|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"
Frank Krygowski has claimed, inappropriately in a thread about a
cylist killed on the road, that "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: You will die of heart disease: 1 in 340 You will die of cancer: 1 in 500 You will die from a stroke: 1 in 1700 You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300 [notice that defining and delimiting "if"] You will die in an accident: 1 in 2900 You will die in an auto accident: 1 in 5000 You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000 [notice that defining and delimiting "if"] You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700 [notice that defining and delimiting "if"] You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000 You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000 You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000 You'll drown: 1 in 50,000 You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000 You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000 You'll die from riding your bicycle: 1 in 130,000" First of all, notice the *absence of the defining and delimiting "if" for the cycling calculation*. This ****** Laudan has just taken the entire US population of 307m without asking how many ride bicycles, and based his number on that. Presumably that is why Krygowski, never a champion of truth or fair reporting, is so keen to quote him. The Laudan/Krygowski risk factor is thus probably only half of the real risk factor for a regular cyclist (see below). The stupidity of the Laudan/Krygowski formulation can be seen when we realize that their forecast is therefore that 2462 cyclists will die on the roads this year (307m/130,000), three and a half times as many fatalities as can actually be expected. Frank Krygowski (and Laudan too, if Frank typed that out correctly) should leave statistics to people who know what they're doing. Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. Why are you lying to us again, Frank Krygowski? Andre Jute Visit Jute on Bicycles at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"
On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. If you prefer that number, fine. I have no need to dispute it, because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is still next to the bottom of the list I posted. Here's that list again: "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: You will die of heart disease: 1 in 340 You will die of cancer: 1 in 500 You will die from a stroke: 1 in 1700 You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300 You will die in an accident: 1 in 2900 You will die in an auto accident: 1 in 5000 You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000 You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700 You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000 You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000 You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000 You'll drown: 1 in 50,000 You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000 You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000" McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. Readers can compare to the other dangers in the list. If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both. - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"
In article 860944df-e6ac-43c4-999d-834cc2715187
@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com, says... On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. If you prefer that number, fine. I have no need to dispute it, because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is still next to the bottom of the list I posted. Here's that list again: "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: You will die of heart disease: 1 in 340 You will die of cancer: 1 in 500 You will die from a stroke: 1 in 1700 You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300 You will die in an accident: 1 in 2900 You will die in an auto accident: 1 in 5000 You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000 You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700 You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000 You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000 You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000 You'll drown: 1 in 50,000 You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000 You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000" McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. Readers can compare to the other dangers in the list. If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both. Come on Frank, you need to compare apples with apples - at least Andre's guestimate is moving in the right direction. It is well known (and was quoted earlier in this discussion) that on either a per km basis, or a per hour basis cycling is significantly more dangerous than criving. So for any of us who cover significant amounts of time in the saddle the risk will be higher than the 1 in 5000 you quote for driving. Using your 'statistical method' you could equally claim that bull- fighting is an extraordinarily safe activity as Americans have less than 1 in 100,000,000 chance of dying in the bull-fighting ring. Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"
On Apr 9, 12:16*am, mike wrote:
