A grim reminder why ride a recumbent.

[Edward Wong]

Hopefully this somber message will get our minds off that silly and
out of control "What's up with BiGHa" thread.

Today my club the Florida Freewheelers hosted a membership drive on
one of our local multi use trails, the Seminole Wekaiva Trail.
Several miles up the trail, several members were setting up a tent,
tables, etc. with soft drinks, water, Gatorade, brochures to hand out
to the riders in the local area.

It was a perfect morning and the trail is absolutely beautiful. There
were a total of three bents; a Vision V50, a RANS Screamer and yours
truly on his humble Scooterbike amongst 60-70 or more uprights. We
had a mass start and over the miles we thinned out into smaller
groups. As my group approached the north end of the trail in Lake
Mary, one of our members who was riding his carbon Trek road bike had
a mishap. We passed in the opposite direction two gentlemen riding
their upright road bikes. They were riding two abreast but close
togather and as far right as practicable so they were OK.

It seems that my fellow club member who was probably 30-40 feet behind
me was not watching the bike traffic coming in the opposite direction.
He was hunched over his drop bars and had momentarily concentrated
his attention on his cyclometer when he collided head on with one of
the two gentlemen we passed a couple of seconds earlier. I heard a
sickening crunch sound and as I looked in my rear view mirror, they
were still falling to the ground. I yelled out to my fellow riders
that we had an accident. There were several more club members behind
us and stopped to help our friend. It didn't look good for our guy.
The other man was shaken up and upset more than anything else. He was
not injured but our friend was in very bad shape. He couldn't move or
feel his lower extremities. He also had a bad gash over one of his
eyebrows. Someone in the group called 911 to have an ambulance
dispatched. They got there in under 10 minutes and proceeded to
secure him to put him in the ambulance. I pray that he will be
alright and recover soon.

Now I know it's not proper at this time to preach the advantage of
being able to see better on a recumbent than hunched over a handlebar
on an upright but darn if this alone is one of the best reasons why I
ride a recumbent. We have had several accidents in the club from
people who've collided with others just because they were not holding
their heads up enough to avoid causing the accident. Last year, a
young racer met his death in South Florida when he collided with the
back end of a truck during a training ride. It is speculated he was
not looking ahead far enough to avoid the collision. Combine that
with fast speeds those guys were going and you have the makings of bad
things that can go wrong instantly.

Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
could be doing someone and yourself a great service.

Be careful out there.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[EZ Biker :-\)]

I agree with your post Edward and would add, that pace lines REALLY aren't
very COOL or SAFE, when doing them (At least at HAMMER Speed) on public
roadways. You HOPE you know the tendencies of the rider in front of you and
how they will react to a given situation. Amazingly the Banzi group I use to
pester, gets newbie's all the time and lets these UNKNOWNS or Unfamiliar
riders get into various positions of their VERY FAST Pace line) However lets
just throw in an missed city meter hole or wet white street line and... Well
HOPE FOR THE BEST! I've seen a couple of mass accordion type of crashes,
based on just these 2 road hazards. But there are PLENTY More.

So to my fellow Df and recumbo So. Fla. riders don't look for me and my Aero
(Now just arrived at my LBS, but still in boxes) to be frolicking with you
in any pace lines, anytime soon.

EZ Biker :-) Pompano Beach, Fl. (GRR Ti and SOON, Bacchetta Aero Pilot)




"Edward Wong" > wrote in message
om...
> Hopefully this somber message will get our minds off that silly and
> out of control "What's up with BiGHa" thread.
>

[EZ Biker :-\)]

I agree with your post Edward and would add, that pace lines REALLY aren't
very COOL or SAFE, when doing them (At least at HAMMER Speed) on public
roadways. You HOPE you know the tendencies of the rider in front of you and
how they will react to a given situation. Amazingly the Banzi group I use to
pester, gets newbie's all the time and lets these UNKNOWNS or Unfamiliar
riders get into various positions of their VERY FAST Pace line) However lets
just throw in an missed city meter hole or wet white street line and... Well
HOPE FOR THE BEST! I've seen a couple of mass accordion type of crashes,
based on just these 2 road hazards. But there are PLENTY More.

So to my fellow Df and recumbo So. Fla. riders don't look for me and my Aero
(Now just arrived at my LBS, but still in boxes) to be frolicking with you
in any pace lines, anytime soon.

EZ Biker :-) Pompano Beach, Fl. (GRR Ti and SOON, Bacchetta Aero Pilot)




"Edward Wong" > wrote in message
om...
> Hopefully this somber message will get our minds off that silly and
> out of control "What's up with BiGHa" thread.
>

[Jose A. Hernandez]

Hey Ed & Ken,

Obviously, I agree w/ you guys. The more I ride, the LESS I like pacelines. Our
recumbo group rides are A LOT more fun and a whole lot SAFER than the upright
club rides!.

If anyone here is in the South Florida Area, you might check out the South
Florida Recumbent Group. We have ALL KINDS of fun rides!. (For more info, go to
my personal site @ http://www.getbent.org)

Jose
Jose A. Hernandez
Recumbent Cycling Means NEVER Having to Say Your'e Sore!
http://www.BentRiderOnline.com
http://www.GetBent.Org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SouthFloridaRecumbentRiders

[Jose A. Hernandez]

Hey Ed & Ken,

Obviously, I agree w/ you guys. The more I ride, the LESS I like pacelines. Our
recumbo group rides are A LOT more fun and a whole lot SAFER than the upright
club rides!.

If anyone here is in the South Florida Area, you might check out the South
Florida Recumbent Group. We have ALL KINDS of fun rides!. (For more info, go to
my personal site @ http://www.getbent.org)

Jose
Jose A. Hernandez
Recumbent Cycling Means NEVER Having to Say Your'e Sore!
http://www.BentRiderOnline.com
http://www.GetBent.Org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SouthFloridaRecumbentRiders

[Ian]

Edward Wong must be edykated coz e writed:

> our friend was in very bad shape. He couldn't move or
> feel his lower extremities. He also had a bad gash over one of his
> eyebrows. Someone in the group called 911 to have an ambulance
> dispatched. They got there in under 10 minutes and proceeded to
> secure him to put him in the ambulance. I pray that he will be
> alright and recover soon.
>
Lets all hope it is not as bad as it sounds, keep us updated to his progress
Edward.

