Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



[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
 
On 13 Aug 2005 00:16:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>[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.


That's a weird statement. F asks if you have denided in several times
and you say you've had the "opportunity" to do so.

Can you give an example of where you actualy denied earlier it?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
I submit that on or about Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:36:34 -0700, the person
known to the court as "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>But in spite of all that, my nephew says that the German government claims a
>lower per-mile fatality rate on it's freeways than we have in the USA. The
>operative word, of course, is "claims"....


The claim is correct. But the UK, where highway speeds are limited to
70mph, has half the highway fatality rate of Germany.

This is not the only situation where people with an agenda seek to
duplicate what happens in one place while quietly ignoring the fact
that other places, which do not follow their agenda, have a much
better safety record...
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
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [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?


Referring to what I wrote above, it was a post by someone claiming to
be "R15757" made on June 1, 2005, in the thread "Re: Helmets" on
rec.bicycles.misc

In my post just previous to that one, I said (again) that you'd been
hit by a car when you ran a red light. Again, that was my
recollection, but again, it may have been another bike messenger who
posts anonymously. Still, you did NOT question that in your reply then
- or ever, IIRC.

The crash seemed interesting to me, because that character seemed to
frequently say cycling was dangerous (as you tend to do) while also
saying that following the rules of the road is irrelevant.

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

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


Slow down, R15757. I asked about what you did, not about the
opportunities you've had!


>
> > 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.


But no more than one? I'm now worried about half-truths.


> 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.


:) I'm one of the few people posting who are willing to go to the
library, get national data, post it here with sources, and discuss it.


- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Referring to what I wrote above, it was a post by someone claiming to
> be "R15757" made on June 1, 2005, in the thread "Re: Helmets" on
> rec.bicycles.misc
>
> In my post just previous to that one, I said (again) that you'd been
> hit by a car when you ran a red light. Again, that was my
> recollection, but again, it may have been another bike messenger who
> posts anonymously. Still, you did NOT question that in your reply then
> - or ever, IIRC.


If I didn't answer your 'IIRC, you were hit while running
a red light' schtick that time, it was because I was
already sick of doing so.

For instance, November 2004.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...:[email protected]&rnum=2&hl=en#9fedac6e65b8c893

So NOW did you get it through your thick skull?

> The crash seemed interesting to me, because that

character seemed to
> frequently say cycling was dangerous (as you tend to do) while also
> saying that following the rules of the road is irrelevant.


You are completely making **** up. There is no such
'character.' There is no such crash.

> > > 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.

>
> But no more than one? I'm now worried about half-truths.


You're worried about half truths!! Oh that's rich.

Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
And that came after I had already ridden well over
200,000 miles.

> > 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.

>
> :) I'm one of the few people posting who are willing to go to the
> library, get national data, post it here with sources, and discuss it.


'Discuss it?' No, you are not willing to discuss it.

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Referring to what I wrote above, it was a post by someone claiming to
> > be "R15757" made on June 1, 2005, in the thread "Re: Helmets" on
> > rec.bicycles.misc
> >
> > In my post just previous to that one, I said (again) that you'd been
> > hit by a car when you ran a red light. Again, that was my
> > recollection, but again, it may have been another bike messenger who
> > posts anonymously. Still, you did NOT question that in your reply then
> > - or ever, IIRC.

>
> If I didn't answer your 'IIRC, you were hit while running
> a red light' schtick that time, it was because I was
> already sick of doing so.
>
> For instance, November 2004.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...:[email protected]&rnum=2&hl=en#9fedac6e65b8c893
>
> So NOW did you get it through your thick skull?


OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.

>
> > The crash seemed interesting to me, because that

> character seemed to
> > frequently say cycling was dangerous (as you tend to do) while also
> > saying that following the rules of the road is irrelevant.

>
> You are completely making **** up. There is no such
> 'character.' There is no such crash.


Sorry, I'm not making this up. There's a chance I'm remembering wrong.
And I doubt we'll be able to say who the victim was, because he was
posting anonymously, as you do. I can try searching, but it'll be
difficult at best.


>
> Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
> And that came after I had already ridden well over
> 200,000 miles.


Wow. Good record. See? Cycling _can_ be safe! ;-)


> >
> > :) I'm one of the few people posting who are willing to go to the
> > library, get national data, post it here with sources, and discuss it.

>
> 'Discuss it?' No, you are not willing to discuss it.


????

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.