While Frank's statistics are misleading... I'm just quoting. They're Laudan's statistics. And Failure Analysis Associates' statistics. And Moritz's. And National Safety Council's. And NHTSA's. And Mayer Hillman's. And so on. Here's more on that theme: http://www.daclarke.org/AltTrans/SmallRisks.html ... your method of calculating the risk of dying while cycling is equally flawed. Clearly, the risk of dying while cycling depends on (among other factors) how much time you spend in the saddle, the distance you travel, and the traffic conditions typical of roads you travel on. The "most casual cyclist" presumably cycles seldom, over short distances, and on quiet roads, so their chance of being killed (on an annual basis) will be far lower than your figure. A keen racer, commuter, or tourer typical of the audience here is far more likely to cycle often, over large distances, and on busy roads, so their chance of being killed is much higher than your figure. * As I recall, it's been reasonably well proven that those that cycle a lot have much less risk per mile than less avid cyclists. Those who ride in all conditions (rain, cold, fog) have better records than sunshine cyclists. Those who commute (riding among cars) have fewer crashes per mile than path riders. Of course, fewer crashes per mile might be offset by larger miles. It depends on the details, and on the cyclist. But there seems to be a tendency for certain folks to say "Oh yeah? Well _my_ cycling is _really_ dangerous!" We've heard that dozens of times in these forums. Unfortunately, we're unlikely to get data that perfectly represents any one of us. I just take comfort in the fact that over 35 years of adult cycling has produced only two on-road falls, which seems to be fewer than most posters; and that even "average" cycling - which includes all the wrong way riders & no lights riders & signal ignorers & drunk-from-the-bar riders & gutter bunnies - is astoundingly safe. Now I'll certainly admit to the relatively high risk of minor to moderate injuries from, shall we say, "adventurous" mountain biking. (I was never hurt doing it, despite many minor crashes, but I know others who broke bones.) The same can be said of things like amateur crit racing. But I see no reason to portray any variety of ordinary road cycling as particularly dangerous. What's the benefit of that?? - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"
On Apr 9, 5:16*am, mike wrote:
In article ad34312f-6677-45a1-a016-e80a5c8b8d72 @u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says... Frank Krygowski has claimed, inappropriately in a thread about a cylist killed on the road, that "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: [snip] You'll die from riding your bicycle: 1 in 130,000" First of all, notice the *absence of the defining and delimiting "if" for the cycling calculation*. This ****** Laudan has just taken the entire US population of 307m without asking how many ride bicycles, and based his number on that. Presumably that is why Krygowski, never a champion of truth or fair reporting, is so keen to quote him. The Laudan/Krygowski risk factor is thus probably only half of the real risk factor for a regular cyclist (see below). The stupidity of the Laudan/Krygowski formulation can be seen when we realize that their forecast is therefore that 2462 cyclists will die on the roads this year (307m/130,000), three and a half times as many fatalities as can actually be expected. Frank Krygowski (and Laudan too, if Frank typed that out correctly) should leave statistics to people who know what they're doing. Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. While Frank's statistics are misleading, your method of calculating the risk of dying while cycling is equally flawed. I'm just going along with Krygowski for the moment, showing at every turn how ridiculous his sources and his methods and his hysterical screeching is. I would have let that table pass except that Franki Shavelegs ****ed me off when he stood on the coffin of a cyclist dead on the road and screeched abut how safe cycling is. Krygowski's advocacy is counterproductive and we should something about it. I am. Clearly, the risk of dying while cycling depends on (among other factors) how much time you spend in the saddle, the distance you travel, and the traffic conditions typical of roads you travel on. I've already said so in the other threads accompanying this one. You must have missed those posts. The "most casual cyclist" presumably cycles seldom, over short distances, and on quiet roads, so their chance of being killed (on an annual basis) will be far lower than your figure. No, Mike, my figure of 1 chance in 81,500 of a cyclist being killed this year is *the most favourable possible interpretation*, the least possible chance of a cyclist being killed, because it includes anyone who was even on a bike for five minutes in the year. Subtract those, or calculate for the regular cyclist, and the chances of an accident clearly increases, as you say. But I've said so, above, in the post you're complaining about, and you just didn't read it. Here it is again: The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. A keen racer, commuter, or tourer typical of the audience here is far more likely to cycle often, over large distances, and on busy roads, so their chance of being killed is much higher than your figure. * Exactly! But I note that you query me, while you let Krygowski's silly 1 in 130,000 figure pass, even though its methodology and stupid errors would overstate total cyclist fatalities by a factor of about 3.5, in effect ludicrously "forecasting" that 2462 cyclists will die on the roads in the US this year instead of the 700 that reasonable people expect. In practice, all we can do is to cycle defensively (by whatever definition) and hope that the pleasure, convenience, and social and health benefits of cycling outweighs the risks. Oh, you've just taken Krygowski's bleating at face value again when he claims I say cycling is "lethal". I said no such thing. I asked a question about degree of danger, and in fact answered it well before in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" Go look, read for yourself, see what I concluded. But no one cares about the positive (or the truth, apparently): you all listen to Krygo bleating and take him at his word without investigation. But that stupid **** Krygo lies constantly. He lies about the danger, he lies about what I say, he lies about what I concluded. The record stands in black and white on this conference. Read it. Why are you lying to us again, Frank Krygowski? Lying? No more misleading than your 'calculation' Andre. i've just demonstrated that my calculation proves, and was intended by me to prove, exactly what you and I both consider correct. I've demonstrated that I have said so. Once more, you've been listening to the deceitful Frank Krygowski instead of putting your mind gear and reading exactly what I've said. Mike Andre Jute Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"