Ian

[Ian]

Edward Wong must be edykated coz e writed:

> our friend was in very bad shape. He couldn't move or
> feel his lower extremities. He also had a bad gash over one of his
> eyebrows. Someone in the group called 911 to have an ambulance
> dispatched. They got there in under 10 minutes and proceeded to
> secure him to put him in the ambulance. I pray that he will be
> alright and recover soon.
>
Lets all hope it is not as bad as it sounds, keep us updated to his progress
Edward.

Ian

[Tom Blum]

This sounds to me like a variation on the "I was talking on a cell phone"
scenario.

We get more and more gadgets to divert our attention from the primary
responsibility of operating ANY vehicle.

Hope your friend recovers completely.

Like Jose, I shun pace lines. They require total concentration and trust of
your co-pacers. I like to "smell the roses."

However, I am schitzophrenic about it. I also like performance. However, I
am not strong enough to leave the world in my dust. The old dream of
'cutoffs, sneakers, and a rat-bike' rider who dusted the spiffy looking
wanna-be's never quite materialized.

Oh well! Onward and upward. As soon as the sun comes up, it's time to ride
the new (as yet unpainted) High Racer Clone. It doesn't have a speedometer
yet, I'm enjoying the lack.

Tom
"eyes on the road"
Blum

[Tom Blum]

This sounds to me like a variation on the "I was talking on a cell phone"
scenario.

We get more and more gadgets to divert our attention from the primary
responsibility of operating ANY vehicle.

Hope your friend recovers completely.

Like Jose, I shun pace lines. They require total concentration and trust of
your co-pacers. I like to "smell the roses."

However, I am schitzophrenic about it. I also like performance. However, I
am not strong enough to leave the world in my dust. The old dream of
'cutoffs, sneakers, and a rat-bike' rider who dusted the spiffy looking
wanna-be's never quite materialized.

Oh well! Onward and upward. As soon as the sun comes up, it's time to ride
the new (as yet unpainted) High Racer Clone. It doesn't have a speedometer
yet, I'm enjoying the lack.

Tom
"eyes on the road"
Blum

[Russ Price]

Tom Blum > wrote:
>
> Like Jose, I shun pace lines. They require total concentration and trust of
> your co-pacers. I like to "smell the roses."
>

All-recumbent pacelines can be fun, though. They're especially handy on
a winter day, with 20+ MPH winds in your face. Been there, done that.

> However, I am schitzophrenic about it. I also like performance. However, I
> am not strong enough to leave the world in my dust. The old dream of
> 'cutoffs, sneakers, and a rat-bike' rider who dusted the spiffy looking
> wanna-be's never quite materialized.

Heh... I tend to ride faster than the folks out on MTBs and "comfort"
bikes, but slower than the serious roadies. I won't break any speed
records, but long distances are doable, in any case.
--
Russ --kill the wabbit to despam
"The best thing about that show was the number of cars that exploded
into huge fireballs. If only 'twere so...." -Chalo Colina, re: "CHiPs"

[Russ Price]

Tom Blum > wrote:
>
> Like Jose, I shun pace lines. They require total concentration and trust of
> your co-pacers. I like to "smell the roses."
>

All-recumbent pacelines can be fun, though. They're especially handy on
a winter day, with 20+ MPH winds in your face. Been there, done that.

> However, I am schitzophrenic about it. I also like performance. However, I
> am not strong enough to leave the world in my dust. The old dream of
> 'cutoffs, sneakers, and a rat-bike' rider who dusted the spiffy looking
> wanna-be's never quite materialized.

Heh... I tend to ride faster than the folks out on MTBs and "comfort"
bikes, but slower than the serious roadies. I won't break any speed
records, but long distances are doable, in any case.
--
Russ --kill the wabbit to despam
"The best thing about that show was the number of cars that exploded
into huge fireballs. If only 'twere so...." -Chalo Colina, re: "CHiPs"

[TBRADSTER]

In a paceline, the view never changes. I also have a big fear of shredding
someone with my SWB chainring.

Brad
R40

[TBRADSTER]

In a paceline, the view never changes. I also have a big fear of shredding
someone with my SWB chainring.

Brad
R40

[harryo]

(Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
>
> Now I know it's not proper at this time to preach the advantage of
> being able to see better on a recumbent than hunched over a handlebar
> on an upright but darn if this alone is one of the best reasons why I
> ride a recumbent. We have had several accidents in the club from
> people who've collided with others just because they were not holding
> their heads up enough to avoid causing the accident. Last year, a
> young racer met his death in South Florida when he collided with the
> back end of a truck during a training ride. It is speculated he was
> not looking ahead far enough to avoid the collision. Combine that
> with fast speeds those guys were going and you have the makings of bad
> things that can go wrong instantly.

I respectfully disagree that neither of these accidents illustrate an
advantage of riding a recumbent. IMO, they only illustrate the
possible dire consequences of not paying complete attention to what
one is doing. I will admit that most recumbents do put the rider in a
position that offers a more upright head position. However, that
alone does not automatically insure more safety. A momentary lapse of
attention can be disasterous, whatever the head position, especially
when in a situation as that you descibed, heavy, two way bike traffic
on a narrow trail shared with other riders, walkers, joggers and
roller bladers. Having one's head up and looking straight ahead does
not even guarantee that one will not have a momentary lapse of
attention and a fraction of a second is all it takes to cause an
accident.

I am certainly sorry your friend was hurt and pray that he will
recovery fully. However, I sincerely believe that his accident was
caused by his own inattentiveness, which could have also occurred on a
bent, with the same results.

