New UK trike - oppinions?

[The Late Lament]

watsonglenn wrote:
>
> Well you are a real jerk are'nt you. I never rode the space shuttle either but it look dangerous.
> By the way thanks for allowing me to post on your board. Jerk

And you, Sir, are an ignoramus, and an illiterate one to boot.

> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com

Ah. All becomes clear.

 

[watsonglenn]

And you, Sir, are an ignoramus, and an illiterate one to boot.>>>



Wow. I have seen stupid before but this takes the cake.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 18 Nov 2003, watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote:

(I had written)
>> Oh, teh old "I know it's dangerous because I've never ridden one" argument. Just so long as
>> we're clear there's not actually any rational reasoning behind your opinion, that's fine.
>
> Well you are a real jerk are'nt you.

QED, I think.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Jay]

in article [email protected], watsonglenn at [email protected] wrote on
11/17/03 8:52 PM:

> Ok I will respect your opinion but for the most part, but if you say stuff like that some
> reasoning behind that would be good.>>>
>
> The reason is its so low. I think an adult could take into account the danger of being so low but
> would you want your ten year old riding that thing in the street? It does look fun though.
>
> Otherwise you will be labled the overprotective type that lets your child live a sheltered life.>>
>
> I try and let my kids take chances but this seem a bit much.
>
> Open your mind and don't just bash something for no reason, my nephew has one and for the most
> part he was a bit heavyset, now after having one of these he gets out more and so far has leaned
> out cause it is "cool" and he has made some new "friends" cause he gets out more. >>>
>
> Well I did not mean to "bash it" but the danger seem obvious. How old is your nephew?
>
> Ya I can see all the drawbacks of one of these. But I guess I have just opened a can of worms here
> and should be prepared for a bashing,>>>
>
> No harm done. Like I said I could be wrong. If they send me one I will give it a fair try out.

So you say all this based on how many miles or kilometres on a trike?

 

[watsonglenn]

So you say all this based on how many miles or kilometres on a trike?>>>


Another idiot. Look Jay, I saw the pic of the trike. It looks cool but not the sort of think I would want my under 13 year old riding on the street. Its just to low. You are probably unable to procreate so you would not understand my concern.

I would also be surprised if it was as effective on grass or dirt as a two wheeler. I know something about that since I have built HPVs with high school teams and have seen the difficulty they have going through gravel and rough terrain.

Now if you feel I have to ride the trike to be able to speak about it that seem unreasonable when talking about a trike that is new on the market and not even sold in the US or to adults.

Now buzz off.

 

[Mlb]

watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in news:3fbc141f$1_2 @news.chariot.net.au:

> So you say all this based on how many miles or kilometres on a trike?>>>
>
>
> Another idiot. Look Jay, I saw the pic of the trike. It looks cool but not the sort of think I
> would want my under 13 year old riding on the street. Its just to low. You are probably unable to
> procreate so you would not understand my concern.
>
> I would also be surprised if it was as effective on grass or dirt as a two wheeler. I know
> something about that since I have built HPVs with high school teams and have seen the difficulty
> they have going through gravel and rough terrain.
>
> Now if you feel I have to ride the trike to be able to speak about it that seem unreasonable when
> talking about a trike that is new on the market and not even sold in the US or to adults.
>
> Now buzz off.
>
>
>
> --
>>--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com
>

Yep, you hit every pothole because you certainly can't see something BELOW the ground, or even just
on top of it, right? Um, it's called "field of view" and it means your eyes see ALL the way down to
the ground. Imagine that.

 

[watsonglenn]

Yep, you hit every pothole because you certainly can't see something BELOW the ground, or even just
on top of it, right? Um, it's called "field of view" and it means your eyes see ALL the way down to
the ground. Imagine that.>>>

So you have never heard a driver say, "Well I just did not see him officer." Please!

 

[Dave Larrington]

watsonglenn wrote:

> So you have never heard a driver say, "Well I just did not see him officer." Please!

Frequently. On all kinds of HPV. I'm 6'3" and have been SMIDSYd on an upright bike while lit up like
a Christmas tree. Height off the deck has very little to do with the amount of attention clue-free
cagers pay to cyclists.

