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.

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 and my reference to a site that broke down these polls and said that they were so biased that they were useless was nothing more than BS?

Like those polls ANY "study" of US bicycle use is less than worthless since the numbers of serious cyclists are so low that you cannot make competent statistical analysis of them. And a real engineer would know that.