cycling is a very dangerous sport...



Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:56:29 GMT
Brett Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote in
>> Single user can be, although there's a lot of argument about the way
>> the numbers are tallied. For example in NSW there's no way to say
>> "road surface" and if there's no other vehicle or witness they tick
>> the speed box.

>
> This would be because there would be very few police officers who are
> qualified or capable of making such a finding, at least on sealed roads.
> Gravel; different story. Sealed surfaces almost invariably provide
> adequate traction but if tyres are bald or the road structure out of
> shape or too much torque is applied or.... you may break traction.


Or if there's gravel or moss, or broken surface or banding.

was a bloke killed on the old road a few years back. Known as a good
safe slowish cruiser rider, not a hoon at all. Written down as
"speed" but few could believe it. About the only thing that seems
possible is that the excessive heat on the day made the huge amounts
of rubbery crack filler at that point slippery.

But if they don't know, it should be "dont' know". But if a single
vehicle crashes, the *default* mark is "excess speed". This is then
entered into the database as "speed-caused". And so they say "look at
all these speed-related crashes, drop the speed limit".

rather than "hmm, we seem to have a road design and/or upkeep problem,
let's look into that".

If they did more work on crash cause rather than kneejerking "speed"
then they might be able to reduce the number of crashes.

Like if they design a bike path so that there's reasonable visibility
they might reduce the number of collisions, rather than rely on
everyone to ride very slowly. Easier to say "naughty people" than say
"lets see if we can help". They've been putting guards and interlocks
on machines for 60 years or more, but they are still in to "bad
people" for road safety.

Zebee
 
P

Plodder

Guest
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 07:12:55 -0800
> > Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When I was learning to ride a motorcycle, my instructor taught me that
> > > 'road surface' was never a cause of a crash. It was failure to ride

to
> > > the conditions that caused that class of crash, and that if I wanted

to
> > > make excuses for crashes, rather than taking responsibility for my
> > > riding, I'd end up dead or worse.

> >
> > To some extent, but that is also requiring the road user to be always
> > perfect.

>
> If you're not in the mood to concentrate, stay home.
>

SNIPPAGE

Yep, I can see that working: "G'day, Boss. I'm not in the mood to
concentrate so i'm taking the day off coz I musn't
drive/ride/walk/whatever."

me
 
P

Plodder

Guest
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 23:03:36 -0800
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not the same thing.

> >
> > Respectfully, I don't agree with you, in this context.

>
> I think we are definitely not going to agree on this.
>
> >
> >> The idea is, because people are human, to try and move the requirement
> >> away from having to be perfectly skilled and perfectly capable.

> >
> > And then, there's the real world. Where things will always be more
> > hazardous than we would like.

>
> Yes. But there's this continuum. Meaning that there will always be
> crashes no matter how skilled you are.
>
> But there's also the chance to decrease the number of them.
>
> If you want to "punish" people for not being perfect and say "the
> world is a bad place, you ahve to cope always" then there's no reason
> to build good roads.
>
> Think, for example, of bad road design for pushbikes. Is it important
> to make the road design as good as it can be, or is it up to the rider
> only?
>
> Could it be sensible for there to be both? That is make the road the
> best you can, and for riders to do the best they can?
>
> Why all one way, why all on the rider?
>
> >> > Assuming that (within reasonable limits) the road is safe when you
> >> > can't see it, gets you dead.
> >>
> >> Then you can't ride at all. Or you have to ride at walking pace in
> >> the dark.

> >
> > "within reasonable limits".

>
> >
> > I've ridden at walking pace in fog, and very slowly through areas known
> > to have wildlife etc, and I've chosen when and where I've ridden to
> > minimise risk.