I'm also somewhat puzzled as to why the KMX should be dangerous, yet something like the Trice Micro
or MR Swiftlet is not.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[watsonglenn]

Frequently. On all kinds of HPV. I'm 6'3" and have been SMIDSYd on an upright bike while lit up like a Christmas tree. Height off the deck has very little to do with the amount of attention clue-free
cagers pay to cyclists.>>

Thats foolish. Of course a bike that is small and low to the ground is harder to see than an a higher upright. Your postion that this trike is just as easy for a driver to see as a normal bike is not reasonalble.

I'm also somewhat puzzled as to why the KMX should be dangerous, yet something like the Trice Micro
or MR Swiftlet is not.>>

I never mentioned those brands but it is important to note that the UK trike is marketed to kids. Kids are not as safty conscious as adults. Combine the lack of caution with the low profile of the Trike and you have a vehicle that I would not want my kid to ride on the streets. It does look like fun but so did lawn darts.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 22 Nov, watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thats foolish. Of course a bike that is small and low to the ground is harder to see than an a
> higher upright.

That's irrelevant, since both are easy to see. If a motorist can't see both they are not fit to be
driving. Just because something is harder to do doesn't make it hard.

What matters is what is noticed, and any recumbent is noticed much more than any upright. I
generally commute by low recumbent, and have had one 'near miss' in the last year. On a 'normal'
bike I get them at teh rate of about one a month.

Whatever you say, motorists manage to 'see' my low recumbent over 10 times more readily than my
upright bike.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Tom Sherman]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> ... I'm also somewhat puzzled as to why the KMX should be dangerous, yet something like the Trice
> Micro or MR Swiftlet is not.

The Trice Micro is very dangerous to the checking account balance - otherwise I would have one.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[watsonglenn]

That's irrelevant, since both are easy to see. If a motorist can't see both they are not fit to be driving. Just because something is harder to do doesn't make it hard.>>

What? Look I was riding my car the other day and a guy backed into me. He did not see me. Now its possible that as you say he should not be driving but it is also possible that he made a simple human mistake and did not see me. How much more likely is such a mistake when a kid is riding a UK trike? The answer is much more likely.

What matters is what is noticed, and any recumbent is noticed much more than any upright.>>

That is simply foolish. Of course a trike is harder to see. I won't even discuss it further.

I generally commute by low recumbent, and have had one 'near miss' in the last year. On a 'normal' bike I get them at teh rate of about one a month.>>

And you are a grown man with the sense a grown man has not a kid with a new toy bike.

Whatever you say, motorists manage to 'see' my low recumbent over 10 times more readily than my upright bike.>>>

That sort of made up statistic does not alter the undeniable fact that this trike is low and therefore harder to see.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 22 Nov 2003, watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote:

[I had written, but watson doesn't include attributions for some reason]
>> That's irrelevant, since both are easy to see. If a motorist can't see both they are not fit to
>> be driving. Just because something is harder to do doesn't make it hard.
>
> What? Look I was riding my car the other day and a guy backed into me. He did not see me. Now its
> possible that as you say he should not be driving but it is also possible that he made a simple
> human mistake and did not see me. How much more likely is such a mistake when a kid is riding a
> UK trike? The answer is much more likely.

Of course not - this example exactly demonstrates teh error in your argument. Unless you mean to
argue that it's difficult to see your car, because it's so small and low? What happens is that
people don't look, or they just glance without paying attention. A normal bike gets disregarded very
easily - an unusual recumbent doesn't.

>> What matters is what is noticed, and any recumbent is noticed much more than any upright.
>
> That is simply foolish. Of course a trike is harder to see. I won't even discuss it further.

It is simply fact. A low recumbent trike gets overlooked much less frequently than a normal bike.
You can refuse to discuss it, but if you actually tried it, you would find it is true. It is teh
experience of everyone that rides a recumbent that tehy get a _lot_ more notice than when on a
normal bike. Why do you persist in disbelieving real-life experience?

> I generally commute by low recumbent, and have had one 'near miss' in the last year. On a
> 'normal' bike I get them at teh rate of about one a month.
>
> And you are a grown man with the sense a grown man has not a kid with a new toy bike.

