The Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey has completed a study showing the incredible danger
cyclists pose to motorists and will recommend bicycles be banned from all public roadways. This
confirms Kunich's claim that a motorist striking a cyclist will have "a better than good chance" of
being killed.

"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<lFobb.1363$gR1.904@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> The point you're missing is that there is a better than good chance that anyone striking a
> bicyclist will have killed himself. One guy I met was struck by a car and went through the
> windshield where he killed the passenger and broke the neck of the driver. He ended up with a lot
> of glass cuts and a broken hip.

"M Chambers" <1234@cox.net> wrote in message news:<5R2cb.2939$gi2.2605@fed1read01>...
> The Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey has completed a study showing the incredible danger
> cyclists pose to motorists and will recommend bicycles be banned from all public roadways. This
> confirms Kunich's claim that a motorist striking a cyclist will have "a better than good chance"
> of being killed.
>

Dumbass -

Kunich's stuff is good, whether he comes across as a curmudgeon or a crack smoker. (Or increasingly
as the years go by, both).

Henry

They could also prove that all pedestrians pose a "danger" to the almighty car. Did they study cows,
deer or Armadillos ?

The Insurance Institute is an industry special interest group (read Lobbyist) that, well supports
the industry that supports it. A paper tiger.

"M Chambers" <1234@cox.net> wrote in message news:<5R2cb.2939$gi2.2605@fed1read01>...
> The Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey has completed a study showing the incredible danger
> cyclists pose to motorists and will recommend bicycles be banned from all public roadways. This
> confirms Kunich's claim that a motorist striking a cyclist will have "a better than good chance"
> of being killed.
>
> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<lFobb.1363$gR1.904@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > The point you're missing is that there is a better than good chance that anyone striking a
> > bicyclist will have killed himself. One guy I met was struck by a car and went through the
> > windshield where he killed the passenger and broke the neck of the driver. He ended up with a
> > lot of glass cuts and a broken hip.

In article <5R2cb.2939$gi2.2605@fed1read01>, 1234@cox.net says...
>The Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey has completed a study showing the incredible danger
>cyclists pose to motorists and will recommend bicycles be banned from all public roadways. This
>confirms Kunich's claim that a motorist striking a cyclist will have "a better than good chance" of
>being killed.

FYI. The IIHS is a non-profit that is fully funded by the for profit insurance industry. So anything
that comes from the IIHS is suspect. All the studies always prove the hypothesis the insurance
companies come up with in advance. We all know the insurance companies only have one thing on their
minds, PROFIT$.
----------------------
Alex

Steven Gee wrote:
> They could also prove that all pedestrians pose a "danger" to the almighty car. Did they study
> cows, deer or Armadillos ?

(I hope I'm not breaking the rule that contributions to rbr be topical and relevent...)

Moose are da bomb car killers. 8' tall at the shoulder with spindly legs, they don't show up well in
headlights, and are tall enough that the driver can end up with a half-ton of animal in their lap,
along with their shattered windshield, before they know it.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

don't forget that accidents cost insurance companies their precious $$$, so of course they would
want to remove the 'dangerous' cyclists from the road. as far as i see it, the average motorist is
more dangerous to themselves and others than 100 cyclists in a tight pack riding down the road. when
was the last time you heard of a cyclist rolling over and killing several innocent bystanders or
passengers ?

shawn

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:bkr6kn$c3v$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <5R2cb.2939$gi2.2605@fed1read01>, 1234@cox.net says...
> >The Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey has completed a study showing the incredible danger
> >cyclists pose to motorists and will recommend bicycles be banned from all public roadways. This
> >confirms Kunich's claim that a motorist striking a cyclist will have "a better than good chance"
> >of being killed.
>
> FYI. The IIHS is a non-profit that is fully funded by the for profit insurance industry. So
> anything that comes from the IIHS is suspect. All the studies always prove the hypothesis the
> insurance companies come up with in advance. We all know the insurance companies only have one
> thing on their minds, PROFIT$.
> ----------------------
> Alex

"swj >" <swjelley@spam****.<just 'yahoo.com'> wrote in message
news:_Djcb.4806$XF.1735830@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> don't forget that accidents cost insurance companies their precious $$$,
so
> of course they would want to remove the 'dangerous' cyclists from the
road.
> as far as i see it, the average motorist is more dangerous to themselves
and
> others than 100 cyclists in a tight pack riding down the road. when was
the
> last time you heard of a cyclist rolling over and killing several innocent bystanders or
> passengers ?
>

Also relevant is that the have no income opportunities from cyclists. They are purely a liability.
Car's (drivers) pay premiums.
> shawn
>
> "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> news:bkr6kn$c3v$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> > In article <5R2cb.2939$gi2.2605@fed1read01>, 1234@cox.net says...
> > >The Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey has completed a study showing the incredible danger
> > >cyclists pose to motorists and will recommend bicycles be banned from all public roadways. This
> > >confirms Kunich's claim that a motorist striking a cyclist will have "a better than good
> > >chance" of being killed.
> >
> > FYI. The IIHS is a non-profit that is fully funded by the for profit insurance industry. So
> > anything that comes from the IIHS is suspect. All the studies always prove the hypothesis the
> > insurance companies come up with in advance. We all know the insurance companies only have one
> > thing on their minds, PROFIT$.
> > ----------------------
> > Alex
>

Raptor wrote:
> Steven Gee wrote:
>
>> They could also prove that all pedestrians pose a "danger" to the almighty car. Did they study
>> cows, deer or Armadillos ?
>
>
> (I hope I'm not breaking the rule that contributions to rbr be topical and relevent...)
>
> Moose are da bomb car killers. 8' tall at the shoulder with spindly legs, they don't show up well
> in headlights, and are tall enough that the driver can end up with a half-ton of animal in their
> lap, along with their shattered windshield, before they know it.

They used to have an "elk test" in Sweden, where a car was not passed for safety until it could
satisfactorily pass the test where it was driven straight at a simulated elk at high speed. I don't
remember what the definition of "satisfactory" was, but I suspect that it was different for the
driver and the elk.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:20:41 +1200, Stewart Fleming wrote:
> driven straight at a simulated elk at high speed. I don't remember what the definition of
> "satisfactory" was, but I suspect that it was different for the driver and the elk.

No it wasn't (isn't). The point was NOT hitting the elk by swerving. The first minimercedes failed
because it tipped over.

In article <3f71c9de$0$57593$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>, chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com says...

>Also relevant is that the have no income opportunities from cyclists. They are purely a liability.
>Car's (drivers) pay premiums.

ACtually that is a short sighted vue. Cyclists are car users not driving their cars. So they are
paying insurance premiums while exposing the insurance company to less risk since they are not
driving their cars.
-------------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:bl2qv6$34i$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <3f71c9de$0$57593$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>, chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com says...
>
> >Also relevant is that the have no income opportunities from cyclists.
They
> >are purely a liability. Car's (drivers) pay premiums.
>
> ACtually that is a short sighted vue. Cyclists are car users not driving their cars. So they are
> paying insurance premiums while exposing the insurance company to less risk since they are not
> driving their cars.
> -------------------
> Alex
>

Short sighted or not, that is the view of the industry and I am not so sure your counterpoint is
valid. Some cyclists are commuters that would otherwise be in a car, but that is theoretically
accounted for when you declare the use of your car to your insurance agent.