Handlebar rotation

On 2017-07-20 18:03, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:24:15 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-19 11:30, Duane wrote:
On 19/07/2017 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-17 02:43, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:50:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:42:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually
ride a bicycle is probably impossible the fact is that riding a
bike
is probably, statistically, one of the safest thing one can do
on the
road.

For example, in 2015 there were 35,092 fatalities while driving or
riding in a motor vehicle and 815 while riding a bicycle. Yet
people
argue how dangerious bicycling is and ignore automobiles.

How many times do you hear people say, "Oh! I'd be afraid to
drive a
car. It is so dangerious."


John - are you trying to convince the man who drives on busy hill
roads alone?

I know what the real chances are and I know that there are people
out
there that given a chance would run over a cyclist.

So if anyone wants to exaggerate the dangers in their own minds
that's
their business now isn't it? And because YOU feel safe what
business is
it of yours or mine to try to convince them otherwise? As I said,
some
of the very longest distance riders I know have quit because they
couldn't take the traffic anymore.

The facts of the matter are that, in 2012, according to NHTSA
statistics there were 734 cyclists deaths and 33,561 total traffic
fatalities. Bicycles amounted to only 2.1% of all traffic deaths.

--
Cheers,

John B.



And bikes amounted to what percentage of all traffic?

You will note, I hope, that I prefaced my remarks with the comment
that "While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually ride a bicycle is probably impossible" but the point is that
the usual news report says something like "Horrors! Bicycle deaths in
California were XYZ in 20xx"

See:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/03...uries-cycling/
http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...027-story.html

http://tinyurl.com/ycl3vtm9

If the nation's news services see fit to announce these astonishing
statistics why should I be different?

But according to the statistics I do find
http://tinyurl.com/ybz2vz69
there were 65.67 million cyclists in 2015 and
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
tells me that in 2015 818 cyclists were killed.

So tell me, what percent of cyclists were killed in 2015?

--
Cheers,

John B.



Your statement was that 2% of traffic fatalities were cyclists. To know
whether or not that is significant you have to know what percentage of
traffic is made up of cyclists. As you stated, I don't think we know
that.


The average mode share for commutes in cities is far below 1% in the US:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-25.pdf

Now we can safely assume that most people (except in this NG)
generally consider any trip longer than 5mi "excessive" to cycle and
hardly anyone in rural America uses a bicycle at all. Shopping trips
and such are generally done by car. That means the mileage share for
bicycles will be a small fraction of a percent.



Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of magnitude is rather
clear and it doesn't matter whether the total yearly bicycle miles are
0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that cycling in traffic carries
more risk than riding in traffic in a car. I do it anyhow but only if I
have to. Normally I prefer cycling infrastructure like yesterday a long
singletrack. The chance of being hit by a car there is zero.

"the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself, nameless,
unreasoning, unjustified terror...."



Old saying, used by top-notch parachuting instructors: "If you don't
feel any remnants of fear before jumping out the aircraft, stop doing
it". Which is very good advice.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:23:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 4:00:42 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 12:42, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
A work cohort ran into another cyclist on a MUP and got a nasty scalp injury with lots of staples (should have been wearing a helmet). What about cars on MUPs! http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...04/205car1.jpg
What about drowning? http://www.carfreerambles.org/wp-con...mette-Path.jpg
MUPs are super-scary!


I never had a scary situation in that respect and I ride bike paths
since about half a century now.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I too have ridden on roads and trails and off road for over one-half of a century nowe and I've NEVER had the close calls or bicycle breakdowns of the frequency that you have. I do NOT find roads with heavy traffic scary. Obviously YMV but bicycling just isn't nearly as dangerous as you pretend it is.

Cheers

Ah, but you don't live in California. If you were to reside there you
too could learn to live in fear and trepidation.

On a two lane road with no siding over most of 10 miles I was being passed by cars doing over 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. Cars passing on blind curves or blind rises. Passed by large commercial trucks who could see me from a long distance and could see that if they lessened their speed 5 mph that there would be a wide spot in the road which I could pull over and allow them to pass safely.

Yes, riding in trepidation is what riding in California is all about. The police have no intentions of EVER getting involved in car/bike problems. After all, they are driving cars or motorcycles themselves.

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:19:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:36:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/20/2017 4:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 12:42, jbeattie wrote:

MUPs are super-scary!


I never had a scary situation in that respect and I ride bike paths
since about half a century now.

I've had almost no problems with the scary road situations you keep
bringing up. I've been riding roads as an avid adult cyclist for 45
years now, and before that I rode a lot as a kid.

Frank, I don't think that you understand at all.

You see, bicycling is actually a very dangerious pastime. Actually
more dangerious than bull fighting - 534 professional bullfighters
have died in the ring or from injuries sustained there.

