
Some fetishs work only when blessed by a druid and when the color
complements the aureola.
and tying things around your waist is not a good idea.
Indeed. Especially, when the bike has a rack.
Better to simply leave the extra clothes on and sweat. That would
be safer.
Questionable. With additional clothing, a fast rider sweats more,
not less. The sweat just does not cool the rider if it is absorbed
by the clothing. Overheating harms concentration, which might become >>>>> dangerous.
Long pants are a better idea if you go down.
Light clothing does not protect much, but can contaminate a wound.
Depending on the speed, it can even cause burns.
Winter clothing on a sunny day seems excessive.
But let's get realistic. Who expects press photos like these to be
taken on a real bike tour? What do we know about the journey for
which this clothing was intended? Only two accessories irritate me
here: the helmet and the shoelaces. Bicycle helmets are a
misunderstanding and open shoelaces next to a chainring are
dangerous.
*) I assume you don't, sorry if you do
county, don't wear one. I am not about to argue just that I wear a
helmet.
Actually, you argued. You wrote "Generally it is much safer to wear a
helmet", see above. Which specific country are you talking about?
There are countries enforcing helmet laws for cyclists.
My question referred to whether you wear a helmet when you walk or use
a car. Isn't it generally much safer to wear a helmet when walking or
using a car?
Are you saying that you don't follow the laws of your country? Here in
the US helmets are not madatory any longer and I published information
that helmets in car collisions do nothing.
"Any longer"?
After that the helmet mandates had no support.Yes tommy, you are single-handedly responsible for quelling excitement
for mandatory bicycle helmet laws
Check the photos here:winner-1970s-sitcom-unrecognizable-77-bikes-LA.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14061289/Emmy-award-
On Thu Nov 14 17:25:43 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/14/2024 1:49 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Nov 13 14:21:35 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/13/2024 12:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Wow. So many problems!
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side crank fall off ... >>>>
Just ask Franik he had never had a problem in his lifr except when they expected him to perform real mechanical engineering.
I've certainly never had a crank fall off my bike while riding. How bad
does a bike mechanic have to be to have that happen?
(I also have fewer spelling problems than you do. But then, I don't post
while drunk.)
--
- Frank Krygowski
Can you answer a question honestly? Doesn't your bike use a square tapered crank attachment? If so, what do you know about the attachments of a SRAM or FSA 30 mm attachment that uses a wave washer for preloading? And if you know nothing about it whyare you saying anything? The crank did not have the low friction spacer and dragged against the locking bolt. That is supposed to be locked in with counter threaded locknut but it cannot be tightened enough to actually lock it because it was designed by
On 11/18/2024 12:50 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Nov 14 17:25:43 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/14/2024 1:49 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Nov 13 14:21:35 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/13/2024 12:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side crank fall off ...
Wow. So many problems!
Just ask Franik he had never had a problem in his lifr except when
they expected him to perform real mechanical engineering.
I've certainly never had a crank fall off my bike while riding. How bad
does a bike mechanic have to be to have that happen?
(I also have fewer spelling problems than you do. But then, I don't post >>> while drunk.)
--
- Frank Krygowski
Can you answer a question honestly? Doesn't your bike use a square
tapered crank attachment? If so, what do you know about the attachments
of a SRAM or FSA 30 mm attachment that uses a wave washer for
preloading? And if you know nothing about it why are you saying
anything? The crank did not have the low friction spacer and dragged
against the locking bolt. That is supposed to be locked in with counter
threaded locknut but it cannot be tightened enough to actually lock it
because it was designed by a mechanical engineer with a degree rather
than a mechanic with common sense.
All of the bikes I ride regularly use a spline/style bottom bracket.
(two ISIS, three SRAM, one Cannondale), and I have two others that I
ride regulary with square taper. In my 40 years of riding I've never had
a crank arm fall off.
You're a putz, tommy.
On Thu Nov 14 17:35:51 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/14/2024 3:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Nov 13 16:15:09 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/13/2024 3:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 11/13/2024 12:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Last Saturday riding with the group, I had a left side crank fall off >>>>>>> and
no one to call so I walked 5 miles back home.
Just gonna leave that there....
By the side of the road?
Good idea. That crank is obviously possessed by demons.
We all know tommy's bike mechanic prowess would never have allowed that >>>> to happen, so demonic possession, it must be....
--
Add xx to reply
First you say that you're an atheist and then you talk about demons. I guess that shows your mind.
