Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



Jay Beattie wrote:
> Plenty of racers were wearing SkidLids and Bell Bikers by the end
> of the '70s when I raced in NorCal, certainly not the majority,
> though. By 1988, foam only helmets were popular and used by a
> good portion of all the pack, at least in the Oregon District.
> Maybe the big boys were helmetless, but a lot of the racers were
> wearing helmets long before the USCF helmet rule. I was racing
> when helmets were rare and later when they became mandatory, and
> I do not recall any increase in risk-taking behavior.


The increase in risk-taking behavior I saw concerned an influx of Tri
Freds, which continued from the early 80's. That would include the
roadies who raced in the same races, of course. I remember seeing an ad
ca. '82 for elbow pads, and hip pads. Cringe. Imagine a field full of
padded cat IV's. --TP
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Did you miss this: "Based on our previously data about usage, there
> were 1,600 hours, 23,000 miles, 37,000 kilometers, and 9.9 years
> between injuries of this degree"?


No I didn't miss that, I qouted that, you tard.

>'Degree' was a 'real' injury of any
> sort that required at least a couple of days to heal. Meaning ROAD
> RASH!


No, those figures refer to "injuries as severe as
a puncture wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple
injuries." Kifer found that cyclists were 19 times as
likely to exerience an injury of this severity than
were car drivers over the same distance. When the more
minor injuries are included (here ya go--ROAD RASH!),
cyclists were 33 times as likely to be injured, according
to Kifer's survey.

> Furthermore his sampling was of 231 riders OF WHOM all stumbled across
> his test on his website. This implies a VERY highly specialized group
> composed mostly of seasoned riders.


Maybe you are right, although average total miles for the
American riders in the survey was only 25,000.

I'm having a hard time figuring what you are trying to
convince me of here, but you should also consider that
the 'seasoned riders' are much less likely to have an
accident or be injured--the beginning rider carries
5 times the risk of 10-year rider, according to Forester.
Something like that seems to be evident in Real Life
for those who care to notice. So if Kifer's website
attracted mainly 'seasoned riders,' we can deduce that
the accident rate would be noticeably greater across
the whole population of cyclists.

> And you'll note that his findings agreed closely with those previously
> published by the LAW.


They're definitely in the same ballpark as other major
accident surveys. I know about those surveys that used
LAW members, but I was not aware that LAW had published
their own work. Got a citation?

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:

> IOW, in your continuing effort to prove that cycling is dangerous, you
> mentioned your approximation for the fatality count for cyclists since
> "the early 1970s."


'IOW'!! Yeah, you could say that.

Once again, my motivation is not to 'prove that cycling
is dangerous'--my motivation is to have an honest
discussion about safety issues. In that regard you
are pretty much useless.

> If you don't think fatality count is a good way to determine danger,
> I'd suggest you stop bringing it up.


If I wanted to 'prove that cycling is dangerous,' I
would focus on the injury statistics, not the fatality
statistics.

You can't have it both ways Frank. You can't compare
cycling and basketball in terms of injuries while
forbidding any comparison based on fatalities. Likewise,
you can't compare cycling and driving in terms of
fatality rate while forbidding any comparison of the
different injury rates.


> > >I compare with the fatality counts from other
> > > activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.

> >
> > Compared to other forms of traffic, you mean?

>
> Yes, compared to being a pedestrian, a motorist or a motorcyclist. I
> don't doubt that there are fewer basketball fatalities. But you can't
> possibly doubt that there are many more pedestrian fatalities and many
> more motoring fatalities. So if you use fatality counts to "prove"
> cycling is dangerous, you'll have to admit walking anywhere around
> traffic is FAR more dangerous. Driving is even worse.


I don't think you have the data to make that
determination, which would not be based on a mere
tabulation of the dead. You would have to determine
the rate of fatality for each activity, ideally on
a per-hour (or, arguably, per-mile) basis.


> > I notice you really don't like the idea of comparing
> > basketball and cycling in terms of fatalies.

>
> I really don't mind. I've never heard anyone say "Cycling is obviously
> very dangerous, since it causes more fatalities than basketball."
> Granted, you seem to be implying that, but even you know it's too silly
> to state explicitly.


You actually wrote that.

> > I agree
> > that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
> > rate to driving or walking near traffic,

>
> Ah! Progress!


What 'progress?' I've been saying exactly that for
years.


> > although
> > it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
> > that rate of injury is much higher for cycling.

>
> More accurately, the rate of minor injury. (There's a lot of deja vu
> around here.)


That's not exactly what the Kifer survey shows.

> > But
> > how much should we care about this? because as
> > you will be quick to point out the majority of these
> > injuries are fairly inconsequential(ER visits being
> > a distinct subset within total injuries, comprising
> > just 10-20% of total injuries).

>
> Indeed. More progress!


Again, open your ears. There's nothing new there. You
might have misread that--notice I said ER visits was
a distinct subset. Within that subset, your insistence
that most ER visits are for things like 'skinned knees'
is still a massive load of ****.