Harry Jiles

[harryo]

(Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
>
> Now I know it's not proper at this time to preach the advantage of
> being able to see better on a recumbent than hunched over a handlebar
> on an upright but darn if this alone is one of the best reasons why I
> ride a recumbent. We have had several accidents in the club from
> people who've collided with others just because they were not holding
> their heads up enough to avoid causing the accident. Last year, a
> young racer met his death in South Florida when he collided with the
> back end of a truck during a training ride. It is speculated he was
> not looking ahead far enough to avoid the collision. Combine that
> with fast speeds those guys were going and you have the makings of bad
> things that can go wrong instantly.

I respectfully disagree that neither of these accidents illustrate an
advantage of riding a recumbent. IMO, they only illustrate the
possible dire consequences of not paying complete attention to what
one is doing. I will admit that most recumbents do put the rider in a
position that offers a more upright head position. However, that
alone does not automatically insure more safety. A momentary lapse of
attention can be disasterous, whatever the head position, especially
when in a situation as that you descibed, heavy, two way bike traffic
on a narrow trail shared with other riders, walkers, joggers and
roller bladers. Having one's head up and looking straight ahead does
not even guarantee that one will not have a momentary lapse of
attention and a fraction of a second is all it takes to cause an
accident.

I am certainly sorry your friend was hurt and pray that he will
recovery fully. However, I sincerely believe that his accident was
caused by his own inattentiveness, which could have also occurred on a
bent, with the same results.

Harry Jiles

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Edward Wong wrote in message >...
>
>Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
>one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
>could be doing someone and yourself a great service.

The problem with you types is that because you look
so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
myself.

The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
I would let ride with me.

Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
very safe and under control even though we are moving
faster than you could image.

As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
session and demand respect from you.

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Edward Wong wrote in message >...
>
>Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
>one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
>could be doing someone and yourself a great service.

The problem with you types is that because you look
so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
myself.

The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
I would let ride with me.

Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
very safe and under control even though we are moving
faster than you could image.

As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
session and demand respect from you.

[Edward Wong]

"Samuel Burkeen" > wrote in message >...
> This is one of the primary reasons I ride a bent. It is not like you
> cannot have an accident on a recumbent. I have gone down twice, but the
> injury has involved loss of skin, and of course you can experience leg suck
> if your foot comes off the pedal. However, I can always see ahead - 100% of
> the time- and the only way I can go over the handlebars is if I ride over a
> cliff.
>
> What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider recumbents to
> be less safe than uprights. I have had two discussions with bike shop
> mechanics who take the view that recumbents are less safe because you cannot
> disengage from the bike as fast if you have a collision. I have always
> found this reasoning similar to that offered against using seatbelts in
> cars.

It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent. Yes I
agree we're not invincible on any bike but given that cycling is an
activity that has it's risks, I'll be darn if I'm going to lay the
odds against me. I find however that the most common concern of non
benters is the "cars won't see me" so I find most amusing the argument
of your bike shop mechanics about not being able to disengage in a
collision. Tell them that this is not mountain biking:0)

I'm going to add something here while we're talking about safety.
Thank goodness our club demands the use of approved helmets. I can't
even begin to imagine how much more devastating the injuries would
have been to my fellow club member who suffered the accident yesterday
had he not been wearing one. Who knows what would have happened. I
hope your bike mechanics don't have some bias against helmets. That
would be irresponsible.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[Edward Wong]

"Samuel Burkeen" > wrote in message >...
> This is one of the primary reasons I ride a bent. It is not like you
> cannot have an accident on a recumbent. I have gone down twice, but the
> injury has involved loss of skin, and of course you can experience leg suck
> if your foot comes off the pedal. However, I can always see ahead - 100% of
> the time- and the only way I can go over the handlebars is if I ride over a
> cliff.
>
> What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider recumbents to
> be less safe than uprights. I have had two discussions with bike shop
> mechanics who take the view that recumbents are less safe because you cannot
> disengage from the bike as fast if you have a collision. I have always
> found this reasoning similar to that offered against using seatbelts in
> cars.

It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent. Yes I
agree we're not invincible on any bike but given that cycling is an
activity that has it's risks, I'll be darn if I'm going to lay the
odds against me. I find however that the most common concern of non
benters is the "cars won't see me" so I find most amusing the argument
of your bike shop mechanics about not being able to disengage in a
collision. Tell them that this is not mountain biking:0)

I'm going to add something here while we're talking about safety.
Thank goodness our club demands the use of approved helmets. I can't
even begin to imagine how much more devastating the injuries would
have been to my fellow club member who suffered the accident yesterday
had he not been wearing one. Who knows what would have happened. I
hope your bike mechanics don't have some bias against helmets. That
would be irresponsible.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[EZ Biker :-\)]

Edward, I'm happy to report that the bicycle events I attend around here in
South Florida "All" do require the use of a helmet - or you don't
participate in the event.
Even the impromptu Banzi Group, I use to ride with on the weekends, will
harass a helmet-less rider enough, that they will finally relent and wear a
helmet.
In my major vehicle accident years ago (That screwed up my back) the top of
my head hit the middle trim on the caddy, that I flipped over onto. My
helmet was smashed; but it could have been my head. On my GRR Ti crash a few
years ago, where I blew out a front tire and careened into a curve, my head
glanced off that curb. With no helmet; I'd surely sustained a concussion.
Helmets (Although not 100% goof proof) do give a rider a hedge from
sustaining serious head injuries.
EZ Biker :-) Pompano Beach, Fl. (GRR Ti and SOON, Bacchetta Aero Pilot)



"Edward Wong" > wrote in message
om...