We are not talking about teh actions of the rider, we were talking about teh actions of motorists.
Motorists see and avoid a low recumbent much more than a normal bike. The degree of sense teh rider
possesses has no bearing on teh visual acuity of other road users - unless you're going to claim
that having good sense actually makes someone taller. Are you?

>> Whatever you say, motorists manage to 'see' my low recumbent over 10 times more readily than my
>> upright bike.>>>
>
> That sort of made up statistic does not alter the undeniable fact that this trike is low and
> therefore harder to see.

It's not a made up statistic. It's a fact, based on real-world observation over long periods.

Besides which, that argument is irrelevant, as I've said - it may or may not be harder to see, but
the difficulty of seeing it is irrelevant to how other vehicles react ito it. Motorists notice a low
recumbent massively more than a normal bike. I don't know why you persist in maintatining that your
guesswork on teh basis of never having tried it is more accurate than teh daily experience of those
that have.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ian Smith wrote...

"teh" for "the" no less than seven times in one post, and in addition wrote "tehy" for "they".

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[watsonglenn]

We are not talking about the actions of the rider, we were talking about the actions of motorists.>>

I am talking about the safety of kids riding the UK Trike in the real world on the streets filled with SUVs and drivers who don't always pay attention.

It's not a made up statistic. It's a fact, based on real-world observation over long periods.>>

Its not a fact. Its your estimation based on your experiance.

The difficulty of seeing it is irrelevant to how other vehicles react ito it. >>>

How it it irrelevant? If the driver does not see it then he will not react to it.

Motorists notice a low recumbent massively more than a normal bike. I don't know why you persist in maintatining that your
guesswork on teh basis of never having tried it is more accurate than teh daily experience of those
that have.>>

I have a recumbent. A Trek 2000. I will give you the last word. I'm done.

 

[watsonglenn]

Originally posted by Tom Sherman
Ian Smith wrote... "teh" for "the" no less than seven times in one post, and in addition wrote "tehy" for "they".

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Tom Sherman - Planet Earth>>>>



I do the "teh" thing too. Sometimes I even write 'your' instead of "you're." Get a life. By the way there are only 8 'Rs' in "Arrrrrrrrgh."

 

[Ian Smith]

On 23 Nov 2003, watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote: [I wrote, but watson cuts
attributions]:
>> We are not talking about the actions of the rider, we were talking about the actions of
>> motorists.
>
> I am talking about the safety of kids riding the UK Trike in the real world on the streets filled
> with SUVs and drivers who don't always pay attention.

Indeed, and that safety is governed by whether motorists notice teh trike, which they do much more
readily than tehy do a normal bike. What you actually said was that it was unsafe because it
wouldn't be seen - ie, nothing to do with teh behaviour of teh rider. However, even your moving the
goalposts doesn't help your argument.

>> It's not a made up statistic. It's a fact, based on real-world observation over long periods.
>
> Its not a fact. Its your estimation based on your experiance.

It is a fact:

FACT in over a year of riding a low recumbent in commuter traffic I have only had one 'near miss'
incident (being something that would have been a collision if I didn't take evasive action) that
could by teh remotest chance be ascribed to not being seen.

FACT I expect similar incidents at teh rate of about one a month on a normal bike.

Just because it's not an experiment with control, it doesn't make it any less of a fact. Most
statistics are like that, you'll find - they are gathered from real-life experience. If it could be
demonstrated experimentally with a control, it probably wouldn't need statistics, but that doesn't
make it in any way "made up".

>> The difficulty of seeing it is irrelevant to how other vehicles react ito it.
>
> How it it irrelevant? If the driver does not see it then he will not react to it.

Precisely. At last you're starting to see sense. A much higher proportion of motorists fail to react
to a normal bike than fail to react to a low recumbent. Hence, it must be seen - they wouldn't react
if they hadn't seen it. Simple experience indicates that motorists fail to 'see' a normal bike much
more frequently than they fail to 'see' a recumbent. Once you actually get some experience of a low
recumbent on teh roads you will discover this for yourself.

