Some grim cycling stats

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Per Greens:

Quoted message said:

The stats about walking claim it's more dangerous than
cycling, but it's very easy to make walking one of the safest activities
you
can do.

My observation (based on family/friends) is that if one is really
heavy, walking can use up the hip/knee cartilage prematurely.
--
PeteCresswell

Getting older doesn't help the situation either. Generally speaking in the
USA people get older and heavier. Not a good combination. Walking doesn't
burn enough calories. Cycling does, but it's not as safe as walking in the
woods. Now I'm cycling in the woods, but the roads are a constant
temptation. I like their openness and of course there are so many more roads
than trails.

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Instead of explaining, you attack self esteem. You're just a garden
variety flamer at this point, Frank.

ITYM "condescending bully" and/or "pompous gasbag". HTH

Yea. Do you think there's any chance of changing his mind?
Personally, I think if the lurkers that disagreed with him came out and
spoke up it would help. My feeling is there's a very vocal minority here and
huge apathetic majority.

Greens said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

> - Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Instead of explaining, you attack self esteem. You're just a garden
variety flamer at this point, Frank.

ITYM "condescending bully" and/or "pompous gasbag". HTH

Yea. Do you think there's any chance of changing his mind?
Personally, I think if the lurkers that disagreed with him came out
and spoke up it would help. My feeling is there's a very vocal
minority here and huge apathetic majority.

I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You make Wayne
Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That Frank's a blind, rude
ideologue who resorts to personal attack when anyone disputes his highly
disputable and misleading claims doesn't mean that you're not wrong and
often silly. (Sounds nicer than "stupid".)

Sorry.

Bill Sornson said:

I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You make Wayne
Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That Frank's a blind, rude
ideologue who resorts to personal attack when anyone disputes his highly
disputable and misleading claims doesn't mean that you're not wrong and
often silly. (Sounds nicer than "stupid".)

You are a lurker, except when you are a stalker. Often, like in the
above post, you attack people, such as myself, unprovoked. You like to
take threads off topic, and like to engage in off topic banter when
someone else has taken it off topic. You're very good at distorting what
others have said. AFAIK, you've never published anything of interest or
useful to anyone regarding bicycling, but you love to come across as an
expert. You're an ignoramus.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Bill Sornson said:

I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You
make Wayne Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That
Frank's a blind, rude ideologue who resorts to personal attack when
anyone disputes his highly disputable and misleading claims doesn't
mean that you're not wrong and often silly. (Sounds nicer than
"stupid".)

You are a lurker, except when you are a stalker. Often, like in the
above post, you attack people, such as myself, unprovoked.

"Attack" = "dare to disagree" in Peni's World of Paranoia!

Off to ride...lidded and mostly (60% or so) bike laned!

LOL HAND LOL

Wayne Pein said:

Bill Sornson said:

I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You make Wayne
Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That Frank's a blind, rude
ideologue who resorts to personal attack when anyone disputes his highly
disputable and misleading claims doesn't mean that you're not wrong and
often silly. (Sounds nicer than "stupid".)

You are a lurker, except when you are a stalker. Often, like in the
above post, you attack people, such as myself, unprovoked. You like to
take threads off topic, and like to engage in off topic banter when
someone else has taken it off topic. You're very good at distorting what
others have said. AFAIK, you've never published anything of interest or
useful to anyone regarding bicycling, but you love to come across as an
expert. You're an ignoramus.

I'm sorry, Wayne, but I have to show you're sort of wrong on one
point.

You said that, as far as you know, Bill Sornson never published
anything useful regarding bicycling. Well, if we can count posting
to r.b.tech as (loosely) "publishing," then Bill did once post
something useful!

I think it was last week. A person had a slow leak they couldn't
find. Bill told them to just change the tube.

Granted, it wasn't much - but by Bill's usual standards, it was
brilliant!! ;-)

(Now don't get all puffed up, Bill. It's still true that your posts
read like they were written by Paris Hilton.)

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry, Wayne, but I have to show you're sort of wrong on one
point.

You said that, as far as you know, Bill Sornson never published
anything useful regarding bicycling. Well, if we can count posting
to r.b.tech as (loosely) "publishing," then Bill did once post
something useful!

I think it was last week. A person had a slow leak they couldn't
find. Bill told them to just change the tube.

Granted, it wasn't much - but by Bill's usual standards, it was
brilliant!! ;-)

Hmmmm. You may be correct. OTOH, changing the tube without determing the
leak source is the measure of last resort and may result in a subsequent
flat on the new tube. But at least it's not completely opposite wrong :-)

A difficult to find leak is sometimes from chaffing. I recently found a
very slow leak near the presta valve, probably the result of grit
getting in the rim hole from rain riding and eventually wearing the tube.

Wayne

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish
> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia.
How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer?

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report
back to us?
While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes,
lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls
around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases?
I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched
all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the
research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while
with your phobias.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get
killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that
everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit
those
killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a
year
cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see
a
stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury
like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a
penalty
for cycling a few months a year.

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your
extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a
wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate
you.

Greens said:

I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme
lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess.
Maybe you meant to use another word.

I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million
which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with
Frank).

Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for
example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish
>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia.
> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer?

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report
back to us?
While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes,
lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls
around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases?
I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched
all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the
research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while
with your phobias.
"Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get
> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that
> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit
> those
> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a
> year
> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see
> a
> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury
> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a
> penalty
> for cycling a few months a year.

