Cycling is dangerous

Robert Chambers wrote:

Don't try to inflict your ignorance on others.

Can we politely ask you to obey your own advice?

You've given absolutely no indication that you know _anything_ factual
about the subject line. That is, you appear to be speaking from
near-total ignorance.

Learn something about the relative safety of cycling compared to other
activities. Learn about the risk levels of cycling compared to the risk
levels of _not_ cycling. Learn about the cost to society of
discouraging cycling. Only then will you, perhaps, be qualified to comment.

Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.

I'm not surprised that you can't imagine a logical reason. That,
however, is hardly proof that logical reasons don't exist.

--

Frank Krygowski

In article ,
Garry Jones writes:

How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?

Take him for a ride with you. Observe whatever 2-abreast
laws exist in your jurisdiction. Lead him not unto
temptation, but deliver him from evil.


cheers,
Tom


-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

14 Oct 2003 20:25:18 -0700,
,
(Kaputnik) wrote:

Statistics can be fun, but it's not always clear at first what they
really mean.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS or SOCIAL ENGINEERING?
A Critical Review of a Statistics Canada
"Factors Associated with Bicycle Helmet Use"
by Avery Burdett

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/StatsCan.html
--
zk

Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:57:52 -0400, ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

For example, swimming is reckoned to be four times worse
than cyling, in terms of deaths per million hours activity; yet that
doesn't make swimming dangerous in any absolute sense

Nope, swimming isn't dangerous. It's one's inability to swim that is a
risky proposition.

Drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional death for
Canadians under 60 years of age, surpassed only by motor vehicle
collisions and poisoning.
--
zk

"Kaputnik" wrote in message
om...

I do my best to minimize this by using a
helmet, proper lighting where applicable, and developing safe riding
habits in general.

In reverse order I hope.

In article , Kevan@mouse-
potato.com says...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers" from
Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:

Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.

Because the "prevention" isn't.

You may not believe that they give protection, but most people do,
including me. Perhaps not as much as some advocates claim, but more
than none. ISTM to be irresponsible to actively discourage people
from wearing a helmet.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0400, "Robert Chambers"
from
Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:


"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers"

from
Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:

Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.

Because the "prevention" isn't.


Complete bull****! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely
certain I
wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I
was
run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my
head.
That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't
have
to piece my skull back together.

Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.

You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped form
weighing
under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in
the
real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the
forces
on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the
others that
it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com
It's NO USE ... I've gone to "CLUB MED"!!

"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0400, "Robert Chambers"
from
Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:


"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers"

from
Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:

Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.

Because the "prevention" isn't.


Complete bull****! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely
certain I
wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I
was
run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my
head.
That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't
have
to piece my skull back together.

Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.

You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped form
weighing
under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in
the
real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the
forces
on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the
others that
it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com
It's NO USE ... I've gone to "CLUB MED"!!

All I do in response to this is shake my head in a combination of disgust
and amazement.

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Robert Chambers wrote:

Don't try to inflict your ignorance on others.

Can we politely ask you to obey your own advice?

You've given absolutely no indication that you know _anything_ factual
about the subject line. That is, you appear to be speaking from
near-total ignorance.

Learn something about the relative safety of cycling compared to other
activities. Learn about the risk levels of cycling compared to the risk
levels of _not_ cycling. Learn about the cost to society of
discouraging cycling. Only then will you, perhaps, be qualified to
comment.

Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.

I'm not surprised that you can't imagine a logical reason. That,
however, is hardly proof that logical reasons don't exist.

--

Frank Krygowski

Hey frank ... try reading the entire thread. I know plenty about cycling
and its relative dangers. I've experienced them first hand. I can't stand
enduring all the idiots out here who think they know something about it when
they spin a few miles a week and haven't had a life-threatening accident ...
yet somehow they're experts.

Bob C.
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Robert Chambers wrote:

Don't try to inflict your ignorance on others.

Can we politely ask you to obey your own advice?

You've given absolutely no indication that you know _anything_ factual
about the subject line. That is, you appear to be speaking from
near-total ignorance.

Learn something about the relative safety of cycling compared to other
activities. Learn about the risk levels of cycling compared to the risk
levels of _not_ cycling. Learn about the cost to society of
discouraging cycling. Only then will you, perhaps, be qualified to
comment.

Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.

I'm not surprised that you can't imagine a logical reason. That,
however, is hardly proof that logical reasons don't exist.

--

Frank Krygowski