>
> And so do most people. But I understood you to say that there's no
> way that *any* crash due to conditions isn't the rider's fault.
>
> If, for example, you had been slow for wildlife, and you still came
> unstuck because of something, then your fault? Must be... but
> supposing that something was someone else's careless roadworks that
> you had not been able to forsee. Still your fault? You weren't going
> "too fast" for the conditions as you understood them.
>

SNIPPED LOTS OF OTHER BITS

I think you're both writing at cross purposes. There seems to be a
conflation here between 'fault' and 'blame'. If there was no fault, nothing
would have happened. Fault can lie anywhere in the system - equipment,
behaviour, etc. Blame can only be assigned to an action taken by someone. In
the case of the above roadworks, perhaps the roadworkers were to blame for
creating a fault and the rider was at fault (not to blame) for not
anticipating conditions. If the rider was aware of the fault in the road and
rode too fast then the rider would be to blame.

Sheesh, I tried to make it clearer but confused myself!

Frank - X Man Identity: Confuso. Special ability: Able to be bewildered in
any situation...

P.S. Zebee - did your squeaky arrive? My Outlook has decided to quit and my
work email won't accept your addy...
 
E

Euan

Guest
Plodder wrote:

> Yep, I can see that working: "G'day, Boss. I'm not in the mood to
> concentrate so i'm taking the day off coz I musn't
> drive/ride/walk/whatever."


I've done that. Not quite in those words but I've made it clear that
I'm taking the day off because mentally I'm not all there. Works a lot
better than trying to muddle through the day and not getting my head in
order.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:43:32 GMT
Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Plodder wrote:
>
>> Yep, I can see that working: "G'day, Boss. I'm not in the mood to
>> concentrate so i'm taking the day off coz I musn't
>> drive/ride/walk/whatever."

>
> I've done that. Not quite in those words but I've made it clear that
> I'm taking the day off because mentally I'm not all there. Works a lot
> better than trying to muddle through the day and not getting my head in
> order.


So have I.

But you can't do it often :)

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:37:08 +0800
Plodder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> P.S. Zebee - did your squeaky arrive? My Outlook has decided to quit and my
> work email won't accept your addy...


Not yet alas.

[email protected] can find me too.

Zebee
 
R

Resound

Guest
"PiledHigher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Absent Husband wrote:
>> Dude, I get that all the time.
>>
>> At a bbq the other weekend, I was encouraging a mate of mine to cycle
>> to work (he's a nurse at a major hospital).
>>
>> His wife piped in and said that it would be irresponsible to do
>> something so dangerous, when he could be leaving behind a wife and 3
>> kids. Then she pointedly looked at my two daughters......
>>
>> Anyway - they're the ones that miss out on the joys of bike riding.
>> Doesn't bother me if they miss out..... *grins*
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Abby

>
> Of course a wife like that is likely to get left behind deliberately!
>


Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "getting dropped".
 
V

Vincent Patrick

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:56:29 GMT
> Brett Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> Single user can be, although there's a lot of argument about the way
>>> the numbers are tallied. For example in NSW there's no way to say
>>> "road surface" and if there's no other vehicle or witness they tick
>>> the speed box.

>>
>> This would be because there would be very few police officers who are
>> qualified or capable of making such a finding, at least on sealed roads.
>> Gravel; different story. Sealed surfaces almost invariably provide
>> adequate traction but if tyres are bald or the road structure out of
>> shape or too much torque is applied or.... you may break traction.

>
> Or if there's gravel or moss, or broken surface or banding.
>
> was a bloke killed on the old road a few years back. Known as a good
> safe slowish cruiser rider, not a hoon at all. Written down as
> "speed" but few could believe it. About the only thing that seems
> possible is that the excessive heat on the day made the huge amounts
> of rubbery crack filler at that point slippery.


I have had first hand experience of how slippery corners can get on a hot
day. Riding my suzuki home from the beach many years ago on a ripper
summer's day, I slid out on a 60 km/hr bend, leaving me thankful for my
helmet and thanking the driver behind me for stopping in time.