> Thank goodness our club demands the use of approved helmets. I can't
> even begin to imagine how much more devastating the injuries would
> have been...
> Edward Wong
> Orlando, FL

[EZ Biker :-\)]

Edward, I'm happy to report that the bicycle events I attend around here in
South Florida "All" do require the use of a helmet - or you don't
participate in the event.
Even the impromptu Banzi Group, I use to ride with on the weekends, will
harass a helmet-less rider enough, that they will finally relent and wear a
helmet.
In my major vehicle accident years ago (That screwed up my back) the top of
my head hit the middle trim on the caddy, that I flipped over onto. My
helmet was smashed; but it could have been my head. On my GRR Ti crash a few
years ago, where I blew out a front tire and careened into a curve, my head
glanced off that curb. With no helmet; I'd surely sustained a concussion.
Helmets (Although not 100% goof proof) do give a rider a hedge from
sustaining serious head injuries.
EZ Biker :-) Pompano Beach, Fl. (GRR Ti and SOON, Bacchetta Aero Pilot)



"Edward Wong" > wrote in message
om...

> Thank goodness our club demands the use of approved helmets. I can't
> even begin to imagine how much more devastating the injuries would
> have been...
> Edward Wong
> Orlando, FL

[Tom Thompson]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> Edward Wong wrote in message
>...
> >
> >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
>
> The problem with you types is that because you look
> so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> myself.
>
> The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> I would let ride with me.
>
> Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> very safe and under control even though we are moving
> faster than you could image.
>
> As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> session and demand respect from you.
>
Fab,

Long time no hear from. You need to stop by more often and lend us your
wisdom.. We have an imitator here, but he has no imagination and cannot seem
to get past "jackass" and "idiot" in his trolls - especially when someone
nails him on one of his many inconsistencies. Perhaps with more exposure to
you, he will get better.

Tom Thompson

[Tom Thompson]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> Edward Wong wrote in message
>...
> >
> >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
>
> The problem with you types is that because you look
> so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> myself.
>
> The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> I would let ride with me.
>
> Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> very safe and under control even though we are moving
> faster than you could image.
>
> As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> session and demand respect from you.
>
Fab,

Long time no hear from. You need to stop by more often and lend us your
wisdom.. We have an imitator here, but he has no imagination and cannot seem
to get past "jackass" and "idiot" in his trolls - especially when someone
nails him on one of his many inconsistencies. Perhaps with more exposure to
you, he will get better.

Tom Thompson

[Bubalo Sacat]

"Tom Thompson" > wrote

nothing of note <plonk!>


"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote

childish blabber <plonk!>


> Edward Wong wrote

childish blabber <plonk!>


"Edward Dolan" > wrote

way too much off topic topics <plonk!>

"The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense"

Elivis Prestly - August 17, 1974










































































































---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 8/14/2003

[Bubalo Sacat]

"Tom Thompson" > wrote

nothing of note <plonk!>


"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote

childish blabber <plonk!>


> Edward Wong wrote

childish blabber <plonk!>


"Edward Dolan" > wrote

way too much off topic topics <plonk!>

"The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense"

Elivis Prestly - August 17, 1974










































































































---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 8/14/2003

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Zippy the Pinhead wrote in message ...

>Hey, Fabbie, what do you call Mr. Rodriguez when you're hanging out
>with the riders from Vini Caldirola?


Look, ok so his name is Fredy, you types may
have heard of him called Fast Fredy but his
peers such as me don't use that term on him.

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Zippy the Pinhead wrote in message ...

>Hey, Fabbie, what do you call Mr. Rodriguez when you're hanging out
>with the riders from Vini Caldirola?


Look, ok so his name is Fredy, you types may
have heard of him called Fast Fredy but his
peers such as me don't use that term on him.

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Thompson" > wrote in message >...

> Fab,
>
> Long time no hear from. You need to stop by more often and lend us your
> wisdom.. We have an imitator here, but he has no imagination and cannot seem
> to get past "jackass" and "idiot" in his trolls - especially when someone
> nails him on one of his many inconsistencies. Perhaps with more exposure to
> you, he will get better.
>
> Tom Thompson

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I would never call Fab an
idiot or a jackass because he clearly is not, but you of the double
Toms clearly are. Fab is a one-note Johnny and he has perfected that
one note, but I am a man of many notes. I find that quantity is the
secret to posting on this newsgroup because of all the idiots and
jackasses to be found here. Quality posts are wasted on them.

By the way TT, when are you going to learn how to edit a post?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Thompson" > wrote in message >...

> Fab,
>
> Long time no hear from. You need to stop by more often and lend us your
> wisdom.. We have an imitator here, but he has no imagination and cannot seem
> to get past "jackass" and "idiot" in his trolls - especially when someone
> nails him on one of his many inconsistencies. Perhaps with more exposure to
> you, he will get better.
>
> Tom Thompson

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I would never call Fab an
idiot or a jackass because he clearly is not, but you of the double
Toms clearly are. Fab is a one-note Johnny and he has perfected that
one note, but I am a man of many notes. I find that quantity is the
secret to posting on this newsgroup because of all the idiots and
jackasses to be found here. Quality posts are wasted on them.

By the way TT, when are you going to learn how to edit a post?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[Edward Wong]

> I respectfully disagree that neither of these accidents illustrate an
> advantage of riding a recumbent. IMO, they only illustrate the
> possible dire consequences of not paying complete attention to what
> one is doing. I will admit that most recumbents do put the rider in a
> position that offers a more upright head position. However, that
> alone does not automatically insure more safety. A momentary lapse of
> attention can be disasterous, whatever the head position, especially
> when in a situation as that you descibed, heavy, two way bike traffic
> on a narrow trail shared with other riders, walkers, joggers and
> roller bladers. Having one's head up and looking straight ahead does
> not even guarantee that one will not have a momentary lapse of
> attention and a fraction of a second is all it takes to cause an
> accident.
>
> I am certainly sorry your friend was hurt and pray that he will
> recovery fully. However, I sincerely believe that his accident was
> caused by his own inattentiveness, which could have also occurred on a
> bent, with the same results.
>
> Harry Jiles

Harry,

Thank you for your input. Yes, inattentiveness can get you in trouble
no matter what type of bike you ride and as I stated in another post
in this very same thread, we are not invincible regardless of our
choice of steed. However, the recumbent minimizes the chance of an
accident of this nature happening in the first place and should it
occur anyway, the riding position gives the bent rider an edge of not
suffering as serious injuries. You are seated much closer to the
ground and further back from the front of the bicycle. The fall from
the higher seat of a road bike especially if you are thrown over the
handlebar is more devastating. This is just physics and a real
characteristic of the dynamics of both types of bicycles.

