On Dec 12, 3:12*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message

...
On Dec 12, 1:32 am, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:39 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
So when Duane writes a paragraph saying that Quebec motorist will run
down from behind a cyclist on a pleasant country lane, I paraphrase
that as "Danger! Danger!"

Are you talking about the time that I told you that a motorist bumped me
from behind? *I told you repeatedly that it was no big deal. *My point was,
given a separate bike path parallel to the road, I would prefer to ride
there without traffic to worry about. *To you this is a problem for some
reason. * Of course, I'm a coward for that sentiment.

When James writes a paragraph mentioning his car-bike crash, and
claiming that every bicyclist he knows has frequent near misses, I
paraphrase that as "Danger! Danger!"

How can you argue with James' personal experience? *Just because it's
different than yours, in a city where a motorist only sees 1 cyclist in a
half
hour? *My experience is closer to his than to yours.

And pardon me in advance if I mis-remembered any details just then, or
who exactly said what. *I'm doing all this by memory, not taking
copious notes. The point is both of those posters have contributed a
LOT of warnings to this discussion.

Nonsense.

Furthermore, when I gave data showing the dangers must not be extreme
(data on tremendous numbers ridden before bad events) nobody
acknowledged. *James went on about the terrors of Melbourne. *Duane is
still talking about choosing between the sidewalk and ... well, he
doesn't want me to repeat his words, because they've since become
offensive to him.

snip a lot more needless justification

And I remain astonished that a person can say "Riding properly is
quite safe, and people shouldn't be scared away from cycling," and be
continually attacked for that by other cyclists.

No one to my knowledge has ever criticized you in any way for saying
that. *It's the rest of your patronizing, insulting crap that you start when
someone
disagrees with you that causes that reaction.

+ 1

If Frank had quit after simply saying "Riding is mostly pretty safe"
he probably could have saved everyone at lot of trouble.

But it is his lying, logical fallacies, misstating/misinterpreting
facts and what other people have said, condescension and insults
toward others (real or imaginary "others") and his all his general
smarminess that we (in his words) "attack."

It IS astonishing that he just doesn't get that.
Poor Frank! He's so misunderstood!
But maybe not:

http://anse.rs/gqlwK

DR