> But if they don't know, it should be "dont' know". But if a single
> vehicle crashes, the *default* mark is "excess speed". This is then
> entered into the database as "speed-caused". And so they say "look at
> all these speed-related crashes, drop the speed limit".
>
> rather than "hmm, we seem to have a road design and/or upkeep problem,
> let's look into that".
>
> If they did more work on crash cause rather than kneejerking "speed"
> then they might be able to reduce the number of crashes.
>
> Like if they design a bike path so that there's reasonable visibility
> they might reduce the number of collisions, rather than rely on
> everyone to ride very slowly. Easier to say "naughty people" than say
> "lets see if we can help". They've been putting guards and interlocks
> on machines for 60 years or more, but they are still in to "bad
> people" for road safety.
>
> Zebee


There's good sense in what you say. I find myself being convinced by both
your position and Bleve's. Perhaps you're both right in different ways?

It might have come up before, but I think a major safety factor in someone's
driving/riding is an 'imaginative' right-brain anticipation of what lies
ahead. Everyone does it to some extent, but some people are quite suberb
and "magically" correct a situation before it fully appears. You probably
know what I mean: some combination of factors might tell you it's time to
slow down a little, or cover your brakes, or be prepared to veer, or
transform into 110% alert mode. It might have been triggered by something
far down the road, or out of the corner of your eye, or a strange noise, or
a vague feeling that you have been in a situation like it before.

Maybe Bleve is gifted with high level skills in this way and doesn't realise
it is more difficult for the rest of us. Just a thought.

Cheers,

Vince
 
K

K.A. Moylan

Guest
In article <>, "Absent Husband" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dude, I get that all the time.
>
> At a bbq the other weekend, I was encouraging a mate of mine to cycle
> to work (he's a nurse at a major hospital).
>
> His wife piped in and said that it would be irresponsible to do
> something so dangerous, when he could be leaving behind a wife and 3
> kids. Then she pointedly looked at my two daughters......
>
> Anyway - they're the ones that miss out on the joys of bike riding.
> Doesn't bother me if they miss out..... *grins*
>
> Cheers,
> Abby


If you're feeling like an adversarial argument, try this:
"So you're saying that riding a bike is dangerous.
So, because I'm a cyclist, you are saying that I'm a potential victim.
[slight pause]
So what causes the most damage to cyclists?
(Here you must ignore or gloss over self-inflicted damage.)
Cars, mostly. Cars just like yours kill and maim cyclists and
pedestrians. So, you are in control of a machine that has the potential
to kill cyclists. How do you feel about that, potential murderer?
[might be good to smile here]"

I've never tried this argument out for real, so am interested in what
reactions it gets.

Cheerio,

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:22:14 +0800
Vincent Patrick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There's good sense in what you say. I find myself being convinced by both
> your position and Bleve's. Perhaps you're both right in different ways?


We are I think, because we do seem to be focusing on different things.

I'm not saying "if there's a problem with the road, the person is
blameless" but "bad roads contribute to crashes, if we remove that
contribution then we have fewer crashes".

I think Bleve is saying "bad judgement contributes to crashes, remove
that contribution then we have fewer crashes".

I figure that both are good things, but in order to fix the roads you
have to work out what about them is the problem. TO do that you have
to have good information. When is it mostly a road problem with a
side order of bad judgement, and when is it mostly a bad judgement
problem?


> It might have come up before, but I think a major safety factor in someone's
> driving/riding is an 'imaginative' right-brain anticipation of what lies
> ahead. Everyone does it to some extent, but some people are quite suberb
> and "magically" correct a situation before it fully appears. You probably
> know what I mean: some combination of factors might tell you it's time to
> slow down a little, or cover your brakes, or be prepared to veer, or
> transform into 110% alert mode. It might have been triggered by something
> far down the road, or out of the corner of your eye, or a strange noise, or
> a vague feeling that you have been in a situation like it before.


I agree, although I mostly see it in traffic rather than road surface.

NOt sure why, perhaps because road surface tends to be consistent - a
bad road with bad sightlines and surface tends to be bad for a
distance. You seldom get a pothole in an otherwise quite good road.
I suppose something like debris after rain or a storm is an example
though.