The purpose of this thread is not to bash uprights or pace line racing
tatics and I want to stop this right now before this topic degenerates
to that. A human being I know was seriously injured on Saturday and I
have no desire to get on the soap box so to speak and preach
recumbents to anyone. That's my position. Again thank you for
participating and giving your opinion.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[Edward Wong]

> I respectfully disagree that neither of these accidents illustrate an
> advantage of riding a recumbent. IMO, they only illustrate the
> possible dire consequences of not paying complete attention to what
> one is doing. I will admit that most recumbents do put the rider in a
> position that offers a more upright head position. However, that
> alone does not automatically insure more safety. A momentary lapse of
> attention can be disasterous, whatever the head position, especially
> when in a situation as that you descibed, heavy, two way bike traffic
> on a narrow trail shared with other riders, walkers, joggers and
> roller bladers. Having one's head up and looking straight ahead does
> not even guarantee that one will not have a momentary lapse of
> attention and a fraction of a second is all it takes to cause an
> accident.
>
> I am certainly sorry your friend was hurt and pray that he will
> recovery fully. However, I sincerely believe that his accident was
> caused by his own inattentiveness, which could have also occurred on a
> bent, with the same results.
>
> Harry Jiles

Harry,

Thank you for your input. Yes, inattentiveness can get you in trouble
no matter what type of bike you ride and as I stated in another post
in this very same thread, we are not invincible regardless of our
choice of steed. However, the recumbent minimizes the chance of an
accident of this nature happening in the first place and should it
occur anyway, the riding position gives the bent rider an edge of not
suffering as serious injuries. You are seated much closer to the
ground and further back from the front of the bicycle. The fall from
the higher seat of a road bike especially if you are thrown over the
handlebar is more devastating. This is just physics and a real
characteristic of the dynamics of both types of bicycles.

The purpose of this thread is not to bash uprights or pace line racing
tatics and I want to stop this right now before this topic degenerates
to that. A human being I know was seriously injured on Saturday and I
have no desire to get on the soap box so to speak and preach
recumbents to anyone. That's my position. Again thank you for
participating and giving your opinion.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[Ian]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> Speaking of ,safety I ran some calculations on bents
> and it looks like on average you types can expect
> to have an serious encounter with a motor vehicle
> every 3000km because of the fact your contraptions
> just can't been seen out on the road. I know you mainly
> just ride around your subdivion but you must be getting
> near to racking up 3000k pretty soon.
>
Hmmm, now lets see, I have ridden about 60,000 recumbent miles, serious
encounters with motor vehicles total zero, nope, it just doesn't pan out.

Ian

[Ian]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> Speaking of ,safety I ran some calculations on bents
> and it looks like on average you types can expect
> to have an serious encounter with a motor vehicle
> every 3000km because of the fact your contraptions
> just can't been seen out on the road. I know you mainly
> just ride around your subdivion but you must be getting
> near to racking up 3000k pretty soon.
>
Hmmm, now lets see, I have ridden about 60,000 recumbent miles, serious
encounters with motor vehicles total zero, nope, it just doesn't pan out.

Ian

[bill g]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:

>
>
> The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> I would let ride with me.
>

From Rec.Bike.Racing NG.
bill g

"The Rick Denney Modified Comprehensive Cycling Food Chain:
-Roadies--Pros
-MTBers--Pros
-Roadies--Cat I/II
-Trackies--All, but they must own their own track bike
-MTBers--Expert
-Triathletes--Elites
-Roadies--Cat III/IV
-MTBers--Sport
-Roadies--Cat V
-MTBers--Novice
-Triathletes--Age Groupers wearing Speedos in a group ride (plus all
of below)
-Triathletes--Age Groupers with forward position, 650 wheels, aerobars
and normal cycling clothing
-Triathletes--Age Groupers on normal road bikes with aerobars
-Tourists--Loaded, cross-country, self-guided tours
-Tourists--Loaded, cross-country, guided tours
-Tourists--Loaded, organized vacation group
-Tourists--Non-loaded, organized vacation group in mountains (e.g.
Pedal the Peaks
-Tourists--Non-loaded, organized vacation group in mere hills (e.g.
Texas Hill Country Tour)
-Tourists--Weekend century riders
-Club riders with Fancy Road Bikes
-Club riders with Normal Road Bikes
-Club riders with Aerobars
-Recreational MTBers (off-road only)
-Commuters with fenders, panniers, and lights
-Commuters with panniers and lights
-Commuters on racing bikes
-The Rest of the World
Messengers are orthogonal to this ranking.

If you are riding in a group, you gain Obnoxiousness Points for acting
as if you are higher on the list, and Humility Points for acting as if
you are lower on the list. Both points are Bonus Points, depending on
who you are trying to impress.

Now, you must adjust your position based on the following Unspoken
Rules (never read these aloud):

If your bike is Italian, you may move up one notch. If your bike is
British, and you are a tourist, you may move up one notch; otherwise,
you must move down two notches. If your bike is aero, and you are a
triathlete, you may move up one notch.

Move up a notch this year only if you have nine-speed. Move down a
notch for each cog short of eight (nine starting next year).

Move down a notch if you have a triple up front, unless your are a
tourist. If you are tourist and have only two chainrings, then move
down to the Tourists--Weekend Century Rider rank even if you have
panniers.

The Uniqueness Limit allows only two bikes of the same make and model
in any one group. If the limit is exceeded, then all riders of the
offending make and model must move down a notch for each excess bike.

If you have visible scars, you may move up two notches, unless you are
a mountain biker. If you are a mountain biker and have no visible
scars, you must move down one notch. If you have scars in an area that
is not displayable in public, and you can persuade a member of the
opposite sex to admire it, then you can move up two notches, but not
in combination with below.