Looks like Andrew was the first to mention demons.
Maybe he was just looking for a way to not insult your mechanic skills? ;-) >>
--
- Frank Krygowski
Tell us how many modern bikes you've ever worked on and be sure to include the flats that you observed others repairing.
Also tell us again how electronis engineers could easily design jet engines or Space X rockets or hydraulic presses or clockwork mechanims or the mechaniczal works in a Norden Bombsight.
My grandfather was a ships engineer and why is it that I know more about mechanical engineering than you ever did?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/365192218756?_skw=Cetus&itmmeta=01JD07TRAT4PK9CYBT2ZS3CJAP&hash=item5507270884:g:oqYAAOSwzFJnGDI3&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA4HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKkK%2FzCHLQB%2FOhDT%2FjTFyHI%2FsYml40ZzruiGe4cklHR9UJlyRmEB2igDOErh3PJyZwnvECiu2BkN3UgKG36guVMhP6HPI%2B9mYHFowcDGq55O2fSZN%2BWEP5xVRd7Gb7L8h93ZwSBQrH98MAf%2FMDC8iTwDVP0qS33tm1SnjIVaiU8J%2BbnWkobnXb8yniI7ohcSyIdzRmaoZxEEbBs8AzuV2QaCg7vBTwWDpHPt9%2FMfWFkmBrm99USwEqzXL%2F8wh6w5KY%
https://www.ebay.com/itm/135222271308?_skw=Cetus&itmmeta=01JD07TRAD56PNJ7GA715V93AV&hash=item1f7be01d4c:g:r6oAAOSwts9b04Or&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwHoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKlFjKr28YJOhuh2pcPjOEn84BW6bNDTr16ZXtRBrqDK4ijlcyPYdbVFvQB45XIklwzfNuFX87pSuQWL1p5xd9tn4SssQVO6tndHONhjUd0j05MfkuDSmy2pZYOdai2Gtgx9wP76jQcAsmbil0FiPA1eaRAtXRV5LQWQvsShWMV4pWqhLig78vUXX9T0l%2BT8ULxBTbtoW1QZHObIpH163fIw4IeZxZebY8TF1vsaqEEGRA%3D%
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145880905398?_skw=Cetus&itmmeta=01JD08ENH473JE356MY8SJS5TV&hash=item21f72df6b6:g:wlMAAOSwqAdmjXxY&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwHoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKlRaAAjqG01WLGIRdQBHnjIslsy3FB8K6U3sigjO49aaIH4FL1DHb0bqVf8PHprn7K4USOOJI9eLdsg7HVbctP7%2BYe3JTn6Xvdwm%2BsNh%2FYjCe2eOmeHMJOWSuKzkQVZLEZ%2FTVDh%2B9mdOf9mk5lLiU%2FKm57Gd9UZ6AaSMxHTcNdCZnoPQCmc03uMvz%2FpVAEqkw7JFtwJm4IRtlJVZ%
I designed and programmed everything on these but the PC board and the cabinets.
The Pro/Group also had another turntable on it which contained 48 blood sample test tubes and it would preload the 48 container traythat could then be transfer to the trhermocycler that cycled the up and down with great precision via Peltier devicesheating and cooling at particular speeds for each cycle.
Frank, you don't know what you're talking about and can't stop yourself can you?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/135222271308Congrats on almost learning how to provide a URL to substantiate your
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145880905398
I designed and programmed everything on these but the PC board and the cabinets.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:37:09 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You really should learn how to trim the tracking info from the end of
URL's. This is what your URL's should have looked like:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/365192218756Congrats on almost learning how to provide a URL to substantiate your
https://www.ebay.com/itm/135222271308
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145880905398
claims. It's a start, but could have done better.
I designed and programmed everything on these but the PC board and the cabinets.
Did you also "do" the production work flow, test fixtures, test
procedures, user manuals, training manuals, service manuals, field
service guides, part lists, 2nd source part testing, quality and
regulatory compliance engineering: <https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/quality-and-compliance-medical-devices>
spare parts kits, sterilization procedures, shipping packaging, etc?
It's likely that some of these standards didn't exist when you
"designed" your devices, but did exist in some form.
If you designed
your products in the same manner that you repaired your bicycles, the
body count would be rather large.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 443 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:51:30 |
| Calls: | 9,188 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,475 |
| Messages: | 6,051,427 |