>
> Maybe Bleve is gifted with high level skills in this way and doesn't realise
> it is more difficult for the rest of us. Just a thought.
>


No idea :)

Zebee
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 23:03:36 -0800
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not the same thing.

> >
> > Respectfully, I don't agree with you, in this context.

>
> I think we are definitely not going to agree on this.


Or maybe we can. once we clear up the misunderstandings.

> >> The idea is, because people are human, to try and move the requirement
> >> away from having to be perfectly skilled and perfectly capable.

> >
> > And then, there's the real world. Where things will always be more
> > hazardous than we would like.

>
> Yes. But there's this continuum. Meaning that there will always be
> crashes no matter how skilled you are.


Yes, I did mention the 'struck by lightening' thing. You must have
missed it.

> But there's also the chance to decrease the number of them.


Yes.

> If you want to "punish" people for not being perfect and say "the
> world is a bad place, you ahve to cope always" then there's no reason
> to build good roads.


I'm not talking about punishing anyone, I'm talking about significantly
reducing the risk of crashes by riding defensively, and if you're not
able to do so, then you're much more likely to get hurt.

> Think, for example, of bad road design for pushbikes. Is it important
> to make the road design as good as it can be, or is it up to the rider
> only?


Of course it's both, but it's also mostly irrelevant in the context I'm
writing about, which is dealing with the 'now' not the 'this is how
we'd like it to be'.

> Could it be sensible for there to be both? That is make the road the
> best you can, and for riders to do the best they can?


Of course.

> Why all one way, why all on the rider?


See above, it's not about what we'd like, it's about 'how it is'. I
see your point I think, but I'm deliberatly staying clear of the
activism for better roads thing, and focussing tightly on dealing with
current conditions. By all means advocate for improvements and chip
away at attitudes etc, but if you want to stay alive *now* you have to
ride according to the conditions as they are *now*.



>
> >> > Assuming that (within reasonable limits) the road is safe when you
> >> > can't see it, gets you dead.
> >>
> >> Then you can't ride at all. Or you have to ride at walking pace in
> >> the dark.

> >
> > "within reasonable limits".

>
> >
> > I've ridden at walking pace in fog, and very slowly through areas known
> > to have wildlife etc, and I've chosen when and where I've ridden to
> > minimise risk.

>
> And so do most people. But I understood you to say that there's no
> way that *any* crash due to conditions isn't the rider's fault.
>
> If, for example, you had been slow for wildlife, and you still came
> unstuck because of something, then your fault? Must be... but
> supposing that something was someone else's careless roadworks that
> you had not been able to forsee. Still your fault? You weren't going
> "too fast" for the conditions as you understood them.


If I'm going too fast to react to something unforseen, then I am going
too fast. This has an obvious caveat, and it's (as you have mentioned
previously) really random 'struck by lightening' things that we can't
avoid, but they're (IMO & IME) extremely rare.

> >> All you can do is to try and raise the 'enough'. The roadbuilders
> >> have a responsibility to help. They can't make it foolproof, they can
> >> do a hell of a lot.

> >
> > We have a responsibility to ourselves to ride according to how it is,
> > not how we'd like it to be.

>
> And you keep missing the point I'm making, so I can't be being clear
> enough.
>
> Do the roadbuilders have *any* responsibility at all in your view?


Roadbuilders have a responsibility to build roads as best they can
under the constraints of time, budget, environmental impact and safety.
Road users have a responsibility to use those roads safely according
to the conditions at the time.

> >> I was doing a reasonable speed for normal road conditions. Not for
> >> stupidly handled roadworks.

> >
> > Except you weren't, because you outrode what you could see.

>
> I can see why you say that, but I think it's not a real world answer.


Take a trip to A&E at your local hospital one Friday, take a look at
the consequences of people exceeding safety margins. Try the local
rehab centre for more of the same.


> Because you can never ever see around a blind corner. It's not
> possible.