This to actually do bicycling is proof positive that one is a brave,
dauntless and intrepid individual who practically daily engages in a
pastime in which few others are brave enough to participate

John, where the hell do you get off telling someone else what they should and shouldn't be afraid of? What do you want to bet you would back way off following me either up or down hills?

On 7/21/2017 10:49 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 20:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 4:40 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 13:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:24 AM, Joerg wrote:


Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This [Danger! Danger!] is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of
magnitude is rather clear and it doesn't matter whether the total
yearly bicycle miles are 0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that
cycling in traffic carries more risk than riding in traffic in a car.


Please do not falsify other people's posted text.

I understand that English isn't your first language. Perhaps that's why
you don't understand that inserting words in square brackets is the
standard way of adding clarifying words to a quote.

Your English skills could also use some tutoring. Writing into other
people's statements propaganda style inside square brackets with
exclamation marks won't even fly at a cheap tabloid.

Here you go, Joerg:
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...kets-in-quotes

And my addition wasn't propaganda. It was the most concise way of
describing what you were talking about: your weird idea that bicycling
is horrendously dangerous.

Maybe you should learn more about Usenet etiquette. On Usenet is is
customary not to snip important parts of the discussion like you did
here. Then messing with anyone's contributions is completely unnecessary.

I'm not surprised that you've never learned about trimming posts.
Granted, you're not the only offender. But it really is time you
learned to trim the portions of a post to which you're not responding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-07-21 08:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 10:49 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 20:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 4:40 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 13:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:24 AM, Joerg wrote:


Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This [Danger! Danger!] is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of
magnitude is rather clear and it doesn't matter whether the total
yearly bicycle miles are 0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that
cycling in traffic carries more risk than riding in traffic in a car.


Please do not falsify other people's posted text.

I understand that English isn't your first language. Perhaps that's why
you don't understand that inserting words in square brackets is the
standard way of adding clarifying words to a quote.

Your English skills could also use some tutoring. Writing into other
people's statements propaganda style inside square brackets with
exclamation marks won't even fly at a cheap tabloid.

Here you go, Joerg:
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...kets-in-quotes


They did it correctly, you did not.


And my addition wasn't propaganda. It was the most concise way of
describing what you were talking about: your weird idea that bicycling
is horrendously dangerous.


Don't you get it? If you had added "This [rationale] is very easy to
derive [at]" or something similar I would not object. Instead, you
plopped your opinion in another person's statement. At a good media
outlet people get fired for that and rightfully so.


Maybe you should learn more about Usenet etiquette. On Usenet is is
customary not to snip important parts of the discussion like you did
here. Then messing with anyone's contributions is completely unnecessary.

I'm not surprised that you've never learned about trimming posts.
Granted, you're not the only offender. But it really is time you
learned to trim the portions of a post to which you're not responding.


I do trim but not like you who sometimes does it to the point where
context becomes incoherent. It's clearly you who needs to learn but, of
course, refuses to.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/21/2017 12:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-21 08:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 10:49 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 20:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 4:40 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 13:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:24 AM, Joerg wrote:


Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This [Danger! Danger!] is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of
magnitude is rather clear and it doesn't matter whether the total
yearly bicycle miles are 0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that
cycling in traffic carries more risk than riding in traffic in a
car.


Please do not falsify other people's posted text.

I understand that English isn't your first language. Perhaps that's why
you don't understand that inserting words in square brackets is the
standard way of adding clarifying words to a quote.

Your English skills could also use some tutoring. Writing into other
people's statements propaganda style inside square brackets with
exclamation marks won't even fly at a cheap tabloid.

Here you go, Joerg:
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...kets-in-quotes



They did it correctly, you did not.


And my addition wasn't propaganda. It was the most concise way of
describing what you were talking about: your weird idea that bicycling
is horrendously dangerous.


Don't you get it? If you had added "This [rationale] is very easy to
derive [at]" or something similar I would not object. Instead, you
plopped your opinion in another person's statement.

So is your opinion now that cycling is _not_ dangerous?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:26:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 10:49 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 20:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 4:40 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 13:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:24 AM, Joerg wrote:


Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This [Danger! Danger!] is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of
magnitude is rather clear and it doesn't matter whether the total
yearly bicycle miles are 0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that
cycling in traffic carries more risk than riding in traffic in a car.


Please do not falsify other people's posted text.

I understand that English isn't your first language. Perhaps that's why
you don't understand that inserting words in square brackets is the
standard way of adding clarifying words to a quote.

Your English skills could also use some tutoring. Writing into other
people's statements propaganda style inside square brackets with
exclamation marks won't even fly at a cheap tabloid.

Here you go, Joerg:
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...kets-in-quotes

And my addition wasn't propaganda. It was the most concise way of
describing what you were talking about: your weird idea that bicycling
is horrendously dangerous.