> >
> > > You've come in here before and - just as above - given a scary number
> > > out of context.


The context was your comparison of basketball and
cycling. If you can't defend it, don't bring it up.


> > As soon as you stop making **** up, I will stop
> > calling you on it.

>
> :) I've _got_ to wonder why you forget what you posted so recently!


I was talking about you making other **** up.

> > > The vast majority of Americans are not in any way afraid of motoring.
> > > They judge the danger level of motoring to be acceptably low. Or in
> > > common parlance, they judge driving to be safe.

> >
> > Most Americans think driving is safe. Therefore, driving
> > is safe. Hard as it is to believe, that REALLY IS your
> > argument.

>
> I'll try to patiently explain once more.
>
> The word "dangerous" is not an absolute judgement. It's relative.
> There is an infinite number of activities that could, in principle, be
> ranked from most dangerous to least dangerous, in infinitesmal steps,
> using different metrics. There is no official boundary line separating
> the "safe" activities from the "dangerous" ones.
>
> And you can't ask the average American "Is an activity that causes 0.5
> fatalites per million hours 'dangerous'?" Americans, on average, are
> not good enough with math to really understand the question, let alone
> judge the answer.
>
> So you're better off doing it by comparison with another common
> activity. But what should you compare with? In America, essentially
> everyone drives. Everyone knows death and serious injury is at least
> possible in a car. But everyone rides in cars with very little fear.
> IOW, everyone accepts the injury and fatality rate of driving as
> acceptably safe.
>
> Of course, my point in all this is that cycling is at least as safe as
> motoring (yes, except for minor scrapes) if you look at serious data.


Are you willfully forgetting Kifer's survey? The one
you claimed to help with.

> You can attempt to prove this wrong. You can come up with a sufficient
> list of normal Americans who will say "Oh, I think driving is _very_
> dangerous! But I load my family into my car and drive anyway, shaking
> all the way!" Good luck on that one, BTW.


> Now if you disagree, you might say exactly why. If it's just that
> you're afraid of riding in cars, say so, and we'll understand your
> mindset a lot better. If it's that you are dedicated to disparaging
> cycling (as I am dedicated to promoting it) be honest about it. But
> tell us why.


Again with the 'disparaging cycling.' Could you please
provide some quotes of me 'disparaging cycling' so the
folks at home, and me, can figure out what the hell
you're talking about?

Couldn't help but noticing that 'Frank Krygowski,'
the self-proclaimed devotee of solid comparative
numerical statistical evidence, offers absolutely
none of that when heavily involved in the defense of
his rather astounding proclamation: "Driving is safe."

Frank you are describing 'cognitive dissonance,' then
using it as the basis of your entire argument. Seems
a bit odd.

Robert
 
An anonymous bike messenger wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > IOW, in your continuing effort to prove that cycling is dangerous, you
> > mentioned your approximation for the fatality count for cyclists since
> > "the early 1970s."

>
> 'IOW'!! Yeah, you could say that.


Well, seriously, why did you choose to give the number of cycling
fatalities from 1973, or whenever? Why not just give the number of
fatalities for any recent year? If you'd done that, we could easily
have compared with other activities.

ISTM you must have done it to give a scarier number. If you had
another motive, PLEASE tell us what it was.

>
> Once again, my motivation is not to 'prove that cycling
> is dangerous'--my motivation is to have an honest
> discussion about safety issues. In that regard you
> are pretty much useless.


You quote fatalities, and say cycling is dangerous. I quote other
fatalities in comparison, to show it's not.

You quote ER visits, and say cycling is dangerous. I quote other ER
visits in comparison, to show it's not.

Those are honest comparisons. Why do you complain?

> You can't have it both ways Frank. You can't compare
> cycling and basketball in terms of injuries while
> forbidding any comparison based on fatalities. Likewise,
> you can't compare cycling and driving in terms of
> fatality rate while forbidding any comparison of the
> different injury rates.


The "have it both ways" is a distortion only in your own mind. Neither
basketball, nor driving, nor walking are generally thought of as
dangerous activities. Neither beds nor sofas are generally thought of
as dangerous objects.

Cycling's ER visits are comparable to basketball, beds and sofas.
Cycling's fatality rates per hour are comparable to driving or walking.

Cycling causes more minor injuries than driving, I'm sure. If minor
injuries bother you, don't cycle. But don't dissuade others from
cycling based on minor injuries! What's the good of that?


> > So if you use fatality counts to "prove"
> > cycling is dangerous, you'll have to admit walking anywhere around
> > traffic is FAR more dangerous. Driving is even worse.

>
> I don't think you have the data to make that
> determination,...


I know. You've made it clear that you think the data is faulty
because... well, _certainly_ not because it's not corroborated! We
have about seven different agencies that arrived at comparable numbers.
You refuse to believe any of the numbers since these government
agencies or for-profit research firms in different countries didn't
tell us exactly how they got their data - or, perhaps, because the data
says you're wrong!

