"Jon" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> "Jon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> [Burt Reynolds movie]
>>
>> Tarantino admired the movie? Did he explain why or did he just leave it
>> hanging there?
>
> I recognized the reference and googled the title. I only then
> recalled seeing it, from the plot synopsis. The Tarantino
> interview where he mentions it was one of the first page hits
> in my Google query.
>
>> I take "it's been a long time since you last saw it" to mean
>> you've seen it more than once.
>
> If so, probably on broadcast TV.
> Perhaps not by choice! %^)
>
>> Have you ever known anyone who claimed BR was their
>> favorite actor? Just wondering.
>
> A friend of mine really likes his movies. _Smokey and the
> Bandit_, stuff, not excepted.
I have some really old friends and we make it a point to get together at
least twice a year to watch a bad movie, share a pizza and a few beers, and
swap lies about our exciting lives. The 'mo worser the movie, the 'mo betta
the conversation. Most often its some Japanese monster thing, but WW and
the Dixie Dancekings show up there from time to time too. I occasionly like
to take the high road and provide my guests with a classic stinker such as
Shampoo from the mid-seventies. Gag.
>
>>> A decent fisher, actually. Decent bait selection. Reasonable
>>> technique. Keep on posting,-- I'll take the bait when it strikes
>>> my fancy. %^P
>>
>> Perhaps good enough to get into Peter's kill file, but not in yours it
>> would seem.
>
> Peter has been around a long time. Seems to me he's just
> intelligently selective in reponding.
>
> Aspiring to be kill-filed is not the sign of a talented fisher
> in my esteem. Being dumb, or playing it is just uninteresting.
> Being abusive and destructive is unremarkable. Contributing
> on topic posts is a plus.
>
> In this case, I really am interested in why people, particularly
> recumbent cyclists, think cycling is "dangerous" or not.
>
> I've had upright bike riders, for instance, tell me they think
> recumbents are dangerous. Often they base their assessment
> on just having heard about them, or perhaps only have seen
> a picture... Rarely have they ridden one, and even more
> rarely, have they ridden several different types for any
> significant distance.
>
> The basis of their concern is often height of the rider:
> "You can't see over traffic." I point out they can't see
> over SUVs and pickups.
I feel comfortable in town stop and go traffic on the Easy Racer. I feel
like I am a part of the traffic, being pretty much eye level with auto
drivers and sitting in the same position they are. I actually feel I get
some mortorcycle type respect from drivers based on the Easy Racer
configuration. Harley riders usually give me a nod which is more than I can
say for many conventional bike riders.
>
> They sometimes say, "You can't jump curbs and you
> can't do track stands." True, but neither can some
> upright riders, and not jumping curbs or doing track
> stands hasn't been a safety issue for me.
If I'm riding a mountain bike if traffic I like to think I can jump curbs
[kerbs], do track stands, and head for the ditch if need be. And maybe I
could, but I've never needed to. **** Ryan's video of him riding his
Vanguard in Boston is interesting. I do not recommend riding a bike in
Boston traffic.
My cycling career has been clear of injury from a road bike/recumbent
standpoint. The only times I can remember going down were those embarrasing
can't get out of the clips fast enough falls in front of a crowd. But for a
brief time I got into single trac mountain bike riding. It was remarkable
in that I would be bleeding after just about every ride. I rode with a
small group which included a plastic surgeon. Over time he got work from
most of us. The irony is he had an over the bar face plant requiring more
plastic surgery than the rest of us put together. All of this was
definately guy stuff.
>
> They say, "Recumbents are slow not maneuverable." I
> point out that my BikeE turning radius is similar to
> their upright and I can ride a straight line at speeds
> from 3 to 30+ mph. I point out bikes aren't slow,
> riders are. %^)
>
> If they're sophisicated, they say, "You have less time
> to react when you're going down (lower center of gravity)
> and less 'body english' control". That's true. But I
> have less distance to fall. %^) And falling in my
> experience on a recumbent puts hips in place of
> shoulder, arms, wrists and hands in road contact...
>
> Then I ask, "Would you prefer to crash head first or
> feet first into an obstacle?" The over the handlebars
> experience seems pretty specific to upright riding.
>
For a while I lived in a hilly area where there was this exceptionally steep
hill on a county road. Four speed cars would have to gear down to second
gear to top the hill. It was a 55 mph downhill and on the GRR I never
uncomfortable doing it. But on an upright I would be imagining every little
thing that could possibly go wrong to toss me over the handlebars.