PDA

View Full Version : Bicyclists Unite Against Tyranny


Jeff Napier
August 6th 03, 10:07 PM
The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get hurt
on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
are some suggestions:

1. We will remain constantly aware, and think clearly about our
vulnerability in traffic.

2. We will ride in a way that motorists can understand and expect, which
generally means following the law.

1. We will wear our helmets.

2. We won't ride our bikes when we are drunk, on drugs, or less than fully
alert.

3. We will frequently tell kids, in a way that they can understand, about
bicycle safety.

4. We'll wear bright clothing when riding in traffic.

5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get caught
out after dark.

7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve cars,
and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.

From www.bikewebsite.com - enjoy!

Zoot Katz
August 6th 03, 10:48 PM
Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:07:03 GMT, <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Napier" > wrote:

>5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get caught
>out after dark.

.. . ."in case we get caught out after dark." WTF? People who ride
their bikes to real world destinations frequently leave home in the
dark and return in the dark. Bicycles don't turn into pumpkins just
because the sun goes down.

You're treating bicycles as toys with those kinds of statements.
--
zk

Tom Keats
August 6th 03, 11:09 PM
In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:07:03 GMT, <[email protected]>,
> "Jeff Napier" > wrote:
>
>>5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get caught
>>out after dark.
>
> . . ."in case we get caught out after dark." WTF? People who ride
> their bikes to real world destinations frequently leave home in the
> dark and return in the dark.

.... with dependable lighting systems that don't run out of
juice and leave ya high & dry.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Preston Crawford
August 6th 03, 11:14 PM
"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 4. We'll wear bright clothing when riding in traffic.
>
> 5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get
caught
> out after dark.
>
> 7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve
cars,
> and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.

We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)....

And we will carry lighting with us at all times because real bicyclists
expect to ride in the dark and are prepared to do so often.

Preston

Tom Keats
August 6th 03, 11:16 PM
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Napier" > writes:
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
> are some suggestions:

....

> 1. We will wear our helmets.

That's pretty much what the CPSC wants. They want ppl
to /buy/ helmets, anyways. Methinks that's the reasoning
behind their touting bicycles as "dangerous" products.

That said, I opt to wear a helmet, myself. But it's no
skin off my teeth whether other folks decide to or not.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Steve McDonald
August 6th 03, 11:47 PM
We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll bet he's an accountant.

Steve McDonald

Doug Purdy
August 6th 03, 11:58 PM
"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get
hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
> are some suggestions:

The entire thing reads like something drawn up by someone who never really
rode.

Although I'm always partial to:
> 2. We will ride in a way that motorists can understand and expect, which
> generally means following the law.

and
> 5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get
caught
> out after dark.

and I don't know the stats but
> 7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve
cars,
> and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.

sounds like an underestimate.

Doug
Toronto

Zoot Katz
August 7th 03, 01:16 AM
Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT),
>,
(Steve McDonald) wrote:

>
> We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)...
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll bet he's an accountant.

For Enron, maybe. There are eight items.
--
zk

Corvus Corvax
August 7th 03, 02:48 AM
"Jeff Napier" > wrote
>
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back!

Still can't get anybody to subscribe to your web site, eh?

CC

Mike Kruger
August 7th 03, 04:29 AM
"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Here are some suggestions:
>
> 1. ...
>
> 2. ...
>
> 1. !!!!
>
> 2. ...
>
> 3. ...
>
> 4. ...
>
> 5....
>
> 7. !!!!

Let me guess.
You wrote the original document in Microsoft Word, and used the
autonumbering there.

It's happened to me, too.

Jeff
August 7th 03, 01:32 PM
"Steve McDonald" > wrote in message
...
>
> We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll bet he's an accountant.
>
At Enron.

Gary Mishler
August 7th 03, 01:56 PM
This guy is a "webmaster" who occasionally pops up on the bike ng's.

His purpose in posting is only for marketing purposes to get people to hit
his webpage. His website is usually a pay site but he occasionally makes it
free and then posts a litany of semi-trolling posts just to get people to
his site. He will then rescind the "free" and take the site back to
subscription status. His website reeks of multi-level marketing and web
based business "opportunities" much more than it serves the cycling
community.

You can do a Google search on him and find that he surfaces here every few
months.