Which is why you go slow around them. If you want a world without blind
corners, stick to the Hume, where you can do 110km/h and have very good
sightlines.

> This is the point I'm making - it took two mistakes. I was not
> perfect, but nor was I reckless. What I was was less than perfect,
> but if the road menders had done the job I could reasonably expect
> then there wouldn't have been a problem.


I would contend that it is reasonable to suspect odd things around
blind corners. To fail to do so (as I luckily learnt pretty early on)
is to court disaster.

>
> >
> > I'm talking about taking responsibility for our behaviour on the road,
> > not palming it off to fate or bad roadwork signs. The fact is, the

>
> I'm saying that both have to be responsible.
>
> Do you believe that all fault has to lie with the rider? Or that
> others have some responsibility?


I'm not talking about blaming anyone, I'm talking about how to stay
alive in an imperfect world.

> > roads *aren't* going to get significantly better, car drivers *aren't*

>
> No? The ATSB has finally decided that road design matters, the latest
> report includes what is going to be done.


Well, that'll fix it, then. In the mean time, I'm going to keep riding
to how it is.


>
> > going to stop being careless, tired, yapping/sms'ing on phones etc, and
> > we, if we want to stay alive, have to ride in risk-minimising ways in
> > order to survive in the jungle. Every single crash I've been involved
> > in I could have avoided by smarter route selection and/or less
> > 'enthusiasm' to go faster than the conditions warranted. This thread
> > started about perceptions of risk taking, and that's what I'm
> > discussing.

>
> I think you are wanting perfection. I'm wanting what can be
> minimised to be minimised, which isn't about absolving riders from
> blame, it's about trying to reduce the crash problem.


I don't want or expect perfection, and we're really talking about the
same thing when we focus on the same point, which is risk minimisation.
When you start to throw advocacy for changes into it, and then push
that back into the original issue (which is, to restate, that if you
want to stay unharmed, the best way to do so is to reduce your risks by
making decisions relevant to the conditions as they are and can be
reasonably forseen), then we come unstuck.

>
> Mandating proper cleanup of roadworks won't stop people splatting
> themselves. It will reduce the number who do.


Sure.

>
> Make survival easier, more will survive.


Yes. *BUT* you as an individual still have to ride to how it is, not
how you'd like it to be. That's my point, as briefly and as clearly as
I can make it.

Want change? Great! Want to survive now? That's a different thing.
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 30 Nov 2006 13:21:14 -0800
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about punishing anyone, I'm talking about significantly
> reducing the risk of crashes by riding defensively, and if you're not
> able to do so, then you're much more likely to get hurt.


I agree with that.

I think you agree that if the environment is set up so that a minor
mistake or lack of judgement isn't fatal, then that's a good thing?

Do you also agree that in order to so set up the environment then a
good understanding of what, if anything, the current state contributed
to the crash is important?

Zebee
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on 30 Nov 2006 13:21:14 -0800
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not talking about punishing anyone, I'm talking about significantly
> > reducing the risk of crashes by riding defensively, and if you're not
> > able to do so, then you're much more likely to get hurt.

>
> I agree with that.
>
> I think you agree that if the environment is set up so that a minor
> mistake or lack of judgement isn't fatal, then that's a good thing?


Yes, but with one caveat : that's a fantasy world. You can't stop
random things happening, and by padding everything in foam, you take
away a lot of beauty.

>
> Do you also agree that in order to so set up the environment then a
> good understanding of what, if anything, the current state contributed
> to the crash is important?


Sure, it's always good to try and understand what contributed to a
crash.
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 30 Nov 2006 15:08:12 -0800
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> In aus.bicycle on 30 Nov 2006 13:21:14 -0800
>> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm not talking about punishing anyone, I'm talking about significantly
>> > reducing the risk of crashes by riding defensively, and if you're not
>> > able to do so, then you're much more likely to get hurt.