The above is correlated to the Getting Regular Sex factor. If you are
getting any, and you are male, then move up four notches. Add two more
notches if your partner is in the riding group. Add another notch
still if everyone else is flirting with her. This factor does not
apply if you are married, even if you are getting regular sex.

If you ride a team jersey for any team you have never joined, then you
must move down two notches. If your jerseys are tattered from use,
then you may move up a notch. If you are a roadie, and wear sleeveless
jerseys, then move down a notch. Drop a notch if your jersey
advertises a brand better than the one you own. Drop four notches if
you are wearing a T-shirt. Drop four notches if you are wearing
non-cycling shorts (unless they are speedos).

If you do not shave your legs, move down three notches.

If you ride Campagnolo, move up a notch, unless it's Record, in which
case move up two notches. If you ride Shimano, move down a notch,
unless it's Dura Ace, which is neutral.

If your bike is titanium, move up two notches. If it is high-end
carbon, move up one notch. If it is aluminum, move down a notch,
unless it's a Felt, in which case you can move up a notch. QR's are
neutral, but only for triathletes. If you are a tourist, and your bike
is not steel, move down three notches.

If you have aero wheels, move up a notch, unless you are a tourist, in
which case move down a notch.

If you ride tubulars, move up a notch.

If you ride with toe clips, then move to the bottom of the list.

Move up a notch if you train on a fixed gear in the early season. Move
up another notch if you train on a real track bike.

Move down a notch for each stupid question.

Move down four notches if you use the phrase "I'm a triathlete" in any
group of Roadies, Trackies, and/or Club Riders.

Move down a notch for each 15 pounds excess weight,unless you are
wearing a Speedo, in which case move down two notches. Pronounced
cycling-short tan lines move you up a notch, but only in the Summer.
In the Winter, such tan lines move you up two notches.

If, during the application of the above Unspoken Rules, you ever dip
into the The Rest of the World Category, then you must stay there.
Subsequent Bonus Points become null and void.

Note that non-roadies may choose not to participate in the above
ranking system. Roadie participation, however, is required.

I hope this detailed approach to this serious problem will assist all
of you in determining who to snub."
--
His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

[bill g]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:

>
>
> The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> I would let ride with me.
>

From Rec.Bike.Racing NG.
bill g

"The Rick Denney Modified Comprehensive Cycling Food Chain:
-Roadies--Pros
-MTBers--Pros
-Roadies--Cat I/II
-Trackies--All, but they must own their own track bike
-MTBers--Expert
-Triathletes--Elites
-Roadies--Cat III/IV
-MTBers--Sport
-Roadies--Cat V
-MTBers--Novice
-Triathletes--Age Groupers wearing Speedos in a group ride (plus all
of below)
-Triathletes--Age Groupers with forward position, 650 wheels, aerobars
and normal cycling clothing
-Triathletes--Age Groupers on normal road bikes with aerobars
-Tourists--Loaded, cross-country, self-guided tours
-Tourists--Loaded, cross-country, guided tours
-Tourists--Loaded, organized vacation group
-Tourists--Non-loaded, organized vacation group in mountains (e.g.
Pedal the Peaks
-Tourists--Non-loaded, organized vacation group in mere hills (e.g.
Texas Hill Country Tour)
-Tourists--Weekend century riders
-Club riders with Fancy Road Bikes
-Club riders with Normal Road Bikes
-Club riders with Aerobars
-Recreational MTBers (off-road only)
-Commuters with fenders, panniers, and lights
-Commuters with panniers and lights
-Commuters on racing bikes
-The Rest of the World
Messengers are orthogonal to this ranking.

If you are riding in a group, you gain Obnoxiousness Points for acting
as if you are higher on the list, and Humility Points for acting as if
you are lower on the list. Both points are Bonus Points, depending on
who you are trying to impress.

Now, you must adjust your position based on the following Unspoken
Rules (never read these aloud):

If your bike is Italian, you may move up one notch. If your bike is
British, and you are a tourist, you may move up one notch; otherwise,
you must move down two notches. If your bike is aero, and you are a
triathlete, you may move up one notch.

Move up a notch this year only if you have nine-speed. Move down a
notch for each cog short of eight (nine starting next year).

Move down a notch if you have a triple up front, unless your are a
tourist. If you are tourist and have only two chainrings, then move
down to the Tourists--Weekend Century Rider rank even if you have
panniers.

The Uniqueness Limit allows only two bikes of the same make and model
in any one group. If the limit is exceeded, then all riders of the
offending make and model must move down a notch for each excess bike.

If you have visible scars, you may move up two notches, unless you are
a mountain biker. If you are a mountain biker and have no visible
scars, you must move down one notch. If you have scars in an area that
is not displayable in public, and you can persuade a member of the
opposite sex to admire it, then you can move up two notches, but not
in combination with below.

The above is correlated to the Getting Regular Sex factor. If you are
getting any, and you are male, then move up four notches. Add two more
notches if your partner is in the riding group. Add another notch
still if everyone else is flirting with her. This factor does not
apply if you are married, even if you are getting regular sex.

If you ride a team jersey for any team you have never joined, then you
must move down two notches. If your jerseys are tattered from use,
then you may move up a notch. If you are a roadie, and wear sleeveless
jerseys, then move down a notch. Drop a notch if your jersey
advertises a brand better than the one you own. Drop four notches if
you are wearing a T-shirt. Drop four notches if you are wearing
non-cycling shorts (unless they are speedos).

If you do not shave your legs, move down three notches.

If you ride Campagnolo, move up a notch, unless it's Record, in which
case move up two notches. If you ride Shimano, move down a notch,
unless it's Dura Ace, which is neutral.

If your bike is titanium, move up two notches. If it is high-end
carbon, move up one notch. If it is aluminum, move down a notch,
unless it's a Felt, in which case you can move up a notch. QR's are
neutral, but only for triathletes. If you are a tourist, and your bike
is not steel, move down three notches.

