Regional and School Buses! - Page 3

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:484eaf88$0$6047$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>
>> [...] I do put my helmet on before doing the stairs.
>
> Does Burt Reynolds know this?.


No. Burt has only disdain for safety issues. Burt Reynolds lives on the
edge.


>
>> In fact, it may have been Jon who suggested there was
>> statistical proof of more fatalities per hour of exposure
>> just being at home than when cycling.
>
> Nope.
>
> By the fatality per hour study previously cited, home living
> (active) is significantly *less risky* than bicycling. Sleeping
> at home makes the odds even better.
>
> I would suggest you stay home, but somebody said most
> accidents occur within one half a mile of home. Sounds like a
> dangerous place. So I suggest you move. Even better, become
> homeless, but spend all your time in a home-like environment,
> perhaps in someone else's home, mostly sleeping...



Maybe you best idea ever. Someone else's home. Now if I can just fine the
right someone. Not having to wear that stupid helmet to bed will be a big
plus.



>
>> [...] And when I take my bike someplace by auto I now wear my cycling
>> helmet in the car. Knowing now
>> that auto bike transport is more dangerous
>
> If you're going to quote the study, make that, "has a greater risk
> of fatality per hour of exposure"...


My bad as we used to say.


>
>> than the cycling, it only stands to reason there would be a greater need
>> to wear a helmet transporting the bike than when riding the bike. I
>> thank Jon for making this clear to me.
>
> You're welcome. You'll have to decide whether or not to wear
> your seatbelt, too, since in the event of a minor firey crash it may
> kill you.


I'd venture a guess that cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of
exposure than minor firey crashes.


> Oh, and just so you don't forget:
>
> Cycling is not particularly dangerous.
>


Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure than just
about anything other than sleeping. That stratrider guy who started this
thread doesn't need to spend his time worrying about those busses on his way
to work. Hey stratrider - you don't need to wear your helmet either.
There's literature claiming it's safer for you to ride to work without your
helmet than it is for you to walk without your helmet. So if you really
want to wear a helmet get smart and wear it when you walk. So let it all
hang out and hammer that thing dude. No worries. Ride on. HTH

Wilson wrote:

<idiocy snipped>

> Does your literature or your common sense tell you children don't need
> to wear helmets when cycling?

Experience. They didn't exist when I learned to cycle as a child, and
the roads were more dangerous then than they are now. I am not aware of
any of my cycle riding child peers from those days that suffered a
serious head injury resulting from a cycling accident.

> In the USA we don't have segregated sidewalks.

You do in the various bits of it I've ever been in, segregated by a
clear kerb from the adjacent roadway.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Wilson wrote:

> Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure than just
> about anything other than sleeping. That stratrider guy who started
> this thread doesn't need to spend his time worrying about those busses
> on his way to work.

No, but if he /does/ worry about them and takes them into account then
he's unlikely to be run over by one.

> Hey stratrider - you don't need to wear your helmet
> either. There's literature claiming it's safer for you to ride to work
> without your helmet than it is for you to walk without your helmet. So
> if you really want to wear a helmet get smart and wear it when you
> walk.

Or get even smarter and realise (by reading the specification to which
they're built) that the sort of accident that kills people isn't going
to be affected much by a bike helmet. A helmet is designed for low
speed crashes with *no other vehicle involved*. It is specified so that
it will save you a bump and a graze and a nasty headache, not to save
your life (which is why they have no record of saving lives across
populations and have no clear effect on serious head injuries). Nothing
wrong with wearing one to reduce the possibility of a nasty headache,
but such a thing is very unlikely anyway and isn't going to kill you
even if it does happen.

> So let it all hang out and hammer that thing dude. No worries.
> Ride on.