If you think the data from all seven agencies are in error, I suggest
you either come up with per-hour figures that you think are correct, or
explain the specific errors. For me, when seven different agencies
examine the same issue, using different national data, and reach the
same conclusion, it seems reasonably convincing.

In summary, get per-hour data that proves me wrong. Don't just say "I
don't believe your cited data from seven sources."

> > > I agree
> > > that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
> > > rate to driving or walking near traffic,

> >
> > Ah! Progress!

>
> What 'progress?' I've been saying exactly that for
> years.


??? Here? Well, if so, fine. I guess I missed it.


> > I'll try to patiently explain once more.
> >
> > The word "dangerous" is not an absolute judgement. It's relative.
> > There is an infinite number of activities that could, in principle, be
> > ranked from most dangerous to least dangerous, in infinitesmal steps,
> > using different metrics. There is no official boundary line separating
> > the "safe" activities from the "dangerous" ones.
> >
> > And you can't ask the average American "Is an activity that causes 0.5
> > fatalites per million hours 'dangerous'?" Americans, on average, are
> > not good enough with math to really understand the question, let alone
> > judge the answer.
> >
> > So you're better off doing it by comparison with another common
> > activity. But what should you compare with? In America, essentially
> > everyone drives. Everyone knows death and serious injury is at least
> > possible in a car. But everyone rides in cars with very little fear.
> > IOW, everyone accepts the injury and fatality rate of driving as
> > acceptably safe.
> >
> > Of course, my point in all this is that cycling is at least as safe as
> > motoring (yes, except for minor scrapes) if you look at serious data.

>
> Are you willfully forgetting Kifer's survey? The one
> you claimed to help with.


No, I'm not. But I seem to be much more aware of the problems of
self-selected survey respondents than you are.


> Couldn't help but noticing that 'Frank Krygowski,'
> the self-proclaimed devotee of solid comparative
> numerical statistical evidence, offers absolutely
> none of that when heavily involved in the defense of
> his rather astounding proclamation: "Driving is safe."


Re-read the paragraphs I wrote in my previous post. I left them quoted
above. I'm talking about public perception, as I made clear. That is,
I'm noting that the general public does not fear traveling in cars.
And as I made clear, there is no official numerical definition of
"safe" or "dangerous." It can only be discussed by comparison with
other activities.

If you want to use numerical data to cause the public to fear motoring,
have at it! I won't argue. In fact, you provided some nice numbers
for that idea near the end of our last discussion.

My problem is your continuing habit of trying to get people to fear
cycling. Again, your motivation baffles me. It's hard not to see that
effort as detrimental to cycling.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > My problem is your continuing habit of trying to get people to fear
> > cycling.

>
> The logical fallacy of the strawman does not improve your position.


I think you're unaware of the history of this discussion.

I've been saying for a long, long time that ordinary cycling (that is,
excluding crit racing, gonzo downhilling, etc.) is acceptably safe.
See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm for
example.

Our anonymous bike messenger keeps saying I'm wrong. He routinely
quotes whatever scary numbers he can find regarding bicycling. He
almost always states them without comparative numbers for other
activities. To me, that seems like an effort to get people to fear
cycling.

I've searched for another reason that he might spend his time quoting
"bike danger" statistics. I haven't come up with one. Perhaps you
have an explanation?

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My problem is your continuing habit of trying to get people to fear
> > > cycling.

> >
> > The logical fallacy of the strawman does not improve your position.

>
> I think you're unaware of the history of this discussion.


I've read every post, so I think you're just plain wrong.

His position does not implicitly or explicitly state that people should
fear cycling.

That's your strawman.

E.P.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Since you didn't follow the conversation correctly, your extensive
> proof that I also say other things was time wasted.


Wasted in trying to get you to take some honest pride in your work,
Frank.

> Sorry, you're misunderstanding once again.


Stonewalling.

> The "lab rat" reference was intended only to mean "subject of study."


Juxtaposing subject with insulting term of description. "Those people
were lab rats".

> > Then there's always the time you vented your helmet-hating spleen on me
> > to tell me my daughter wouldn't leave the house before she was forty
> > since I made her wear a bike helmet. What do you call that, Frank?

>
> Um... a lie?


The short, convenient memory of of Frank Krygowski?:

(This ng):

[Posted by]Frank Krygowki Nov 18 2000, 1:00 am

(Dustoyevsky wrote):
> And if I make
> my kids put on helmets (and knee pads while they're learning, and elbow
> pads, too--thanks for the suggestion!) does that make me a "hand
> wringer" in your book, really, or was that just a little extra,
> gratuitous insult you couldn't help but slip in there?


(Frank Krygowski replied, possible extra <>'s from me):

<For the record, if you make your kid cycle in knee pads, elbow pads
and
a helmet, then YES, you definitely qualify as a "hand-wringer" in my
book.