And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
be interested to go back and read that thread. Of all
the messengers I know and all the incidents I have heard
about, I know of only one incident of a messenger being
hit while running a light. I'm not saying it doesn't
happen, I'm saying that messengers are probably even
more likely than other adult riders to have any collision
occur while going through a green rather than a red.

> Sorry, I'm not making this up. There's a chance I'm remembering wrong.
> And I doubt we'll be able to say who the victim was, because he was
> posting anonymously, as you do. I can try searching, but it'll be
> difficult at best.


How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
to advanced groups search and off you go. Just show
that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.
Otherwise, quit claiming that I did this and that and
then saying 'oh, I must have you confused with that
other anonymous bike messenger' after I call you on it.
You have pulled this little trick like a dozen times in
the past few years. 'Distasteful' is about the gentlest
term I can think of to describe it.

> > Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
> > And that came after I had already ridden well over
> > 200,000 miles.

>
> Wow. Good record. See? Cycling _can_ be safe! ;-)


That's not exactly the lesson I would take away from
that, for those out there interested in learning from
the experiences of others. The only way a person can
ride over 200,000 miles primarily in heavy traffic and
not get hit by a car is to maintain a state of
rather serious and constant vigilance. This state of
vigilance does not spring from a happy mindset of
cycling is 'safe,' but from another mindset entirely.

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> > have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.

>
> And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
> be interested to go back and read that thread.


I'd be interested in it, too, just to see how it went. IIRC, the
context was a messenger saying that a) cycling is dangerous b)
cyclists don't really need to follow the rules. He mentioned only
parenthetically that he'd been hit, and it was only on questioning that
he admitted he was running a light at the time.

>
> > Sorry, I'm not making this up. There's a chance I'm remembering wrong.
> > And I doubt we'll be able to say who the victim was, because he was
> > posting anonymously, as you do. I can try searching, but it'll be
> > difficult at best.

>
> How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
> to advanced groups search and off you go.


Very seriously, what key words would you suggest? At this point, I
don't remember even the topic of the thread, or I would have searched
on that.

I can try casting around, but given that this was perhaps three years
ago, I'm not confident of finding anything.

> Just show
> that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
> messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.


Do you understand the difficulty in dealing with anonymous posters?
How do I prove that there was "another" anonymous bicycle messenger
when there are people posting extensively, using different accounts and
different handles, but not giving any consistent name?

Claiming there is another anonymous bike messenger is quite different
from claiming there is "another Sheldon Brown" or "another Jobst
Brandt" for obvious reasons.

> > > Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
> > > And that came after I had already ridden well over
> > > 200,000 miles.

> >
> > Wow. Good record. See? Cycling _can_ be safe! ;-)

>
> That's not exactly the lesson I would take away from
> that, for those out there interested in learning from
> the experiences of others. The only way a person can
> ride over 200,000 miles primarily in heavy traffic and
> not get hit by a car is to maintain a state of
> rather serious and constant vigilance. This state of
> vigilance does not spring from a happy mindset of
> cycling is 'safe,' but from another mindset entirely.


It's obvious that cycling in heavy traffic requires constant vigilance.
That's how I ride in that situation.

OTOH, most cycling is not done in heavy traffic, just as most cycling
is not done in crit races or careening down technical rocky single
track. On average, cycling miles are far more relaxed than that.

If you want to tell people that you believe cycling is dangerous, at
least be specific about the type of riding you're specifying.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> > > have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.

> >
> > And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
> > be interested to go back and read that thread.

>
> I'd be interested in it, too, just to see how it went. IIRC, the
> context was a messenger saying that a) cycling is dangerous b)
> cyclists don't really need to follow the rules. He mentioned only
> parenthetically that he'd been hit, and it was only on questioning that
> he admitted he was running a light at the time.


Oh what a tangled web we weave. You seem to remember
many details about this exchange with the mystery
poster.

> > How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
> > to advanced groups search and off you go.

>
> Very seriously, what key words would you suggest?


Start with 'messenger' or 'courier.' Obviously, since
you remember oh-so-clearly that this was a bike
messenger, at some point he must have told you so,
right? There are only so many words that he could have
used to impart this information, and it is quite
likely that you would have quoted his disclosure in
at least one of your replies. Or, search your posts
for the word 'light' or 'lights' then cull out all the
posts which concern running red lights and look through
them.

> At this point, I
> don't remember even the topic of the thread, or I would have searched
> on that.
>
> I can try casting around, but given that this was perhaps three years
> ago, I'm not confident of finding anything.