>> Motorists notice a low recumbent massively more than a normal bike. I don't know why you persist
>> in maintatining that your guesswork on teh basis of never having tried it is more accurate than
>> teh daily experience of those that have.
>
> I have a recumbent. A Trek 2000.

Eh?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[William Higley]

It may make little difference in the "real" world of stupid drivers, but our animal friends have
noticed the differences. I have been part of a group of upright bikes that passed several horses in
a field. The horses did not react to the uprights but they bolted when I came by. I had a similar
experience when several of us passed a lady that was walking her llama. The DF's passed without
incident but the llama nearly dragged the lady down the street as I approached.

Before we decide that I must be butt ugly, let me point out that when I have been on my DF the local
livestock does not pay any attention to me.

I see merits to both sides of your arguments. Uniqueness registers very quickly. If we were
surrounded by recumbent trikes all the time, we might be less prone to see those that are lower.
Since recumbent trikes are a rarity in most places they register with us very quickly. I routinely
see cats and don't pay much attention to them, but when I see a skunk of similar proportions alarms
go off in my head.

William Higley, Sr. Vision R-50 RANS Rocket "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 23 Nov 2003, watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote: [I wrote, but watson cuts
> attributions]:
> >> We are not talking about the actions of the rider, we were talking about the actions of
> >> motorists.
> >
> > I am talking about the safety of kids riding the UK Trike in the real world on the streets
> > filled with SUVs and drivers who don't always pay attention.
>
> Indeed, and that safety is governed by whether motorists notice teh trike, which they do much more
> readily than tehy do a normal bike. What you actually said was that it was unsafe because it
> wouldn't be seen - ie, nothing to do with teh behaviour of teh rider. However, even your moving
> the goalposts doesn't help your argument.
>
> >> It's not a made up statistic. It's a fact, based on real-world observation over long periods.
> >
> > Its not a fact. Its your estimation based on your experiance.
>
> It is a fact:
>
> FACT in over a year of riding a low recumbent in commuter traffic I have only had one 'near miss'
> incident (being something that would have been a collision if I didn't take evasive action) that
> could by teh remotest chance be ascribed to not being seen.
>
> FACT I expect similar incidents at teh rate of about one a month on a normal bike.
>
> Just because it's not an experiment with control, it doesn't make it any less of a fact. Most
> statistics are like that, you'll find - they are gathered from real-life experience. If it could
> be demonstrated experimentally with a control, it probably wouldn't need statistics, but that
> doesn't make it in any way "made up".
>
> >> The difficulty of seeing it is irrelevant to how other vehicles react ito it.
> >
> > How it it irrelevant? If the driver does not see it then he will not react to it.
>
> Precisely. At last you're starting to see sense. A much higher proportion of motorists fail to
> react to a normal bike than fail to react to a low recumbent. Hence, it must be seen - they
> wouldn't react if they hadn't seen it. Simple experience indicates that motorists fail to 'see' a
> normal bike much more frequently than they fail to 'see' a recumbent. Once you actually get some
> experience of a low recumbent on teh roads you will discover this for yourself.
>
> >> Motorists notice a low recumbent massively more than a normal bike. I don't know why you
> >> persist in maintatining that your guesswork on teh basis of never having tried it is more
> >> accurate than teh daily experience of those that have.
> >
> > I have a recumbent. A Trek 2000.
>
> Eh?
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 22 Nov, William Higley, Sr. <[email protected]> wrote:

> It may make little difference in the "real" world of stupid drivers, but our animal friends have
> noticed the differences. I have been part of a group of upright bikes that passed several horses
> in a field. The horses did not react to the uprights but they bolted when I came by.

I think that's the same thing, it's just that when a driver sees something they don't recognise they
stop and look, and when a horse does, they run away. I find about 20% of horses really don't like
the trike, and another 20% are somewhat unnerved.

I thought a recumbent may trigger some sub-conscious reaction - something quiet, low and fast
approaching them may well say 'predator' to a horse. However, now I think it's just something they
haven't seen before - I commute past a riding school and commercial stables, which has lots of
horses in fields by teh road, and now all those horses ignore me completely.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[watsonglenn]

I had a similar experience when several of us passed a lady that was walking her llama.>>>

You're making that up A llama? Where do you live, Machu Pichu?