You don't have to know any physics, statistics or logic to

know what is what. You are the proof of that!

Actually, yes, you do ... or you just make yourself look foolish
if you then try and argue with someone who does.

What you think you know argues strongly for it being a waste
of time since you are unable to think clearly about the simplest
things.

I don't make any great claims to erudition ... but I do know the basics whereas you clearly don't. No one with an ounce of statistical knowledge would ever try citing instances of a particular outcome without reference to the frequency in the population.

No, Ed, you know very little because you are completely
closed to

any external input, erroneously believing that what you think is
somehow,

axiomatically, true.



Nope, I once thought biking on trails was a good idea - until

I learned otherwise.

You didn't learn anything Ed, you just decided you didn't like
it. That's a completely different matter.

Nope, I tried it once, didn't like it and decided it was
stupid. I then stumbled upon Mr. Vandeman's posts on Usenet many decades
later and was confirmed in my thinking. You on the other hand have a stupidity
that is unconquerable.

I rest my case. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's stupid, just that you don't like it.

There is nothing to be said for what you
advocate since the world is full of zillions of miles of roads of all
descriptions which are ideal for cycling.

There is plenty to be said for allowing people to choose ... I
would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is
better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature.

The above statement is proof positive that you are steeped in
idiocy. It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the
air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are
desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain
biking.

No, Ed, you're the one showing idiocy here. The statistics for cyclist deaths on the road are orders of magnitude greater than for mountainbiking. You are advocating a much more dangerous activity simply because you don't want people to mountainbike. At the same time, you pretend that you're concerned about injuries and deaths to mountainbikers ... what hypocrisy.

Road cycling is indeed not entirely safe due to motorists. It

is why I never like to see kids riding their bikes on highways. But at
least

road cycling is not interfering with what anyone else is doing, except
maybe

motorists - but who gives a damn about them! In any event, road
cyclists are not

being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway,
unlike

cyclists who ride trails.

Ah, so now I can relax ... I might get hit by a car ... but at
least I won't hit a hazard in the roadway ! Overall, of course, I'm far
more likely to get injured or killed but at least not from hitting a hazard in
the roadway. That comment really reached an apogee of inanity. Do
you actually bother to read what you write before you post it ??

You are absolutely the greatest idiot it has ever been my
displeasure to encounter on Usenet. Here it is again, you dumb
jackass:

"In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from
hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails." - Ed Dolan

You aren't showing a lot of greatness, or even comprehension Ed. Do you really not understand that the precise mechanism for injury or death is completely irrelevant ? Road cyclists are, mostly, getting killed or injured by being hit by other traffic, rather than hitting obstacles. However, they are being killed and injured at a massively higher rate than mountainbikers..

Do I have to spell everything out for you in words of one syllable ?