"No worries" is a bad idea: if you don't worry /at all/ you may well
come a cropper. Worry a little, translate that into your riding and
you're quite probably going to be safe. Not definitely, but you can get
killed on the roads in a big car with air bags and crumple zones if the
worst comes to pass.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6b9f8fF3aqnboU3@mid.individual.net...
> Wilson wrote:
>
> <idiocy snipped>

Re: idiocy snipped. The problem is that I'm joking around and you aren't.

>
>> Does your literature or your common sense tell you children don't need
>> to wear helmets when cycling?
>
> Experience. They didn't exist when I learned to cycle as a child, and
> the roads were more dangerous then than they are now. I am not aware of
> any of my cycle riding child peers from those days that suffered a
> serious head injury resulting from a cycling accident.



Peter's answer seems to be that he and his friends didn't need cycling
helmets when they were growing up and therefore your children don't need
them either. Rather than waste your money on cycling helmets for the kids
take the family out and have a nice MacMeal instead.



>> In the USA we don't have segregated sidewalks.
>
> You do in the various bits of it I've ever been in, segregated by a
> clear kerb from the adjacent roadway.
>

It was a bad joke Peter. You didn't get it, but there's no reason you
should. Yes we do have sidewalks for walking in the USA. Your observations
are correct.

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>
> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote
>>
>> [Burt Reynolds]
>
> [...] Burt has only disdain for safety issues.
> Burt Reynolds lives on the edge

Be careful invoking a BR character, then.

> I'd venture a guess that cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of
> exposure than minor firey crashes.

Sorry, not according to the cited study. Nor residence fires.
Nor hunting. ... But please, if you have access to studies
that support or contradict the assertion that cycling is not
particularly dangerous, please post references.
..
>> Cycling is not particularly dangerous.
>
> Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure
> than just about anything other than sleeping.

Your assertion is not supported by any studies cited so far.
Logically, the fallacy of reductio adsurdum is transparent.
Rhetorically, it's not terribly effective, either.

> HTH

Helpful? Revealing, perhaps slightly, but nothing very novel.

Jon

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:484fbe4c$0$5886$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>
>> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote
>>>
>>> [Burt Reynolds]
>>
>> [...] Burt has only disdain for safety issues.
>> Burt Reynolds lives on the edge
>
> Be careful invoking a BR character, then.


I don't recall invoking or citing a Burt Reyonlds character as an authority
on safety. Truth is I doubt that anyone in the world has ever done that.



>> I'd venture a guess that cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of
>> exposure than minor firey crashes.
>
> Sorry, not according to the cited study. Nor residence fires.
> Nor hunting. ... But please, if you have access to studies
> that support or contradict the assertion that cycling is not
> particularly dangerous, please post references.
> .


No, no I don't have any fancy studies backing me up. I have to guess at
everything. But I must tell you that it is a bit troubling to learn that
cycling has a greater risk of fatality per hour of exposure than crashing my
car and having it catch fire.



>>> Cycling is not particularly dangerous.
>>
>> Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure
>> than just about anything other than sleeping.
>
> Your assertion is not supported by any studies cited so far.
> Logically, the fallacy of reductio adsurdum is transparent.
> Rhetorically, it's not terribly effective, either.
>
>> HTH
>
> Helpful? Revealing, perhaps slightly, but nothing very novel.

>

At least you get it. You may not think it's all that good, but then I'm a
true amateur.

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>
> I don't recall invoking or citing a Burt Reyonlds character as an
> authority on safety. Truth is I doubt that anyone in the world has ever
> done that.

Except indirectly as a moniker. _W.W. and the Dixie Dance
Kings_,-- Tarantino is quoted as admiring the movie. It's been
a long time since I last saw it. BR's not one of my favorite actors.

> No, no I don't have any fancy studies backing me up.
> I have to guess at everything.

Actually not. It's a choice. %^)

> But I must tell you that it is a bit troubling to learn that cycling
> has a greater risk of fatality per hour of exposure than crashing my car
> and having it catch fire.