<If you're to be consistent, you should never, ever let your child swim

without water wings. You should never let your child climb a tree.
You
should never let her cross a street without holding your hand. You
should never let her on a playground that doesn't have a soft padded
ground surface. You should never let her play out of sight of your
watchful eyes.

<All of these things are serious warnings I've seen in print at least
once. Heed them all - and pay the consequences of raising a child who
has never learned to handle the slightest risk.

<I actually know a family that adopted that attitude in raising their
only daughter. She just recently moved out and got an apartment on her

own, not far from Mom and Dad. She's 49 years old.>

What an incredible stretch from wearing elbow pads and knee pads for
*learning* when crashes are frequent. But, easy when you're as full of
**** as Frank Krygowsky. Right, Frank?

What a baleful, pompous pronouncement ("Pay the consequences") in
payment for my being a helmet wearer! You couldn't see through the red
haze to notice where, in this same post, I said that helmets can't
replace "smarts" in dealing with traffic? (quote follows):

(same post from 2000, more from Dustoyevsky):
> I don't agree
> with the either-or stuff you've posted, either: you know, helmets OR
> riding education, which implies that I (as a helmet wearer) am stupid
> enough to think I am impervious to harm with a helmet on, or that I
> would neglect teaching my kids how to ride safely in favor of sticking
> a lid on and sending them on out to their fate.


(Krygowsky reply):
<You may be intelligent enough to not make that mistake, I don't know.

Well, Frank, at least *you're* consistent: always the selective
reading, and the insults.

Water wings ("arm floaties")? A wonderful tool for fun and safety with
little kids who can't swim on their own. Used, left behind, like the
arm/knee pads for the bike. Swimming lessons, from older siblings,
parents, and at preschool. Including "accident survival"; floating and
bouncing off the bottom to breathe if needed. Yes, consistency in
teaching safety skills, you've got me dead to rights there, Frank.

Both of my kids have had to helped down from climbs where they got too
tired to make it back to Earth on their own. So yes, "don't let them
out of your sight" is good policy when they're toddlers. When they get
a little older and stronger, they take care of that stuff themselves,
or know enough to yell for help. Same deal with hand-holding for street
and parking lot crossings. You do it when they're little, until they
learn (implying, "parent teaching"). Padded playground surfaces?
Excellent idea; might have saved us a broken arm if the playground
hadn't been thin gravel over hard dirt. You can blah blah all you want,
Frank; that one just missed a growth plate. Not to mention
pain/inconvenience, and some money.

Out of my sight? At 11, she's been hanging out at the stable from
morning 'till night (when possible) for a couple of years now. With a
cell phone, per stable rules. Time wonderfully well spent having fun
and gaining "horse knowledge" as well as riding expertise, dealing with
"barn society" (learning social skills), heading toward independence,
and maybe a vocation, who knows? Night/day from the picture you tried
to paint us into.

Well, as usual, somebody disagreed with you, and it made you mad, so it
was OK to say whatever you wanted to get back at them. Then deny intent
and responsibility when you get tagged for it. What a guy! --D-y
 
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:35:43 -0400, The Wogster <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:


>> A modern 3speed/drum brake bike from the major manufacturers will usually
>> have an alu frame & bars, Shimano 'Comfort' line cranks and gearhub &
>> rollerbrakes, Shimano or sram twist-grip shifters, alu rims, Axa HR bottle
>> dynamo, led rear light that stays on while at the traffic light, halogen
>> front, and pretty much all the modern trim. Still the same *type* of bike,
>> just not executed in an oldfashioned manner. Rear racks on modern bikes
>> often leave a lot to be desired, though. All of that results in a
>> substantially lighter bike, which is probably a bit more sensitive to
>> neglect. Cost around 500-600. Pump that up to 900 (euros, not dollars) for
>> the same thing with a 7/8 hub and a bit fancier trimmings (Shimano
>> inter-L, frex) all round.

>
>I wonder how any of these bikes would do with 15cm of fresh wet snow on
>the ground, what about snow tires, would MTB tires work well enough? I
>think the fragility of the average modern bike, is one of the reasons
>that bikes are not often used as utility vehicles, in North America.


Well, these are 622 rimmed bikes, not 559, so you couldn't get an MTB tire
on them, but for snow you don't want wide and nobbly anyway. At least not
for relatively shallow snow. You want relatively narrow that sinks through
the snow to the more or less solid ground underneath. I never had any
problem riding 622/37 tires of the utterly cheapest kind (think $5-8 a
piece) through 10-15 cm of snow, as long as I took it (very) slowly,
particularly around the bends. Think walking speed for corners and 10-15
kph on reasonably straight bits. And braking, and recovering from the
occasional skid, mostly done by use of the feet. And by anticipating very
carefully so that you're not going to want to stop in a hurry.

What really makes things difficult isn't so much snow, especially fresh
snow, as it is ice. Especially black ice that you can't see. Especially
especially ice under fresh snow that you *really* can't see. In the dark,
because in winter school starts an hour before dawn.