Maybe you should learn more about Usenet etiquette. On Usenet is is
customary not to snip important parts of the discussion like you did
here. Then messing with anyone's contributions is completely unnecessary.

I'm not surprised that you've never learned about trimming posts.
Granted, you're not the only offender. But it really is time you
learned to trim the portions of a post to which you're not responding.

Frank - it has gotten to the point where the conversations have wondered so far from the heading that you don't dare trim them if you're going to talk about more than one of the subjects in the thread.

You have been an offender yourself with your "quote me" in a string with a hundred entries.

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 11:54:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 12:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-21 08:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 10:49 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 20:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 4:40 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 13:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:24 AM, Joerg wrote:


Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This [Danger! Danger!] is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of
magnitude is rather clear and it doesn't matter whether the total
yearly bicycle miles are 0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that
cycling in traffic carries more risk than riding in traffic in a
car.


Please do not falsify other people's posted text.

I understand that English isn't your first language. Perhaps that's why
you don't understand that inserting words in square brackets is the
standard way of adding clarifying words to a quote.

Your English skills could also use some tutoring. Writing into other
people's statements propaganda style inside square brackets with
exclamation marks won't even fly at a cheap tabloid.

Here you go, Joerg:
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...kets-in-quotes



They did it correctly, you did not.


And my addition wasn't propaganda. It was the most concise way of
describing what you were talking about: your weird idea that bicycling
is horrendously dangerous.


Don't you get it? If you had added "This [rationale] is very easy to
derive [at]" or something similar I would not object. Instead, you
plopped your opinion in another person's statement.

So is your opinion now that cycling is _not_ dangerous?

Cycling appears with the knowledge we have to be not dangerous. But you and I drive every day despite the sure knowledge that driving is one of the most dangerous things we can do in the USA. So what in the hell are you talking about what is dangerous and what isn't? All automobile accidents are legally supposed to be reported to the cops but bicycle accidents are not unless serious injuries result. So WE do not have clean statistics to work with.. Also many accidents that are attributed to cars against cyclists might very well be the opposite.

On MANY occasions I have had cars enter my lane from the opposite direction to scare me. That could very easily work on the majority of people.

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:20:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:23:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 4:00:42 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 12:42, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
A work cohort ran into another cyclist on a MUP and got a nasty scalp injury with lots of staples (should have been wearing a helmet). What about cars on MUPs! http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...04/205car1.jpg
What about drowning? http://www.carfreerambles.org/wp-con...mette-Path.jpg
MUPs are super-scary!


I never had a scary situation in that respect and I ride bike paths
since about half a century now.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I too have ridden on roads and trails and off road for over one-half of a century nowe and I've NEVER had the close calls or bicycle breakdowns of the frequency that you have. I do NOT find roads with heavy traffic scary.. Obviously YMV but bicycling just isn't nearly as dangerous as you pretend it is.

Cheers

Ah, but you don't live in California. If you were to reside there you
too could learn to live in fear and trepidation.

On a two lane road with no siding over most of 10 miles I was being passed by cars doing over 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. Cars passing on blind curves or blind rises. Passed by large commercial trucks who could see me from a long distance and could see that if they lessened their speed 5 mph that there would be a wide spot in the road which I could pull over and allow them to pass safely.

Yes, riding in trepidation is what riding in California is all about. The police have no intentions of EVER getting involved in car/bike problems. After all, they are driving cars or motorcycles themselves.

I don't think its a California thing necessarily. Some roads are more dangerous. That's an obvious fact, and they are more or less dangerous depending on the density of traffic an disposition of the drivers. I don't have many no-ride zones, though. No way I'd stay off my bike for 15 years or even fifteen days because of traffic. I don't think you would either.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2017-07-21 11:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 12:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-21 08:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2017 10:49 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 20:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 4:40 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-20 13:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:24 AM, Joerg wrote:


Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This [Danger! Danger!] is very easy to derive. The ballpark
order of
magnitude is rather clear and it doesn't matter whether the total
yearly bicycle miles are 0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that
cycling in traffic carries more risk than riding in traffic in a
car.


Please do not falsify other people's posted text.

I understand that English isn't your first language. Perhaps that's
why
you don't understand that inserting words in square brackets is the
standard way of adding clarifying words to a quote.

Your English skills could also use some tutoring. Writing into other
people's statements propaganda style inside square brackets with
exclamation marks won't even fly at a cheap tabloid.

Here you go, Joerg:
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...kets-in-quotes



They did it correctly, you did not.


And my addition wasn't propaganda. It was the most concise way of
describing what you were talking about: your weird idea that bicycling
is horrendously dangerous.


Don't you get it? If you had added "This [rationale] is very easy to
derive [at]" or something similar I would not object. Instead, you
plopped your opinion in another person's statement.

So is your opinion now that cycling is _not_ dangerous?


Oh man. Please take a class "Logic 1+1" abnd "Comprehensive Reading" :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/