>>
>> I agree with that.
>>
>> I think you agree that if the environment is set up so that a minor
>> mistake or lack of judgement isn't fatal, then that's a good thing?

>
> Yes, but with one caveat : that's a fantasy world. You can't stop
> random things happening, and by padding everything in foam, you take
> away a lot of beauty.
>


I am not saying that you can stop random things happening, noe that
everything needs to be in foam.

just that making a decent attempt is a good thing. Rather than, say,
not fixing potholes at all, or needlessly blocking sightlines.


>>
>> Do you also agree that in order to so set up the environment then a
>> good understanding of what, if anything, the current state contributed
>> to the crash is important?

>
> Sure, it's always good to try and understand what contributed to a
> crash.


Then we are pretty much in agreement.

Saying "must have been speeding cos he crashed" which is more or less
the NSW approach isn't helpful.

"Road was clean and sightlines good, silly bugger did it to himself"
is reasonable as is "road crew left bluemetal all over the place, but
rider was doing 160, own fault", as is "rider was behaving well, but
bluemetal all over road was major controbution".

IN the 2nd case the bluemetal was a contribution, silly speed was more
of a one, in the 3rd case, bluemetal was a major problem. Bluemetal
can be fixed, do it and you hav ea good chance that 2nd crash is less
severe and 3rd crash doesn't happen.

Zebee
Zebee
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
K.A. Moylan wrote:

> If you're feeling like an adversarial argument, try this:
> "So you're saying that riding a bike is dangerous.
> So, because I'm a cyclist, you are saying that I'm a potential victim.
> [slight pause]
> So what causes the most damage to cyclists?
> (Here you must ignore or gloss over self-inflicted damage.)


I believe most cyclist accidents are the same as most motor-cycle accidents,
single vehicle accidents. Mostly the blame will go to the rider, as they are
the only one there.

Theo
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:

> --
> Frank
> [email protected]
> Drop DACKS to reply
> "Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > > In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 07:12:55 -0800
> > > Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When I was learning to ride a motorcycle, my instructor taught me that
> > > > 'road surface' was never a cause of a crash. It was failure to ride

> to
> > > > the conditions that caused that class of crash, and that if I wanted

> to
> > > > make excuses for crashes, rather than taking responsibility for my
> > > > riding, I'd end up dead or worse.
> > >
> > > To some extent, but that is also requiring the road user to be always
> > > perfect.

> >
> > If you're not in the mood to concentrate, stay home.
> >

> SNIPPAGE
>
> Yep, I can see that working: "G'day, Boss. I'm not in the mood to
> concentrate so i'm taking the day off coz I musn't
> drive/ride/walk/whatever."


What's your life worth again?
 
T

Travis

Guest
asterope wrote:
> ... and you would be wise to give it up.
>
> thats what i was told by one of the mechanics yesterday when i went to
> pick up my scooter when he asked how i had been getting around.
>
> i was going to ask him to explain his reasoning but didnt feel like
> getting a schpeil so i grabbed by keys and left.


Maybe he was right after all:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/061122_bike_pain.html

Travis
 
T

Travis

Guest
On Dec 1, 9:11 pm, cfsmtb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Travis Wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/061122_bike_pain.html


> A load of bollox being rehashed again, but this time it's for the
> ladieez. Next thing we'll know, medical journals will again be
> publishing Female Hysteria articles. :p


I just find it funny that the article is claiming the OPPOSITE of what
certain 19th century numnuts (pun intended) said cycling was doing to
women... :)

Travis
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-11-30, DaveB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Bleve wrote:
>> Ever notice how there's riders (bike and motor) who crash a lot, and
>> those that don't?

>
> ... cough ... TimC .... cough.
>
> the real reason Tim left Melbourne was the tram tracks. ;)


That and fewer 4WDs out here, would you believe it?

I haven't had a bandicoot incident since coming up here!

--
TimC
"I looked back and bikes and riders were flipping in the air. There
must have been 20-30+ riders in the pile."
-- overheard after Early Bird 4/5 race
 

Similar threads