For 6 years I did the 15-30 minute commute to school on a daily basis all
year round, I almost never gave up and took the bus (at least not for the
weather -- I didn't always fix a flat or something else the very next
day). But, and this is a fairly big but, almost all my route was through
city streets which would be ridden on by cars (blazing trails) and mostly
salted on a daily basis as well. The kids that came in through
nigh-uninhabited and unsalted polder roads did take the bus in the really
bad winter months.

In those six years, I'd had a few bikes, mostly due to theft, made some
major repairs, mostly due to accidents, a fair amount of punctures, due to
whatever (including simply not pumping the tires up regularly enough), and
a few broken bits that came from being a bit heavier, even then, than the
average schoolkid. I'd opened one or two Sturmey speed hubs up and
refurbished them, but it's not like it's actually *necessary*. These
things will literally stand up to a daily commute for at least a decade
without any maintenance at all, aside from adjusting the cable, and for
decades more if you occasionally squirt some oil in the oilhole (when it
starts audibly clicking is usually a good time. Once a year or so.).

The singlespeed crank/chain/cog drivetrain enclosed in a chaincase will
equally last for at least a decade without maintenance, and decades more
than that if you oil/grease the chain occasionally, check chain tension
sometimes, and maybe once every few years drop a $5 chain[1] on it. Even
without the chaincase (and I ran without one for a few years when my rear
wheel was breaking a lot of spokes) it'll last fairly close to forever
compared to a derailer geared drivetrain.


Jasper

[1] Cause those chains are one hell of a lot cheaper than derailer chains,
let alone 8 speed plus ones. Conversely, though, a solid axle for a
freewheel hub/freehub is about 1/3 the price of a Sturmey Archer axle,
although the only time I damaged one of *those* was when I'd basically
stripped the threads. The freewheel axles would be bent under my weight in
a week, when I had a derailer bike for a while.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Since you didn't follow the conversation correctly, your extensive
> > proof that I also say other things was time wasted.

>
> Wasted in trying to get you to take some honest pride in your work,
> Frank.
>
> > Sorry, you're misunderstanding once again.

>
> Stonewalling.


Whoa. When you take offense, you really set in concrete, don't you?

You seem to think there's absolutely no way you could be
misunderstanding my intention - but what if you _are_ wrong?

>
> > > Then there's always the time you vented your helmet-hating spleen on me
> > > to tell me my daughter wouldn't leave the house before she was forty
> > > since I made her wear a bike helmet. What do you call that, Frank?

> >
> > Um... a lie?

>
> The short, convenient memory of of Frank Krygowski?:
>
> (This ng):
>
> [Posted by]Frank Krygowki Nov 18 2000, 1:00 am
>
> (Dustoyevsky wrote):
> > And if I make
> > my kids put on helmets (and knee pads while they're learning, and elbow
> > pads, too--thanks for the suggestion!) does that make me a "hand
> > wringer" in your book, really, or was that just a little extra,
> > gratuitous insult you couldn't help but slip in there?

>
> (Frank Krygowski replied, possible extra <>'s from me):
>
> <For the record, if you make your kid cycle in knee pads, elbow pads
> and
> a helmet, then YES, you definitely qualify as a "hand-wringer" in my
> book.
>
> <If you're to be consistent, you should never, ever let your child swim
>
> without water wings. You should never let your child climb a tree.
> You
> should never let her cross a street without holding your hand. You
> should never let her on a playground that doesn't have a soft padded
> ground surface. You should never let her play out of sight of your
> watchful eyes.
>
> <All of these things are serious warnings I've seen in print at least
> once. Heed them all - and pay the consequences of raising a child who
> has never learned to handle the slightest risk.
>
> <I actually know a family that adopted that attitude in raising their
> only daughter. She just recently moved out and got an apartment on her
>
> own, not far from Mom and Dad. She's 49 years old.>


OK, let's parse this out. You claimed I specifically said your
daughter would never leave the house until she was 40.

In an _astonishing_ display of dedication, you actually dug out a post
I made five years ago (wow!) that talked about my childhood neighbor.
Now, it's true she was severely overprotected. And it's true she
didn't move out on her own until her late 40s. And although I didn't
mention it, there's another woman I know with an eerily similar record.


But your specific accusation is false, isn't it? Specifically, I did
not say your daughter would never leave the house until she's 40.

IOW, your diligent work proves that your statement was, indeed, a lie.
(I'd have said "incorrect recollection" or something, but that's
obviously no longer the case. It's clearly deliberate.)

I'll also point out that if you had been signing your real name back
then and now, I might have recalled who I responded to in that post.
Maybe not, of course - it _has_ been almost five years - but it is a
benefit of not hiding one's identity.

And incidentally, I really do think you need to calm down, at least to
the point where you write in complete sentences. You know: use a
subject, a predicate, and all that? It's obvious we disagree on the
child-padding issues, but there's no reason for you to be so incredibly
angry that you can't communicate.