In article 13779a1c-60cc-469e-a5d2-3fa53fb6b201
@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Apr 9, 5:16*am, mike wrote: In article ad34312f-6677-45a1-a016-e80a5c8b8d72 @u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says... Frank Krygowski has claimed, inappropriately in a thread about a cylist killed on the road, that "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: [snip] You'll die from riding your bicycle: 1 in 130,000" Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. While Frank's statistics are misleading, your method of calculating the risk of dying while cycling is equally flawed. I'm just going along with Krygowski for the moment, showing at every turn how ridiculous his sources and his methods and his hysterical screeching is. I would have let that table pass except that Franki Shavelegs ****ed me off when he stood on the coffin of a cyclist dead on the road and screeched abut how safe cycling is. Krygowski's advocacy is counterproductive and we should something about it. I am. Clearly, the risk of dying while cycling depends on (among other factors) how much time you spend in the saddle, the distance you travel, and the traffic conditions typical of roads you travel on. I've already said so in the other threads accompanying this one. You must have missed those posts. The "most casual cyclist" presumably cycles seldom, over short distances, and on quiet roads, so their chance of being killed (on an annual basis) will be far lower than your figure.. No, Mike, my figure of 1 chance in 81,500 of a cyclist being killed this year is *the most favourable possible interpretation*, the least possible chance of a cyclist being killed, because it includes anyone who was even on a bike for five minutes in the year. Subtract those, or calculate for the regular cyclist, and the chances of an accident clearly increases, as you say. But I've said so, above, in the post you're complaining about, and you just didn't read it. Here it is again: I don't want to belabour the point (because I am not in disagreement with your desire to ridicule Frank's statistics) but dividing the number of cyclists who die annually by the total number who cycle "at least once a year" is not a valid way of calculating risk. As I pointed out - the true risk for an individual cyclist can be much higher than that figure or much lower (for example for a cyclist who rides once a year). Oh, you've just taken Krygowski's bleating at face value again when he claims I say cycling is "lethal". I said no such thing. I asked a question about degree of danger, and in fact answered it well before in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" Go look, read for yourself, see what I concluded. But no one cares about the positive (or the truth, apparently): you all listen to Krygo bleating and take him at his word without investigation. But that stupid **** Krygo lies constantly. He lies about the danger, he lies about what I say, he lies about what I concluded. The record stands in black and white on this conference. Read it. And I was aware that you never made that claim - but am also aware that it can be a fairly risky venture at times. Here in NZ the relative risk of cycling v. driving is similar to that in the UK, but our risk of traffic injury/death per km of travel is around 2-3 times that in a typical Western Europe nation - so i definately feel vulnerable, especially as winter approaches and I spend half of my 120 minutes daily, riding in the dark. Mike |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"
On Apr 9, 4:55*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. If you prefer that number, fine. * Excuse me? Is that how you do science, Frank Krygowski? Krygo, he say, "Any number is good enough!" Earlier today you claimed that a cyclist has only a 1 in 130,000 chance of dying on the road, now you claim it is 1 in 81,500. I think cyclists might take an interest when their chances of dying on the roads this year doubles between one post and the next. Any cyclist who trusts you after this, Krygowski, needs his head read. I have no need to dispute it, because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is still next to the bottom of the list I posted. Oh no, you've misunderstood again, either because you know nothing of statistics, or because you're congenitally stupid, or because you're congenitally dishonest. I didn't say the chances of a cyclist dying on the road this year is 1 in 81,500. That just sets the upper, most favourable parameter. Once you subtract from that people who were counted in the 57m "cycling population" but whose only contact with a bike was sitting on one in an LBS, where the risk of a fatality is very low, then we get into the nitty-gritty of determining the risk to people we would all recognize as as cyclists. We're heading down past 1 in 65,000 very rapidly, Krygo. Clearly, cycling for actual cyclists, rather than number-inflators, is more than twice as dangerous as the 1 in 130,000 lie (which you already confessed to above) that you tried to pass off on us from your disgraceful stand on the coffin of a cyclist killed on the road. Here's that list again: "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: You will die of heart disease: *1 in 340 You will die of cancer: *1 in 500 You will die from a stroke: *1 in 1700 You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300 You will die in an accident: *1 in 2900 You will die in an auto accident: *1 in 5000 You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000 You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700 You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000 