The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just
>> as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to
>> let them.

>
>
> Ignoramus,
>
> I'm better than any car.


You sure emit more than most.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?
>>>
>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be
>>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute
>>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking
>>> power.

>>
>>IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing
>>to let others pay for your care.

>
> As partial compensation for my employment, my employer pays a premium
> to an insurance company so that in the event I become injured or ill,
> the insurance company will pay for my care.


I've got news for you. After a while the insurance company STOPS paying.

>
> Is there some reason I should forgo this benefit if I am injured while
> riding a bicycle without a helmet?


Nobody said you should.

> As opposed to if I am injured
> driving, skydiving, rock climbing, playing football, or base jumping?


>
> Note that it is NOT a feature of the insurance policy that I limit my
> risks to what other policyholders consider "reasonable".


But the policy has a cap. A cap quickly reached for the care of a gomer.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?
>>>
>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be
>>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute
>>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking
>>> power.

>>
>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing
>> to let others pay for your care.

>
> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both
> insurance and taxes.


But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it.

>
>>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways.
>>> Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes
>>> good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle
>>> helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I
>>> have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes),
>>> bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group'
>>> always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless of
>>> their hat wearing status.

>
>> Not proven.

>
> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven.


Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary
bicycle?

> And even the helmet
> zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is
> rather rare.


Not that I've seen.
>
>
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left.

>>
>>
>> The left lane is for traffic coming the other way.

>
> Obviously there is a lot of motorist-motorist passing on 2 lane roads.
> So pass bicyclists similarly.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't
>>>do that, don't drive.

>>
>>
>> Competent, law abiding drivers get stuck behind slower traffic. The
>> only way around that, when the slower traffic is a car, is to break
>> the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane
>> are worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her
>> Buick, and because they could move over to allow a safe pass within
>> the lane, but refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes.

>
> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow.
> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so
> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising
> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use
> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs.


So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane?
Seems like it would be more likely.
 
On Aug 23, 3:30 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]
> > History deleted the thread is getting too long.

>
> Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own.


Rather, here is some propaganda you copied from a site that advocates
mandatory helmets for everyone, of all ages, everywhere. But let's
look at them in context. It will tell you a lot about how the helmet
promotion game is played.

> There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US.


OK. Different people get different numbers, depending on their
definition of "bicycle rider." (Once a week? Once every ten years?)
But OK.

> 784 bicyclists died on US roads in 2005. 92% of them died in crashes
> with motor vehicles (720).


Yep. That compares with roughly 720,000 from heart disease, 540,000
from cancer, 150,000 from strokes, 114,000 from lung diseases - all
of which bicycling can help prevent.

Oh, you want just accidental deaths? Roughly 40,000 motorist deaths.
16,000 from falls. 8,400 from solid or liquid poison. 4,000
drownings. 3,700 from fires or burns. 3,200 from choking. 900
_accidental_ firearm deaths. What's closest to cycling's number? The
fatalities from poison gases, around 600 or so. (Source: World
Almanac)

How much fearmongering do you hear about poison gas deaths? Do you go
around saying "Always wear your gas mask"?

>
> About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every
> year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have
> injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.


Yep. And nearly 700,000 basketball players visit ER rooms every
year. Do you warn everyone about the fact that basketball is many
times more dangerous than bicycling, per hour?

And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, "head injuries" is usually
inflated by including any scrape or cut above the neck, literally
including scratched ears.

Also, note that the 27,000 hospitalized are for _all_ injuries, not
just head injuries, as they're hoping you'll not notice.

> Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority
> are not serious enough for emergency room visits.


??? And we are supposed to worry because most bike crashes involve
nothing but a skinned knee? The only people who worry about missing
the skinned knees are those who wish to inflate the numbers even
more!

> 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.


Unlikely, unless you extend the definition of "brain injury" down to
"briefly dazed." And I'd like to see a source for that number.
Because Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data,"
Transportation Research Record #1168, found that only 6% of ER-
visiting cyclists had "moderate or worse" injuries to the head. And
those injuries must include some moderate or worse injuries that did
not involve the brain - for example, broken facial bones. Your source
website must have ignored Stutts' data.

> Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.


This is often portrayed as being unique to bicycling. In fact, it's
not at all unique. For example, a 1990s German study found that
roughly 75% of motorist fatalities were from traumatic brain injury.
(Sorry, no citation now; I'll dig for it if you want.)

> A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by
> a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.


And, of course, those "estimates" have never materialized in the real
world. (BTW, one notorious paper used Thompson & Rivara's "85%
reduction in [mostly minor] head injuries" to claim that therefore
helmets would prevent 85% of _fatalities_. A specious claim indeed!
But you can be sure your site will cheerfully use that claim!

> Many years of potential life are lost because about half of the deaths
> are children under 15 years old.