In fact, there's no reason for you to be angry at all. This is Usenet.
People will disagree. Calm yourself.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My problem is your continuing habit of trying to get people to fear
> > > > cycling.
> > >
> > > The logical fallacy of the strawman does not improve your position.

> >
> > I think you're unaware of the history of this discussion.

>
> I've read every post, so I think you're just plain wrong.
>
> His position does not implicitly or explicitly state that people should
> fear cycling.
>
> That's your strawman.
>


When I said "the history of this discussion" I was referring to the
several-year run of exchanges between "R15757" and myself.

And there is no doubt he wants people to fear cycling. Here's a quote:

"The absolute danger of cycling in traffic can be summed up thusly:
it is safe only for those who know it's dangerous. For those who think
it's safe, it is quite dangerous indeed."

That's "R15757" from May 30 of this year. The thread was titled "Re:
Helmets" and it was in rec.bicycles.misc

Feel free to read that entire thread, if you like.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> When I said "the history of this discussion" I was referring to the
> several-year run of exchanges between "R15757" and myself.



I've read a good bit of them.


> And there is no doubt he wants people to fear cycling. Here's a quote:


Which is still a strawman, no matter how you slice it.

Unless he says it, you are *making it up.*

Your quote is out of context, and we both know it

If you can make your point without resorting to logical fallacies, your
argument isn't worth much.

Stick with *facts* - they don't need hyperbolic additions from you to
make them more real.

E.P.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > When I said "the history of this discussion" I was referring to the
> > several-year run of exchanges between "R15757" and myself.

>
>
> I've read a good bit of them.


Read the thread that was running on May 30, 2005. It's not like I'm
dredging up 5-year-old conversations. This is quite recent.

> > And there is no doubt he wants people to fear cycling. Here's a quote:

>
> Which is still a strawman, no matter how you slice it.


:) But his quote makes you sufficiently uncomfortable that you felt
the need to trim it - despite the fact it's the entire point of
contention!

>
> Unless he says it, you are *making it up.*


He _did_ say it, on May 30 of this year. Check the archives. I am not
making it up.

> Your quote is out of context, and we both know it


Check the context. May 30, 2005. Rec.bicycles.misc. Sender was
"R15757." I was specifically saying - as I usually do - that ordinary
cycling is acceptably safe. Our anonymous bike messenger said:

"The absolute danger of cycling in traffic can be summed up thusly:
it is safe only for those who know it's dangerous. For those who think
it's safe, it is quite dangerous indeed."

> Stick with *facts* - they don't need hyperbolic additions from you to
> make them more real.


:) I see you're having trouble dealing with the _fact_ that R15757
posted that!

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > I've read a good bit of them.

>
> Read the thread that was running on May 30, 2005. It's not like I'm
> dredging up 5-year-old conversations. This is quite recent.


Yes, I did read it - then and some of it recently. Your quote is *out
of context.*

> > > And there is no doubt he wants people to fear cycling. Here's a quote:

> >
> > Which is still a strawman, no matter how you slice it.

>
> :) But his quote makes you sufficiently uncomfortable that you felt
> the need to trim it - despite the fact it's the entire point of
> contention!


Strawman upon strawman. I trimmed it because it is *irrelevant*,
except as a quote pulled out of a much larger body of commentary,
pulled out specifically in an attempt to prop up your strawman. You
can quote anyone out of context and prove anything you want.

So your "discomfort" quip is just more BS. Knock it off.

If he doesn't say that people should fear cycling, then any
interpretation on your part is merely inference. Now, I understand
that it helps your argument to try and paint the other party as
irrational. But he has disavowed your inference, and that means that
you are just making it up.

> > Unless he says it, you are *making it up.*

>
> He _did_ say it, on May 30 of this year. Check the archives. I am not
> making it up.


You are being deliberately obtuse. Knock it off.

> > Your quote is out of context, and we both know it

>
> Check the context.


I did. Nowhere does he explictly or implictly say that people should
fear road cycling.

Now, the logic of the potential dangers to experienced vs.
inexperienced road users is an interesting angle. In motor vehicles,
the insurance companies give inexperienced users a break, because they
are less likely to wind up in a collision.

What's that? You say the opposite is true? Well, whaddya know.

I guess when inexperienced road cyclists ride on the sidewalk, or
opposite traffic (insert wacky stuff done by folks who may not know
better), you seem to be suggesting that those folks are at equal or
lesser risk than those stringently obeying the traffic law, using the
amount of lane they need to to get the job done, and treating vehicles
as though the operators intend to strike them.

That position doesn't make logical sense to me, but it seems that
you're making that point when you argue against his observations (which
are not summed up by the sound bite you quote.) If you say the sum of
his arguments come down to that one quote, then you are a liar.

E.P.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > Check the context.

>
> I did. Nowhere does he explictly or implictly say that people should
> fear road cycling.