You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000 You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000 You'll drown: *1 in 50,000 You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000 You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000" McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. * That sentence contains several lies. I haven't said anything is "LETHAL". I merely asked a question. I answered it myself because the information you, Krygowski supplied, was clearly fraudulent. The answer is in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" But you, Krygo, like the slimeball you are, preferred to screech the lie that I think cycling is particularly dangerous. You have to be really ignorant and probably to suffer a reading comprehension problem too, to conclude that. You can go see where, well before this, I concluded something quite different from what you screech I said. Readers can compare to the other dangers in the list. We've already determined, from a source supplied by Krygowski himself, that per trip cycling is 11 times as lethal as motoring, and per mile cycling is 2.9 times as lethal as motoring. If Krygo now no longer wants to stand by those numbers, of course no one will be surprised. To Krygo any number is good enough, and he'll stand by it for five minutes before he throws out a new one. Half, double, ten time, ten magnitudes, why should Krygowski care? All numbers are the same to Krygowski. If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both. The problem with Krygo's hysterical and ridiculous claims is not so much that the ignorant and the wishful thinkers among cyclists will believe him but that he and his kind brings cycling advocacy into disrepute and counterproductively stultify amenity and legal development. Andre Jute Reformed petrol head Car-free since 1992 Greener than thou! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"
On Apr 9, 6:15*am, mike wrote:
In article 13779a1c-60cc-469e-a5d2-3fa53fb6b201 @h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Apr 9, 5:16*am, mike wrote: In article ad34312f-6677-45a1-a016-e80a5c8b8d72 @u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says... Frank Krygowski has claimed, inappropriately in a thread about a cylist killed on the road, that "...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_ by Laudan: [snip] You'll die from riding your bicycle: 1 in 130,000" Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many --)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1 in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski error of 1 in 130,000. While Frank's statistics are misleading, your method of calculating the risk of dying while cycling is equally flawed. I'm just going along with Krygowski for the moment, showing at every turn how ridiculous his sources and his methods and his hysterical screeching is. I would have let that table pass except that Franki Shavelegs ****ed me off when he stood on the coffin of a cyclist dead on the road and screeched abut how safe cycling is. Krygowski's advocacy is counterproductive and we should something about it. I am. Clearly, the risk of dying while cycling depends on (among other factors) how much time you spend in the saddle, the distance you travel, and the traffic conditions typical of roads you travel on. I've already said so in the other threads accompanying this one. You must have missed those posts. The "most casual cyclist" presumably cycles seldom, over short distances, and on quiet roads, so their chance of being killed (on an annual basis) will be far lower than your figure. No, Mike, my figure of 1 chance in 81,500 of a cyclist being killed this year is *the most favourable possible interpretation*, the least possible chance of a cyclist being killed, because it includes anyone who was even on a bike for five minutes in the year. Subtract those, or calculate for the regular cyclist, and the chances of an accident clearly increases, as you say. But I've said so, above, in the post you're complaining about, and you just didn't read it. Here it is again: I don't want to belabour the point (because I am not in disagreement with your desire to ridicule Frank's statistics) but dividing the number of cyclists who die annually by the total number who cycle "at least once a year" is not a valid way of calculating risk. As I pointed out - the true risk for an individual cyclist can be much higher than that figure or much lower (for example for a cyclist who rides once a year). * Oh, you've just taken Krygowski's bleating at face value again when he claims I say cycling is "lethal". I said no such thing. I asked a question about degree of danger, and in fact answered it well before in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" Go look, read for yourself, see what I concluded. But no one cares about the positive (or the truth, apparently): you all listen to Krygo bleating and take him at his word without investigation. But that stupid **** Krygo lies constantly. He lies about the danger, he lies about what I say, he lies about what I concluded. The record stands in black and white on this conference. Read it. And I was aware that you never made that claim - but am also aware that it can be a fairly risky venture at times. Here in NZ the relative risk of cycling v. driving is similar to that in the UK, but our risk of traffic injury/death per km of travel is around 2-3 times that in a typical Western Europe nation - so i definately feel vulnerable, especially as winter approaches and I spend half of my 120 minutes daily, riding in the dark. Mike Those sheep are getting uppity. If Mark Twain were alive today, he'd say, Get a kelpie, young man. -- AJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 33 | April 17th 08 06:10 AM |
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 32 | April 17th 08 06:10 AM |
The John and Chris Show, LIES, LIES, LIES | Johnny NoCom | Recumbent Biking | 3 | December 3rd 04 06:13 AM |