If this thread or this person actually existed and you
actually corresponded with them on rec.bikes, it would
be fairly easy to find.

> > Just show
> > that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
> > messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.

>
> Do you understand the difficulty in dealing with anonymous posters?
> How do I prove that there was "another" anonymous bicycle messenger
> when there are people posting extensively, using different accounts and
> different handles, but not giving any consistent name?


I always sign my posts 'Robert,' or very rarely with a
simple 'R.' I am as consistent as any poster on usenet.
Try being more observant.

> Claiming there is another anonymous bike messenger is quite different
> from claiming there is "another Sheldon Brown" or "another Jobst
> Brandt" for obvious reasons.


Yeah, you obviously couldn't get away with claiming there
is another Jobst, but you THINK you can get away with
claiming there is another anomymous poster 'with similar
handle' or whatever. But your smokescreen isn't as thick
as you seem to think.


> It's obvious that cycling in heavy traffic requires constant vigilance.
> That's how I ride in that situation.


What about MUPs, suburbs? You find it's okay
to let your guard down there?

> OTOH, most cycling is not done in heavy traffic,


That's a myopic proclamation (typical for tourists
and 'club cyclists') that is probably plain untrue.
Consider the unknown quantities of low-income commuters
on Walmart bikes, the messengers who ride miles way
out of proportion to their small numbers, and the tens
of thousands of yuppie commuters in big cities like
New York.

> just as most cycling
> is not done in crit races or careening down technical rocky single
> track. On average, cycling miles are far more relaxed than that.


I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
cycling' is not. I went for a nice four-hour trail ride
today, and as usual I felt much safer on the trail
than I felt on the approach to the trail, which was on
suburban roads. This was not an illusion in my mind, it
was Reality. Even while racing criteriums, in which
wrecks are common and injuries are fairly common, the
racers are 'safer' in the sense that motor traffic is
removed from the equation, and along with it most of
the chance for serious injury or death. 'Normal cycling'
is the most 'dangerous' type of cycling, in that it
almost always occurs in proximity to some degree of
motor traffic. Statistically the most 'dangerous'
type of cycling is done by children on their suburban
streets.

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:

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


Flip-flop. "You're the stone one".

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


I see you casting aspersions, using juxtapositions, and then ducking
out when called on it. Over and over. Like this:

(I wrote):
> > > > 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?


(FK):
> > > Um... a lie?

(snipped, continues):
> 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.


That's right, you didn't. You put a picture in the air, with the clear
intent to insult and denigrate. Now you're wiggling.
Take some credit for your work, Frank.

> 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.


Tough toenails.

> 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?


Sniff sniff.

> 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.


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


Calm yourself to the point where you can disagree without the sarcasm
and personal aspersions: "Your daughter is going to grow up like my
neighbor since you made her wear a helmet". "And I know of another case
like her, and you". "Lab rats". "Hand wringer". So on and so forth.

Gonna pretend you "didn't understand" again? Golly gee. This is usenet,
Frank. Saving electrons.

Hey, we were just looking at pics of the school show where my daughter
took second in points, one each morning and afternoon. You know, that
incredibly dangerous horse riding activity? Numbers on that yet, FK?
Let's see, I'm a handwringer because I supplied elbow and knee pads for
learning to get up on two wheels, and when I let my daughter ride
horses, I'm being "inconsistent" because horse riding is so incredibly
dangerous (the 1500lb animal thing).

Do you realize the harm you're doing to equestrian sport with your
alarmist attitude? <g> Are you just a handwringing mommie at heart?
Boy, sure sounds like it to me! Scared of horses? Why? Were you
frightened all the time while riding, Frank? Something you were forced
into as a child? It is the boys, by a huge percentage, who are
frightened away from riding. Did you have a sister who was braver than
you? And rode successfully while you slunk away? Did you have a place
on the playground? Away from the teachers' skirts?

I didn't call you a handwringing mommie, or a coward. I merely asked a
question or two. If it bothers you to see "Frank Krygowsky" and
"handwringing mommie", or "coward" so close together, just remember
that this is usenet and people will disagree. --TP
 
If we read this we discover that Paterson has the idea that Frank is stupid
for not remembering he insulted him when he was posting under a different
name than he uses now. But then that's the problem with trying to hide your
identity so that your employer can't discover what you're doing during
working hours.
 

Similar threads