Mayer Hillman, of the Policy Studies Institute of London, has
calculated that 20 years of life are _gained_ for every year of life
lost through bicycling. The gains occur because of less obesity, less
heart disease, less diabetes, less pollution, fewer deaths of people
hit by cars (since cyclists almost never kill pedestrians or
motorists), etc.

> Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are
> estimated at $81 million each year.


Such "costs" are universally based on Thompson & Rivara's "85%" claim,
and are therefore trash. But that "cost" is absolutely dwarfed by
costs associated with ailments and injuries that cycling helps
prevent! Look at those death numbers I listed earlier - they give you
an idea of where society's medical money is really going! Again,
bicycling is off the bottom of the list.

FWIW, An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet
legislation in Western Australia by Delia Hendrie et. al., in a paper
presented at the Conference on Road Safety, by the Insurance
Commission of Western Australia, 2000 (IIRC), found that the mandatory
helmet law that caused helmet use to rise to roughly 90% was almost
certainly a money-loser for society. That is, the cost of helmets,
promotion and enforcement probably exceeded the value of the minor
reduction in head injuries. And as the authors noted, that didn't
even account for the costs due to less cycling - those costs being
worse public health, more pollution, etc.

> Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are
> estimated at $2.3 billion each year.


Same comment. And beware the "are estimated" phrase. Who, exactly,
has done the estimating? How was it done? What was there agenda?
And most importantly, how does that number rank compared with other,
much more significant problems?

> Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas
> and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably
> reach 80 per cent,


.... because, of course, white collar commuters read Buycycling
magazine and all the rest of the propaganda. IOW, so what?

> while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10
> per cent or less.


Because they _don't_ read the propaganda, and have to develop sharp
judgment about what is really a necessary expense and what is not.

> Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent.


"Wild guess" does characterize much of the data on that site!

> Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in
> effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in
> one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the
> School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per
> cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001.


This is terrible news, IF your objective is to sell helmets - and that
is the objective of that site. But really, if 335 out of 359 families
judge that a helmet isn't necessary, why are you trying to convince
them otherwise? Are you _really_ smarter than all of them?

If you really want to give terrible news, list the number of
permanently or fatally brain injured cyclists per year in those
areas. But of course, they won't do that. Such tiny numbers would
send the wrong message!

> Helmets are cheap. The typical discount store price has risen from
> under $10 to about $15, but there are still models available for under
> $10 at major retailers.


And our bicycle club has given away police-recovered bikes to many low
income families who couldn't afford even a thrift store bike. There
really, really are people out there who can't waste $10 on a helmet -
and trust me, they know it would be a waste!

Overall, helmet promoters thrive on giving scary numbers taken out of
context. America is a huge country; it's easy to find large-sounding
numbers. They mean very little unless you make comparisons.

Want more numbers? Try this: Visit http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
and take the quiz. It's all about numbers in context.

- Frank Krygowski
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:


>> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow.
>> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so
>> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising
>> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use
>> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs.


> So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane?
> Seems like it would be more likely.


But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if that
happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists
brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be.
 
On Aug 23, 9:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

>
> >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated
> >> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?

>
> > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it
> > through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs
> > that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power.

>
> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to
> let others pay for your care.


OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the
past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and
his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right
to know!!!!

;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 23, 3:30 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> > See the message below.

>
> We are not all using google groups.... this is usenet not some webforum
> get with the program.


Get to a conclusion then! Leave only your bike group in the list and
quit bothering us, you communist.
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 23, 6:25 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> > Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years.

>
> Do you ever have anything constructive to post? ever?


Si!

I have no patience or sympathy myself.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be
>>>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute
>>>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking
>>>> power.
>>>
>>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing
>>> to let others pay for your care.

>>
>> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both
>> insurance and taxes.

>
> But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it.


Considering the income insurance companies have had on my preimums in
addition to the premiums and the taxes I've paid, I could get hurt
seriously before even getting close to break even.

>>>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways.
>>>> Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes
>>>> good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle
>>>> helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I
>>>> have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes),
>>>> bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group'
>>>> always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless of
>>>> their hat wearing status.

>>
>>> Not proven.

>>
>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven.

>
> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary
> bicycle?


How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.

>> And even the helmet
>> zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is
>> rather rare.


> Not that I've seen.


My brother got hurt when we were kids. I've had a couple skinned knees.
That's it. I've never required medical attention other than my own from
anything bicycle related. My worst bicycle related injury came from when
I slipped with the screwdrive while repairing my bicycle in the living
room of the apartment I rented at the time.
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 23, 8:18 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

>
> >> Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just
> >> as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to
> >> let them.

>
> > Ignoramus,

>
> > I'm better than any car.

>
> You sure emit more than most.


You smell bad too. Wipe
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 23, 9:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 23, 9:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

>
> > >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated
> > >> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?

>
> > > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it
> > > through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs
> > > that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power.

>
> > IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to
> > let others pay for your care.

>
> OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the
> past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and
> his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right
> to know!!!!
>
> ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski


So we can kill you faster.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow.
>>> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so
>>> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising
>>> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use
>>> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs.