As an aside, you will find that he really likes exclamation points! And
uses them a lot! Enjoy!


"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get
hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
> are some suggestions:
>
> 1. We will remain constantly aware, and think clearly about our
> vulnerability in traffic.
>
> 2. We will ride in a way that motorists can understand and expect, which
> generally means following the law.
>
> 1. We will wear our helmets.
>
> 2. We won't ride our bikes when we are drunk, on drugs, or less than fully
> alert.
>
> 3. We will frequently tell kids, in a way that they can understand, about
> bicycle safety.
>
> 4. We'll wear bright clothing when riding in traffic.
>
> 5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get
caught
> out after dark.
>
> 7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve
cars,
> and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.
>
> From www.bikewebsite.com - enjoy!
>
>

Bob
August 7th 03, 06:09 PM
"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home.

They're not dangerous at all when they're *in* the home.

-Bob.

len
August 7th 03, 10:22 PM
"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home.
This is the part I question. Bikes are far down the list of most dangerous
items, in my house. I mean the list is endless, I mean everything is
dangerous, if used, stored or handled improperly, As matter of fact, the
safest things in my house are; the sofa, tv, this chair, and this computer.
And, I believe, if use as designed and intended, to reduce the use of more
dangerous things, they will kill me faster than anything else I own. Len

They seem to think that people can get hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
> are some suggestions:
>
> 1. We will remain constantly aware, and think clearly about our
> vulnerability in traffic.
>
> 2. We will ride in a way that motorists can understand and expect, which
> generally means following the law.
>
> 1. We will wear our helmets.
>
> 2. We won't ride our bikes when we are drunk, on drugs, or less than fully
> alert.
>
> 3. We will frequently tell kids, in a way that they can understand, about
> bicycle safety.
>
> 4. We'll wear bright clothing when riding in traffic.
>
> 5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get
caught
> out after dark.
>
> 7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve
cars,
> and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.
>
> From www.bikewebsite.com - enjoy!
>
>

Ryan Cousineau
August 7th 03, 11:08 PM
In article >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article >,
> "Bob" > writes:
> >
> > "Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> >> dangerous products in the home.
> >
> > They're not dangerous at all when they're *in* the home.
>
> Unless maybe when used for doing trials stuff on the furniture.

That's not dangerous when you fall off the sofa on your bike. That's
dangerous when your wife catches you riding your bike in the house.

-RjC.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

patrick606458
August 8th 03, 04:25 AM
If you look at the overall raw numbers of emergency room visits by equipment
used, no question bicycles rank pretty high on the list. However, since so
many people own them and use them, I would rather see a study of injuries
per hour used or something among those lines. I bet skateboarding, skating,
playing full-contact football and many other activities that are less done
by the general population have a higher injury per hour rate.

--
Cheers,
Patrick

Joel Lowrie
August 11th 03, 08:25 PM
I don't think that you can simply look at the number of emergency room
visits. Most of the bicycle injuries that I've seen in the ER are
children with light to moderate road rash, and rarely anything more
serious than a broken wrist or arm. That isn't to say that serious
injuries don't happen, they simply are not that common. Most of the
serious injuries that i've seen are mostly the result of a uninformed
and inexperienced cyclist riding on the sidewalk, against traffic, or at
night without any lights. Experienced cyclists who arn't raceing rarely
get anything more than a case of road rash, but with that said the
health benifits of cycling far outweigh the risks even for less skilled
riders.

patrick606458 wrote:

>If you look at the overall raw numbers of emergency room visits by equipment
>used, no question bicycles rank pretty high on the list. However, since so
>many people own them and use them, I would rather see a study of injuries
>per hour used or something among those lines. I bet skateboarding, skating,
>playing full-contact football and many other activities that are less done
>by the general population have a higher injury per hour rate.
>
>--
>Cheers,
>Patrick
>
>
>
>

Just zis Guy, you know?
August 11th 03, 11:07 PM
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:07:03 GMT, "Jeff Napier" >
wrote:

>The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
>dangerous products in the home.

That would be where they are going wrong, then...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

Jim Price
August 11th 03, 11:16 PM
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:07:03 GMT, "Jeff Napier" >
> wrote:
>>The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
>>dangerous products in the home.
>
> That would be where they are going wrong, then...

Indeed, they should be using them outdoors!

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home