Read the thread. May 30, 2005. Rec.bicycles.misc. Topic is "Re:
Helmets." Sender was "R15757." I was specifically saying - as I
usually do - that ordinary cycling is acceptably safe. Our anonymous
bike messenger said:

"The absolute danger of cycling in traffic can be summed up thusly:
it is safe only for those who know it's dangerous. For those who think
it's safe, it is quite dangerous indeed."


>
> I guess when inexperienced road cyclists ride on the sidewalk, or
> opposite traffic (insert wacky stuff done by folks who may not know
> better), you seem to be suggesting that those folks are at equal or
> lesser risk than those stringently obeying the traffic law, using the
> amount of lane they need to to get the job done, and treating vehicles
> as though the operators intend to strike them.


Actually, that anonymous bike messenger has mocked others for saying
cyclists should obey the rules, and that this is the first step toward
safe cycling. IIRC, he admits to being hit by a car when running a red
light, yet he claims that violating the law is somehow cycling at a
higher level.


> If you say the sum of
> his arguments come down to that one quote, then you are a liar.


I invite anyone who's interested to review that thread. Whenever I
presented data that showed cycling is nothing to fear, he rebutted me
most energetically. Feel free to see if the anonymous bike messenger,
R15757, was saying something different than I claim.

Oh, and I'd encourage anyone entering this debate to use a real
signature. It helps to have evidence I'm corresponding with a unique
individual. Anonymous posters are so hard to keep straight.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Check the context.

> >
> > I did. Nowhere does he explictly or implictly say that people should
> > fear road cycling.

>
> Read the thread.


Keep saying it over and over and over, like a mantra that shields you
from logical fallacies.

I have read it, Frank. Nowhere is it stated, implicitly or explicitly,
that people should fear road cycling. *You* infer that, but I don't
accept your inference as valid.

Stop requoting it - it doesn't say what you claim, and it barely
suggests what you claim. I don't accept it as proof of intent.


> > I guess when inexperienced road cyclists ride on the sidewalk, or
> > opposite traffic (insert wacky stuff done by folks who may not know
> > better), you seem to be suggesting that those folks are at equal or
> > lesser risk than those stringently obeying the traffic law, using the
> > amount of lane they need to to get the job done, and treating vehicles
> > as though the operators intend to strike them.

>
> Actually, that anonymous bike messenger has mocked others for saying
> cyclists should obey the rules...


Nice red herring.

You ignore the logic, while trying to hunt around for some other prop
for your strawman. Either your argument stands on its own merit, or it
doesn't.


> > If you say the sum of
> > his arguments come down to that one quote, then you are a liar.

>
> I invite anyone who's interested to review that thread.


They will see, literally, that I am 100% correct. Your inferences
aren't the only way to read his writings. Or are you claiming special
knowledge here?

It looks like you have a soft spot in your head for him, and you can't
see anything other than what you want to see. That's fine, but don't
claim it's based on anything except your hunches.


> Whenever I
> presented data that showed cycling is nothing to fear, he rebutted me
> most energetically.


That's because you're wrong. Road cycling has risks, just like any
other activity. Having two-ton metal boxes with blissfully unaware
operators whizzing by at twice your velocity should give the
intelligent person a reason to think carefully about how to minimize
those risks.

"Fear" is an emotional charged word, with different meanings for each
individual. The novice might literally have no fear, because they
might have no idea how random drivers can be. While that might instill
caution in some, it might instill fear in others.

Emotionally-charged words do not advance your argument, and reject your
characterization as groundless.

> Feel free to see if the anonymous bike messenger,
> R15757, was saying something different than I claim.


He absolutely says NOWHERE that people should fear road cycling.

> Oh, and I'd encourage anyone entering this debate to use a real
> signature. It helps to have evidence I'm corresponding with a unique
> individual. Anonymous posters are so hard to keep straight.


Either learn how to read a header, or avoid discussions with those you
find too anonymous for your tastes.

E.P.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Check the context.

> >
> > I did. Nowhere does he explictly or implictly say that people should
> > fear road cycling.

>
> Read the thread. May 30, 2005. Rec.bicycles.misc. Topic is "Re:
> Helmets." Sender was "R15757." I was specifically saying - as I
> usually do - that ordinary cycling is acceptably safe. Our anonymous
> bike messenger said:
>
> "The absolute danger of cycling in traffic can be summed up thusly:
> it is safe only for those who know it's dangerous. For those who think
> it's safe, it is quite dangerous indeed."


First of all, that came in a reply to 'RogerDodger,'
not you. Or are you saying that you and 'RogerDodger' are
the same person? And you took the quote out of
context.

> Actually, that anonymous bike messenger has mocked others for saying
> cyclists should obey the rules, and that this is the first step toward
> safe cycling. IIRC, he admits to being hit by a car when running a red
> light, yet he claims that violating the law is somehow cycling at a
> higher level.