>
>> So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane?
>> Seems like it would be more likely.

>
> But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if
> that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists
> brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be.
>


Quite true! My one experience with a brush passer - some 49 years ago -
put me in a ditch. And the SOB kept going. I always attributed it to the
fact that I was riding in Michigan.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 23, 9:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

>>
>> >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>> >> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?

>>
>> > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be
>> > it through private insurance or government are used to distribute
>> > costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking
>> > power.

>>
>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing
>> to let others pay for your care.

>
> OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the
> past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and
> his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right
> to know!!!!


Are you aware that insurance companies are asking a lot of those
questions now. They really Are. Not so much with group plans, but try to
get an individual plan with untreated high cholesterol.

>
> ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>>>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses'
>>>>> be it through private insurance or government are used to
>>>>> distribute costs that the self appointed control freaks use to
>>>>> justify taking power.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE
>>>> willing to let others pay for your care.
>>>
>>> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both
>>> insurance and taxes.

>>
>> But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it.

>
> Considering the income insurance companies have had on my preimums in
> addition to the premiums and the taxes I've paid, I could get hurt
> seriously before even getting close to break even.


Have you priced the cost of health care lately?

>
>>>>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways.
>>>>> Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes
>>>>> good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle
>>>>> helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries
>>>>> (I have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes),
>>>>> bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group'
>>>>> always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless
>>>>> of their hat wearing status.
>>>
>>>> Not proven.
>>>
>>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven.

>>
>> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary
>> bicycle?

>
> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.


Which you can do on a stationary bike. And the stationary bike will give
you a much better cardio-vascular workout. If you're afraid of falling
off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch cushions
or pillows.

>
>>> And even the helmet
>>> zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is
>>> rather rare.

>
>> Not that I've seen.

>
> My brother got hurt when we were kids. I've had a couple skinned
> knees. That's it. I've never required medical attention other than my
> own from anything bicycle related. My worst bicycle related injury
> came from when I slipped with the screwdrive while repairing my
> bicycle in the living room of the apartment I rented at the time.


Aren't you lucky.

>
>
>
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:

>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.

>
> Which you can do on a stationary bike. And the stationary bike will give
> you a much better cardio-vascular workout.


Before I started riding my bike again, I used to ride my stationary bike
daily for 45 minutes. When I purchased my bike, and tried to ride it
back to my place (about 7.5 miles), it took me over an hour and I had to
take the bus for the remaining 2 miles. These days, I make the entire
trip in about 30 minutes give or take.

A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any
stationary bike. FWIW, the last time I rode my stationary bike (while
my real bike was in the bike shop), I had to pedal a bit faster to even
keep my heart rate up to 85% of max as compared to before I started
riding the real bike again.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow.
>>> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so
>>> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising
>>> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use
>>> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs.

>
>> So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane?
>> Seems like it would be more likely.

>
> But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if
> that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists
> brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be.


I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so paranoid
about being passed too closely that they advocate moving left ("taking the
lane") even when it's not only completely unjustified but also highly
ill-advised.

This works great...until the day it doesn't.

Bill "I take the lane out of necessity, not out of fear OR to prove a silly
point" S.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily
>>> life.

>>
>> Which you can do on a stationary bike. And the stationary bike will
>> give you a much better cardio-vascular workout.

>
> Before I started riding my bike again, I used to ride my stationary
> bike daily for 45 minutes. When I purchased my bike, and tried to
> ride it back to my place (about 7.5 miles), it took me over an hour
> and I had to take the bus for the remaining 2 miles. These days, I
> make the entire trip in about 30 minutes give or take.
>
> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any
> stationary bike.


Not if you have the proper stionary bike. You can't ride up reasonably
steep hill if you do your real biking in Northern Ohio.

> FWIW, the last time I rode my stationary bike (while
> my real bike was in the bike shop), I had to pedal a bit faster to
> even keep my heart rate up to 85% of max as compared to before I
> started riding the real bike again.
>
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

> Have you priced the cost of health care lately?


Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately?

>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.


> Which you can do on a stationary bike.


No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere.

> And the stationary bike will give
> you a much better cardio-vascular workout.


Doubtful.

> If you're afraid of falling
> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch cushions
> or pillows.


You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone else
share his fear by wearing a foam hat.

> Aren't you lucky.


Rather typical to unlucky actually. The scrapes I've gotten, all but one
were because of the willful actions of a motorist.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:

> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so paranoid
> about being passed too closely that they advocate moving left ("taking the
> lane") even when it's not only completely unjustified but also highly
> ill-advised.


You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes is that they
cause all sorts of intersection asshattery, are usually done half-assedly
(see chicago), cause drivers to think that bicyclists can only be in
bicycle lane and on roads with them (makes left turns difficult), and
lastly the painted line is assumed to be a barrier (magical I guess) so the
result is often closer passing motorists. (especially with chicago's bike
lanes where one can ride on the line or be well within the door zone)