S
Stephen Harding
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 11:36 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
>>>>>do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
>>>>>around here suck.
>>
>>>>That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
>>>>indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!
>>
>>>>If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
>>>>of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.
>>
>>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>>>That wouldn't be a fair way of measuring. Much of the damage done to
>>>cars by bikes is of the hit & run variety. It could be they kicked
>>>the car and split, they just refused to exchange info, or a million
>>>other circumstances. When your car is damaged by another car there is
>>>usually insurance involved, accident reports filed, etc. If you hit
>>>my *truck* (just playing with you Frank) with your car and damage a
>>>panel, there's a fairly good chance I'll use some or all of the
>>>insurance money to repair the truck. If a bicycle hits my truck, the
>>>only way for it to be repaired on the offender's dime is if they stop
>>>and give me their info willingly, if they're so injured they need
>>>medical attention, or an officer happens to witness it and apprehend
>>>the cyclist. Two of those three circumstances seem quite unlikely.
>>>The exception, the cyclist being so injured they need medical
>>>attention, is likely to somehow cause me a bunch of headache even if
>>>they were at fault.
>>
>>So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>
>
> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
> what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
> bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?
The apparent implication that all the hit and run bicyclist damage
might be greater than damage to cars than by other cars.
The hit-and-run bicycle scenario seemed a stretch.
SMH
> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 11:36 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
>>>>>do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
>>>>>around here suck.
>>
>>>>That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
>>>>indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!
>>
>>>>If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
>>>>of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.
>>
>>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>>>That wouldn't be a fair way of measuring. Much of the damage done to
>>>cars by bikes is of the hit & run variety. It could be they kicked
>>>the car and split, they just refused to exchange info, or a million
>>>other circumstances. When your car is damaged by another car there is
>>>usually insurance involved, accident reports filed, etc. If you hit
>>>my *truck* (just playing with you Frank) with your car and damage a
>>>panel, there's a fairly good chance I'll use some or all of the
>>>insurance money to repair the truck. If a bicycle hits my truck, the
>>>only way for it to be repaired on the offender's dime is if they stop
>>>and give me their info willingly, if they're so injured they need
>>>medical attention, or an officer happens to witness it and apprehend
>>>the cyclist. Two of those three circumstances seem quite unlikely.
>>>The exception, the cyclist being so injured they need medical
>>>attention, is likely to somehow cause me a bunch of headache even if
>>>they were at fault.
>>
>>So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>
>
> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
> what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
> bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?
The apparent implication that all the hit and run bicyclist damage
might be greater than damage to cars than by other cars.
The hit-and-run bicycle scenario seemed a stretch.
SMH