Since it has so little apparent risk. does it make you want to
stop cycling, load up your trunk with gas cans and stop your
car in the fast lane of the expressway? I hope not! %^o
Death in a post collision fire is just a subset of death
in a motor vehicle. The numbers do suggest that concerns
about seatbelts hindering exit after a collision may not
be well founded.

It's interesting to consider the arguments made when
seatbelts were first introduced and when their use was
made compulsuary. I'm old enough to remember
someone arguing, "I'd rather be thrown free of the
car, in the event of an accident."

> At least you get it. You may not think it's all that good,
> but then I'm a true amateur.

A decent fisher, actually. Decent bait selection. Reasonable
technique. Keep on posting,-- I'll take the bait when it strikes
my fancy. %^P

Jon

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:48514b2a$0$6018$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>
>> I don't recall invoking or citing a Burt Reyonlds character as an
>> authority on safety. Truth is I doubt that anyone in the world has ever
>> done that.
>
> Except indirectly as a moniker. _W.W. and the Dixie Dance
> Kings_,-- Tarantino is quoted as admiring the movie. It's been
> a long time since I last saw it. BR's not one of my favorite actors.
>

Tarantino admired the movie? Did he explain why or did he just leave it
hanging there? I take "it's been a long time since you last saw it" to
mean you've seen it more than once. Have you ever known anyone who claimed
BR was their favorite actor? Just wondering.


>> No, no I don't have any fancy studies backing me up.
>> I have to guess at everything.
>
> Actually not. It's a choice. %^)
>
>> But I must tell you that it is a bit troubling to learn that cycling
>> has a greater risk of fatality per hour of exposure than crashing my car
>> and having it catch fire.
>
> Since it has so little apparent risk. does it make you want to
> stop cycling, load up your trunk with gas cans and stop your
> car in the fast lane of the expressway? I hope not! %^o
> Death in a post collision fire is just a subset of death
> in a motor vehicle. The numbers do suggest that concerns
> about seatbelts hindering exit after a collision may not
> be well founded.
>
> It's interesting to consider the arguments made when
> seatbelts were first introduced and when their use was
> made compulsuary. I'm old enough to remember
> someone arguing, "I'd rather be thrown free of the
> car, in the event of an accident."
>
>> At least you get it. You may not think it's all that good,
>> but then I'm a true amateur.
>
> 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.

Wilson wrote:

> Perhaps good enough to get into Peter's kill file, but not in yours it
> would seem.

No, you have to be an unreconstructed waster on a long term basis like
Ed to get into my Bozo Bin. You don't come close to qualifying, you're
just not as clued in about risk as you may like to think.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>
> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> 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.

>> 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.

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.

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.

Jon

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
news:3q6dnSz77rHyyc_VnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@prairiewave.com...

How'd you get out of my killfile, dickhead?

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:4852503e$0$5932$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>
>> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> 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.

>
> The idea here is to watch something so bad it's laughable - Bergman's a
> downer.
>
>
May I recommend "Liquid Sky"? it is soooo close to being art, but it sooo
far away from being art. it would have been a perfect candidate for MST3K.

gotbent aka FRVT rider


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:17:46 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>I
>don't mind them so long as they do not have a macho attitude. That is
>reserved for us testosterone based men. Women who want to compete with men
>are beneath contempt. I treat them like the tramps that they are.

Well, *that* should start some cackling! You should have cross-posted
it to a few feminist groups while you were at it.

Jones

In article <39u754do4s56n1kf7bnflpcf9r7mj28rje@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:17:46 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
> Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't mind them so long as they do not have a macho attitude. That
> >is reserved for us testosterone based men. Women who want to compete
> >with men are beneath contempt. I treat them like the tramps that
> >they are.
>
> Well, *that* should start some cackling! You should have
> cross-posted it to a few feminist groups while you were at it.

Ed may be Greatly Stupid and a Legend In His Own Mind, but even he ain't
*that* stupid.