J
Jon Meinecke
Guest
[newsgroups trimmed]
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote
>
> The problem, of course, is the population failing to conform to
> what is "obviously" true. Naughty population! Bad population!
Human nature. We are notoriously poor at assessing 'obvious'
risk and benefit. Which is more dangerous, a bear or a bee?
It's not about the science or the statistics, it's about PR
(public relations and *perceived* risk). We're sensing
creatures who think, not thinking creatures who sense.
Anyone seen the movie, _What the Bleep Do We Know!?_ ?
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
Recumbent content:
We recumbent cyclists should be discussing hip protection
if not hip waders (appropriate for wading though such
"deep" USENET threads as bike h*lm*ts effectiveness
exchanges inevitably turn out...) Several years ago an
informal survey of ARBR suggested lower body injuries were
most common bicycle-related injuries among newsgroup-
posting recumbent cyclists...
Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote
>
> The problem, of course, is the population failing to conform to
> what is "obviously" true. Naughty population! Bad population!
Human nature. We are notoriously poor at assessing 'obvious'
risk and benefit. Which is more dangerous, a bear or a bee?
It's not about the science or the statistics, it's about PR
(public relations and *perceived* risk). We're sensing
creatures who think, not thinking creatures who sense.
Anyone seen the movie, _What the Bleep Do We Know!?_ ?
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
Recumbent content:
We recumbent cyclists should be discussing hip protection
if not hip waders (appropriate for wading though such
"deep" USENET threads as bike h*lm*ts effectiveness
exchanges inevitably turn out...) Several years ago an
informal survey of ARBR suggested lower body injuries were
most common bicycle-related injuries among newsgroup-
posting recumbent cyclists...
Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx
