View Single Post
  #229  
Old January 19th 17, 09:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Stronger rubber cement?

On 2017-01-18 12:47, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/17/2017 1:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-17 10:36, jbeattie wrote:


So what your saying is that I pay nothing extra insurance-wise
for owning a bike. It is covered by insurance that I already
own. (: OTOH, there are whole other things called "auto
insurance policies" -- specially for autos! And they cost a
lot! ):


That is the same as saying that welfare costs us nothing.
_Everyone_ is paying for the risk of cycling including home
owners who never ride. Is that fair? I don't think so but that's
the way it is.


Oh, quit the bull**** about the "risks of cycling." There have
been at least five different studies on the risks vs. benefits of
cycling, measured in different ways - for example, health care
dollars spent vs. saved, years of life lost vs. gained, etc. EVERY
study found that cycling is by FAR a net benefit.

So in insurance terms, you've got things backwards. _Everyone_ is
getting reduced insurance premiums and reduced health care costs
from cycling, even the people who never ride.


Agree ... but ... we were talking about liability insurance, _not_
health insurance. I'll have to repeat it: Read more carefully. Before
typing.


IOW, quit the "Danger! Danger!" implications. You may ride like an
idiot, but even you don't tip the scales in the direction you
claim.


-- - Frank Krygowski


Aren't you the one telling us that the study that showed Hillary 14
points in the lead was accurate ...



ROFL! I almost spewed out a sip of water while laughing :-)

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home