Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I'm just trying to keep the numbers in context.

>
> You make-a me laugh. Every time I put your numbers
> in context, you have a royal freakout.


Today I went on a 26 mile ride after work. I saw about 10 cyclists including
some coming out of a county park on high end MTB's. None but myself had on a
helmet. The helmet zealots are losing. They finally overplayed their hands
and the $200 Bell helmets haven't helped at all.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> Whoa doggy!!! You wish I said that. What I said was
> that it's ludicrous to compare an activity that has
> 700 or so deaths every year and some unkown tens of
> thousands of serious injuries associated with it to
> an activity which has virtually none of these things.
> That's what I said, that's what I am saying.


There are approximately 4-5 times the fatality rate of serious head
injuries. This is a number that is remarkably similar over almost all
accidents from any cause. That is about 20% of all serious accidents prove
fatal.

Serious injuries are defined as those requiring at least one night stay in a
hospital. Almost ALL serious injuries involve the head or neck.

So where is the "unknown tens of thousands of serious injuries" coming from?

> I agree
> that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
> rate to driving or walking near traffic, although
> it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
> that rate of injury is much higher for cycling.


Then you'll cite where Ken Kifer EVER said such a thing and was referring to
'injuries' that any recreation couldn't produce. What he DID say was
"Fearmongering websites discussing bicycle safety have sprung up everywhere
which distort the evidence. They say 1,000 cyclists are killed each year
(not true since 1975), refer to "hundreds of children killed" which allows
the imagination to expand the number, call every bicycling injury a
hospitalization (less than 3% are according to the CPSC study), and assume
that nearly every injury is a serious head injury (about 1.5% of the total
cycling injuries according to John Hopkins)."

Let us remember that my very good friend Ken was run down by a driver and
whether or not he was wearing a helmet would have made no difference at all.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> and Chevy are pretty heavy into big vehicles but the Japanese manufacturers
> depend on the profits from SUV sales to survive.


Huh? It's the U.S. manufacturers that lose money on small car sales. The
Japanese manufacturers did will before they had any SUVs.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip>
> So where is the "unknown tens of thousands of serious injuries" coming from?


Lets put it this way, 1% of ER visits equals about
6,000.

> > I agree
> > that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
> > rate to driving or walking near traffic, although
> > it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
> > that rate of injury is much higher for cycling.

>
> Then you'll cite where Ken Kifer EVER said such a thing and was referring to
> 'injuries' that any recreation couldn't produce.


www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm

"Assuming these figures to be fairly accurate (remember
the small numbers involved!) and assuming that these
injuries are equivalent to what would be reported after
an automobile injury, we find an injury is 33 times more
likely to occur from riding a bike as opposed to driving
a car for the same distance."

That's for the bulk of injuries. Concerning more serious
injuries, Ken reports: "Note that this most-serious injury
includes injuries less severe than those in question 18.
Also note that I said the injury must be a problem the
next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as
a puncture wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple
injuries. There would be 40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers,
2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between those kinds of
injuries. So even using these figures, we have to conclude
that bicycling leads to a greater risk of minor injury
that traveling by motor vehicle, some 19 times as great
by the mile, a good bit less by the trip or hour (I don't
have any good figures for the average trip length or for
hours of travel by car), but with injuries still more
likely on a bicycle, and over 4.5 times as dangerous by
exposure. However, bicycling has health benefits that
traveling by car does not."

> Let us remember that my very good friend Ken was run down by a driver and
> whether or not he was wearing a helmet would have made no difference at all.


Generally not, when someone is gunned down from behind
like that.

Robert
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>With China and India continuing to develop fuel-intensive economies I see
>>$5.00/gallon gas sometime in the next five years. I think people's
>>automobile
>>buying decisions are already being affected with prices over $2.00/gallon.
>>At
>>$5.00, I think we will see a move towards high-MPG cars comparable to
>>what's in
>>Europe today.

>
>
> I stopped in the Ford dealer the other day to check on a new Focus. He
> looked at my pretty nice 2001 (bought 2000) ZX-2 and said that everyone was
> trying to get small economy cars now and they can't give away SUV's. Ford
> and Chevy are pretty heavy into big vehicles but the Japanese manufacturers
> depend on the profits from SUV sales to survive.
>
>

I wonder about that one Tom. Outside of North America, the SUV does not
exist. Four wheel drive does, but then those tend to be heavy built
utility vehicles with smallish diesel engines, for rough terrain, and
they tend to keep them running for decades. There is no place for
delicate computers, air conditioners or power windows in the Chapare
Jungle of South America, the Sahara desert of Africa, or the Outback of
Australia.

As for North America, smaller cars have always been popular in Canada,
but then we pay more for gas, last week my Brother in law bought gas for
CA$1.08/L, thats US$3.37/Gallon (the most expensive grade). I typically
can find gas in the 85-95 cent range, although I think by this time next
year the $1.00/Litre will be common for the cheap stuff.

Higher gas prices are good for the car companies, now that every idiot
and his brother (EIAHB) has a Stupid Ugly Vehicle, gas prices go up, and
EIAHB will have to go out and buy a micro-car. Then gas prices will
stabilize, and EIAHB will go looking at the SUV which is now a rusting
pile of junk, and throw it away, and buy a new even bigger, even more
gas guzzling stupider uglier vehicle. It's been cycling like this,
well, since the 1970's at least.

W
 
The Wogster wrote:

> I wonder about that one Tom. Outside of North America, the SUV does not
> exist.


Obviously you have not traveled much. The large to Humongous SUVs may
not exist much outside the U.S., i.e. Ford Excursion, Ford Expedition,
or Chevrolet Suburban, but the small to mid-size SUVs, i.e. up to the
size of the Land Cruiser or Range Rover, definitely exist all over the
world.
 
I submit that on or about Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:36:01 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>>Ford
>> and Chevy are pretty heavy into big vehicles but the Japanese manufacturers
>> depend on the profits from SUV sales to survive.


>I wonder about that one Tom. Outside of North America, the SUV does not
>exist.


The hell it doesn't! Google for "Chelsea Tractor" some time!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
SMS wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>> I wonder about that one Tom. Outside of North America, the SUV does
>> not exist.

>
>
> Obviously you have not traveled much. The large to Humongous SUVs may
> not exist much outside the U.S., i.e. Ford Excursion, Ford Expedition,
> or Chevrolet Suburban, but the small to mid-size SUVs, i.e. up to the
> size of the Land Cruiser or Range Rover, definitely exist all over the
> world.


Those aren't SUVs they are 4WD, I described them in the previous message.

W
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:36:01 -0400, the person
> known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>>Ford
>>>and Chevy are pretty heavy into big vehicles but the Japanese manufacturers
>>>depend on the profits from SUV sales to survive.

>
>
>>I wonder about that one Tom. Outside of North America, the SUV does not
>>exist.

>
>
> The hell it doesn't! Google for "Chelsea Tractor" some time!


I was disappointed to see the number of SUVs in places like Korea and
Taiwan. I guess it's the U.S. influence.
 
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"? 'Degree' was a 'real' injury of any
sort that required at least a couple of days to heal. Meaning ROAD
RASH!

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.

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

Similar threads