Everything above is made up. I have
never been hit by a car while running a light, red or
green. Several times you have said that I 'admit to
being hit while running a red light.' Several times
now I have told you it is untrue. You are completely
off in your own world.

> I invite anyone who's interested to review that thread.


Yes, review. That thread is very much like this one,
and very much like some others. Frank twists himself
into the same pretzel every time. I'm thinking less
Groundhog Day and more Nietzschean eternal recurrence.

> Whenever I
> presented data that showed cycling is nothing to fear, he rebutted me
> most energetically.


Frank, I invite you to review that thread, and this one,
and other threads. Read more carefully and you will see
that what I rebut 'most energetically' is not the notion
that cycling can be safe, a notion that I just may agree
with you big sonofagun, but to your 'data' that you
present without adequate sourcing or methodology, and
to your bogus comparisons of cycling with basketball,
and cycling with sofas, beds, etc. As you seem unable
to answer these challenges directly, it is natural
that you would try to twist and spin my argument into
something completely different--an attack on cycling
itself! That's a pretty desperate stretch.

> Feel free to see if the anonymous bike messenger,
> R15757, was saying something different than I claim.


Oh, he was.

Robert
 
An anonymous bike messenger, going by the handle [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Actually, that anonymous bike messenger has mocked others for saying
> > cyclists should obey the rules, and that this is the first step toward
> > safe cycling. IIRC, he admits to being hit by a car when running a red
> > light, yet he claims that violating the law is somehow cycling at a
> > higher level.

>
> Everything above is made up. I have
> never been hit by a car while running a light, red or
> green. Several times you have said that I 'admit to
> being hit while running a red light.' Several times
> now I have told you it is untrue. You are completely
> off in your own world.


If you have never been hit by a car when you ran a red light, then I
sincerely apologize. All I can say in my defense is, there _was_ an
anonymous bike messenger who described being hit by a car when he ran a
red light. He, too, used a random set of characters as an ID. But
there may be a chance I confused anonymous bike messengers.

(OTOH, I _really_ don't remember you denying that before. Are you
_sure_ you did?)

But this is certainly a problem with posting anonymously, especially
using random numbers as an identity. "R15757" may not be the person
who got hit running a red light. "R15757" may not be the person who
mocks the idea of obeying traffic rules. "R15757" may not be the
person who was caught replying to and "agreeing with" his own posts
using different accounts. But it's pretty hard to know for sure.

How does one keep anonymous posters with unmemorable handles straight?
If you're legitimate, why not use your name?

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> An anonymous bike messenger, going by the handle [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, that anonymous bike messenger has mocked others for saying
> > > cyclists should obey the rules, and that this is the first step toward
> > > safe cycling. IIRC, he admits to being hit by a car when running a red
> > > light, yet he claims that violating the law is somehow cycling at a
> > > higher level.

> >
> > Everything above is made up. I have
> > never been hit by a car while running a light, red or
> > green. Several times you have said that I 'admit to
> > being hit while running a red light.' Several times
> > now I have told you it is untrue. You are completely
> > off in your own world.

>
> If you have never been hit by a car when you ran a red light, then I
> sincerely apologize. All I can say in my defense is, there _was_ an
> anonymous bike messenger who described being hit by a car when he ran a
> red light. He, too, used a random set of characters as an ID. But
> there may be a chance I confused anonymous bike messengers.
>
> (OTOH, I _really_ don't remember you denying that before. Are you
> _sure_ you did?)


Hmmm. And I just reviewed that thread, where I made that same
statement on June 1, 2005. You certainly didn't deny it then.

Are you _sure_ you've denied it "several times"?

Maybe I should ask: Am I correct you were hit by a car at least once?

If so, what were the exact circumstances?

We need to clarify, I think.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Hmmm. And I just reviewed that thread, where I made that same
> statement on June 1, 2005. You certainly didn't deny it then.


You make up so much **** that it is virtually impossible
to refute every wild claim.

Speaking of which, what post was that in which I
supposedly 'didn't deny it' when you repeated your wild
claim that I had been hit while running a red light?
Because I can't seem to find it. Could it be you are
just blatantly making **** up again?

> Are you _sure_ you've denied it "several times"?


Yes I am sure I have had the opportunity to deny it
several times.

> Maybe I should ask: Am I correct you were hit by a car at least once?


Yes I was involved in one pretty fair crack-up, but
it occurred when I was riding lawfully, like most of the
accidents/injuries involving experienced adult riders.

> If so, what were the exact circumstances?


A car pulled out in front of me
just as I had my head turned to the side. It was poor
riding on my part, but the driver was legally at fault.

So, how did we end up our discussion of your bogus
comparison between cycling and basketball? I guess your
changing the subject is not a signal that you have
given up the ghost on that one. I'm pretty sure it'll
pop up again shortly, probably within a day or two,
along with the whole sofas and beds thing, and even
the bogus unsubstantiated claims about per-hour this-
and-that. Frank is completely unencumbered by Reality.

Robert