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your
extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a
wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate
you.

Greens said:

I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme
lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess.
Maybe you meant to use another word.

I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million
which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with
Frank).

Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for
example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous.

Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population,
though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I
saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the
fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed
by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live
great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare
the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster.
-- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population,
though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I
saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the
fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed
by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live
great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare
the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster.

Yeah, but just think what the fatality rate would be if the
ocean was filled with plugged-in toasters!

Ben
We have to fight toasterrorism there or we'll
be fighting it here.

Jay Beattie said:

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

>> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish
>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia.
>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer?
<[email hidden]> wrote
> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report
> back to us?
> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes,
> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls
> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases?
> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched
> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the
> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while
> with your phobias.
> "Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get
>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that
>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit
>> those
>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a
>> year
>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see
>> a
>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury
>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a
>> penalty
>> for cycling a few months a year.
<[email hidden]> wrote
> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your
> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a
> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate
> you.

Greens said:

I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme
lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess.
Maybe you meant to use another word.

I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million
which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with
Frank).

Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for
example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous.

Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population,
though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I
saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the
fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed
by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live
great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare
the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster.
-- Jay Beattie.

By the same token, almost everybody these days is immune to bicycle
fatalities.

I was once swimming off my boat in the middle of Buzzard's Bay (Cape
Cod), reassuring myself that the last reported shark fatality was in
1934. Then I had the chilling thought that maybe nobody had swum in the
middle of the bay since 1934...

Jay Beattie said:

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

>> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish
>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia.
>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer?
<[email hidden]> wrote
> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report
> back to us?
> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes,
> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls
> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases?
> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched
> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the
> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while
> with your phobias.
> "Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get
>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that
>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit
>> those
>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a
>> year
>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see
>> a
>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury
>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a
>> penalty
>> for cycling a few months a year.
<[email hidden]> wrote
> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your
> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a
> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate
> you.

Greens said:

I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme
lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess.
Maybe you meant to use another word.

I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million
which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with
Frank).

Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for
example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous.

Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population,
though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I
saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the
fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed
by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live
great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare
the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster.
-- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Another damned toaster apologist!

Are you retained by the Amityville city council to keep the beaches
open?

If toasters are so harmless, why do we say, "He's toast!" when someone
is utterly defeated?

Fortunately, there's a web page dedicated to countering your lies:

http://www.smthop.com/articles1details.asp?NewsNum=510

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish
>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia.
> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer?

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report
back to us?
While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes,
lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls
around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases?
I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched
all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the
research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while
with your phobias.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get
> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that
> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit
> those
> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a
> year
> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to
> see a
> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious
> injury
> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a
> penalty
> for cycling a few months a year.

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your
extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a
wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate
you.

Greens said:

I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme
lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I
guess. Maybe you meant to use another word.

I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million
which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with
Frank).

Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for
example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

So now cycling is safe in comparison to motoring and doing hard drugs. That
may be, but how does the high of cycling compare to the high of crystal
meth? 99 out of 100 crystal meth users will tell you the drugs are better.
Stick your bicycle up your ass.

quote=''On Sep 14 said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

So what, we are still the number one country in the world. Who cares
if our infant mortality is higher, if the rate of people w/o health
insurance is higher, the number of people in jail is higher, if the
educational achievement is lower, if the cyclist death rate is higher
and if environmental abuse is higher.

We are number one, numero uno EZE! Kings of the road! More macho. We
are free! We have more guns! We have better, faster, more macho
airplanes and bombs that can kill more people.

Those European countries that you mention are all wussy communists
countries. We are free Americans and we kick ass. Plus the people that
die on bike accidents are probably wimpy environment loving commies
that got what they deserved. God took care of them in a Hummer!

Andres[/QUOTE]

So why don't you go and blow someone away right now to celebrate your freedom. Hopefully your post was laced with sarcasm.
🙁

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

A Muzi said:

>>> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish
>>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia.
>>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer?
> <[email hidden]> wrote
>> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report
>> back to us?
>> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes,
>> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls
>> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases?
>> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched
>> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the
>> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while
>> with your phobias.
>> "Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get
>>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that
>>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit
>>> those
>>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a
>>> year
>>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see
>>> a
>>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury
>>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a
>>> penalty
>>> for cycling a few months a year.
> <[email hidden]> wrote
>> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your
>> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a
>> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate
>> you.
Greens wrote:
> I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme
> lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess.
> Maybe you meant to use another word.

I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million
which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with
Frank).

Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for
example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous.

Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population,
though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I
saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the
fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed
by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live
great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare
the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster.

Another damned toaster apologist!

Are you retained by the Amityville city council to keep the beaches
open?

If toasters are so harmless, why do we say, "He's toast!" when someone
is utterly defeated?

Fortunately, there's a web page dedicated to countering your lies:

http://www.smthop.com/articles1details.asp?NewsNum=510

"This year toasters have killed nearly ten times more
people worldwide than the deadly polio virus, and no
one disputes what a terrible plague polio has been on
society."

Toaster fatalities are classified under Stupidity.
Poliomyeletis is an infectious disease. Failure to
inoculate against it by parents is gross negligence,
not stupidity.

I disagree with the entire thrust of the article.
Will the gene pool miss these people?

--
Michael Press

pour encourager les autres