If you have aero wheels, move up a notch, unless you are a tourist, in
which case move down a notch.

If you ride tubulars, move up a notch.

If you ride with toe clips, then move to the bottom of the list.

Move up a notch if you train on a fixed gear in the early season. Move
up another notch if you train on a real track bike.

Move down a notch for each stupid question.

Move down four notches if you use the phrase "I'm a triathlete" in any
group of Roadies, Trackies, and/or Club Riders.

Move down a notch for each 15 pounds excess weight,unless you are
wearing a Speedo, in which case move down two notches. Pronounced
cycling-short tan lines move you up a notch, but only in the Summer.
In the Winter, such tan lines move you up two notches.

If, during the application of the above Unspoken Rules, you ever dip
into the The Rest of the World Category, then you must stay there.
Subsequent Bonus Points become null and void.

Note that non-roadies may choose not to participate in the above
ranking system. Roadie participation, however, is required.

I hope this detailed approach to this serious problem will assist all
of you in determining who to snub."
--
His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

[GeoB]

> Fab is a one-note Johnny and he has perfected
> that one note,

I wuz unner the impresshun that Fab was still using the same old stale
bait. He hasta jiggle it furiously fer anyone to be interested since
he has offered the same thing for so long. I hadn't thought of it as
'perfekshun' but more of bankrupt imagination. He is just shaking the
jar to make us fight.

> Quality posts are wasted on them.

Sheesh, Ed! Doan tell me you are gonna try to emulate Fab, now? You
could aspire to higher heights. I had come to expect better of you.

[GeoB]

> Fab is a one-note Johnny and he has perfected
> that one note,

I wuz unner the impresshun that Fab was still using the same old stale
bait. He hasta jiggle it furiously fer anyone to be interested since
he has offered the same thing for so long. I hadn't thought of it as
'perfekshun' but more of bankrupt imagination. He is just shaking the
jar to make us fight.

> Quality posts are wasted on them.

Sheesh, Ed! Doan tell me you are gonna try to emulate Fab, now? You
could aspire to higher heights. I had come to expect better of you.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 04:12:26 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni"
> wrote:

>
>Speaking of ,safety I ran some calculations on bents

Had your shoes off again, have you Fabbie?

Did you take the opportunity to change your socks, or is that next
month?

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 04:12:26 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni"
> wrote:

>
>Speaking of ,safety I ran some calculations on bents

Had your shoes off again, have you Fabbie?

Did you take the opportunity to change your socks, or is that next
month?

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

bill g wrote in message >...
>>
>"The Rick Denney Modified Comprehensive Cycling Food Chain:
>-Roadies--Pros
>-

Now do you see where my healty contempt and disdain
for you types comes from?

Any your insecurities towards me comes from?

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

bill g wrote in message >...
>>
>"The Rick Denney Modified Comprehensive Cycling Food Chain:
>-Roadies--Pros
>-

Now do you see where my healty contempt and disdain
for you types comes from?

Any your insecurities towards me comes from?

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

GeoB wrote in message >...
He hasta jiggle it furiously fer anyone to be interested since
>he has offered the same thing for so long.

Nope, just stating things as they are.

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

GeoB wrote in message >...
He hasta jiggle it furiously fer anyone to be interested since
>he has offered the same thing for so long.

Nope, just stating things as they are.

[Edward Wong]

(harryo) wrote in message >...
> (Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
>
> > Thank you for your input. Yes, inattentiveness can get you in trouble
> > no matter what type of bike you ride and as I stated in another post
> > in this very same thread, we are not invincible regardless of our
> > choice of steed. However, the recumbent minimizes the chance of an
> > accident of this nature happening in the first place and should it
> > occur anyway, the riding position gives the bent rider an edge of not
> > suffering as serious injuries. You are seated much closer to the
> > ground and further back from the front of the bicycle. The fall from
> > the higher seat of a road bike especially if you are thrown over the
> > handlebar is more devastating. This is just physics and a real
> > characteristic of the dynamics of both types of bicycles.
>
> I agree the seatig position of most bents does place the head more
> upright and in theory should offer the rider better vision than a
> rider on a DF with drop bars. However, I believe most accidents of
> the type you described do happen from a momentary lapse in
> concentration and attention. It could be argued that the more relaxed
> and comfortable seating position of a bent could result in more
> complacency by it's rider than that of a DF rider which could
> contribute to more accidents. I don't believe that to be true, I am
> just not convinced the type of bike has any bearing on lapses in
> concentration. I have seen several bent riders run off the right side
> of a road or cross the center line because of a momentary lapse of
> attention. Fortunately, these instances resulted in no serious
> accidents.
>
> > The purpose of this thread is not to bash uprights or pace line racing
> > tatics and I want to stop this right now before this topic degenerates
> > to that. A human being I know was seriously injured on Saturday and I
> > have no desire to get on the soap box so to speak and preach
> > recumbents to anyone. That's my position. Again thank you for
> > participating and giving your opinion.
>
> I never thought you were bashing uprights or pace line riding. I
> actually do ride a lowracer for almost all my riding and do ride a
> couple different DF bikes occasionally, including a 19 lb road racer.
> Irregardless of the differences in head position and forward vision, I
> just don't feel it is any more difficult to see ahead an the DF as on
> my bent, when proper concentration is maintained.
>
> Again, I certainly hope your friend recovers soon from his injuries
> and suffers no lasting ill effects.
>
> Harry Jiles

I just talked to the club president and he updated me on the condition
of our fellow club member. He has suffered a bruised spinal cord. He
is able to feel his lower extremities again so the road to recovery is
on. I believe that in a few weeks, he will be on a bicycle again. I
thank you for wishing my friend to get well.

As for the discussion at hand, the reason for the accident has nothing
to do with a "momentary lapse" of attention. That happens when you
mind "wanders off" which was not the case here. He was looking and
tinkering with his cyclometer and didn't notice that he placed himself
into the trajectory of the oncoming bicycle traffic. Now here is
where I make my assertion that this would have been very difficult to
happen in my bike. Because his cyclometer is mounted on the handlebar
of an upright racing bicycle, he HAS to take his sight off the road in
order to look at his cyclometer. There is no other way. My bicycle
is an Over the Seat Steered recumbent and my Topeak Panoram is right
in my line of sight so I can see how fast I am going and how far I
have ridden WITHOUT losing the view of what's in front of me. And
even if my mind wanders, my eyes are still registering and will alert
me of any potential danger in front of me.

If you insist on calling the cause of the accident a "momentary lapse"
on part of my co-member, that's fine with me. I am not going to argue
back and forth about it. Accepted. And I will not continue to insist
about the virtues of the "heads up" recumbent seating position. You
ride one and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then why
continue. Right?

All I can say is that just about all the accidents that have happened
in the club, most have been collisions involving drop handlebar road
bikes. The accident victim usually hits something from behind because
he/she didn't see the object, many a times another cyclist. We have
not even registered these same type of accidents with anyone riding a
mountain bike or a hybrid. They are riding more upright than the road
bikers so that should say something. Whenever someone has an accident
on one of those bikes, it is usually due to losing control of the
handling. But even then, the potential to get hurt from falling down
off one of those machines is greater than a bent. One cannot deny the
laws of physics lest we dare argue with God and Sir Issac Newton.

I have said enough. I will continue to post in this thread any new
developments about my co-club member's recovery but no counterposts as
to why I feel recumbents are safer.

Ride safe.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[Edward Wong]

(harryo) wrote in message >...
> (Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
>
> > Thank you for your input. Yes, inattentiveness can get you in trouble
> > no matter what type of bike you ride and as I stated in another post
> > in this very same thread, we are not invincible regardless of our
> > choice of steed. However, the recumbent minimizes the chance of an
> > accident of this nature happening in the first place and should it
> > occur anyway, the riding position gives the bent rider an edge of not
> > suffering as serious injuries. You are seated much closer to the
> > ground and further back from the front of the bicycle. The fall from
> > the higher seat of a road bike especially if you are thrown over the
> > handlebar is more devastating. This is just physics and a real
> > characteristic of the dynamics of both types of bicycles.
>
> I agree the seatig position of most bents does place the head more
> upright and in theory should offer the rider better vision than a
> rider on a DF with drop bars. However, I believe most accidents of
> the type you described do happen from a momentary lapse in
> concentration and attention. It could be argued that the more relaxed
> and comfortable seating position of a bent could result in more
> complacency by it's rider than that of a DF rider which could
> contribute to more accidents. I don't believe that to be true, I am
> just not convinced the type of bike has any bearing on lapses in
> concentration. I have seen several bent riders run off the right side
> of a road or cross the center line because of a momentary lapse of
> attention. Fortunately, these instances resulted in no serious
> accidents.
>
> > The purpose of this thread is not to bash uprights or pace line racing
> > tatics and I want to stop this right now before this topic degenerates
> > to that. A human being I know was seriously injured on Saturday and I
> > have no desire to get on the soap box so to speak and preach
> > recumbents to anyone. That's my position. Again thank you for
> > participating and giving your opinion.
>
> I never thought you were bashing uprights or pace line riding. I
> actually do ride a lowracer for almost all my riding and do ride a
> couple different DF bikes occasionally, including a 19 lb road racer.
> Irregardless of the differences in head position and forward vision, I
> just don't feel it is any more difficult to see ahead an the DF as on
> my bent, when proper concentration is maintained.
>
> Again, I certainly hope your friend recovers soon from his injuries
> and suffers no lasting ill effects.
>
> Harry Jiles

I just talked to the club president and he updated me on the condition
of our fellow club member. He has suffered a bruised spinal cord. He
is able to feel his lower extremities again so the road to recovery is
on. I believe that in a few weeks, he will be on a bicycle again. I
thank you for wishing my friend to get well.

As for the discussion at hand, the reason for the accident has nothing
to do with a "momentary lapse" of attention. That happens when you
mind "wanders off" which was not the case here. He was looking and
tinkering with his cyclometer and didn't notice that he placed himself
into the trajectory of the oncoming bicycle traffic. Now here is
where I make my assertion that this would have been very difficult to
happen in my bike. Because his cyclometer is mounted on the handlebar
of an upright racing bicycle, he HAS to take his sight off the road in
order to look at his cyclometer. There is no other way. My bicycle
is an Over the Seat Steered recumbent and my Topeak Panoram is right
in my line of sight so I can see how fast I am going and how far I
have ridden WITHOUT losing the view of what's in front of me. And
even if my mind wanders, my eyes are still registering and will alert
me of any potential danger in front of me.

If you insist on calling the cause of the accident a "momentary lapse"
on part of my co-member, that's fine with me. I am not going to argue
back and forth about it. Accepted. And I will not continue to insist
about the virtues of the "heads up" recumbent seating position. You
ride one and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then why
continue. Right?

All I can say is that just about all the accidents that have happened
in the club, most have been collisions involving drop handlebar road
bikes. The accident victim usually hits something from behind because
he/she didn't see the object, many a times another cyclist. We have
not even registered these same type of accidents with anyone riding a
mountain bike or a hybrid. They are riding more upright than the road
bikers so that should say something. Whenever someone has an accident
on one of those bikes, it is usually due to losing control of the
handling. But even then, the potential to get hurt from falling down
off one of those machines is greater than a bent. One cannot deny the
laws of physics lest we dare argue with God and Sir Issac Newton.

I have said enough. I will continue to post in this thread any new
developments about my co-club member's recovery but no counterposts as
to why I feel recumbents are safer.

Ride safe.

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[Dave Miller]

On 16 Aug 2003 19:38:48 -0700, (Edward Wong) wrote:

>Hopefully this somber message will get our minds off that silly and
>out of control "What's up with BiGHa" thread.
>
>Today my club the Florida Freewheelers hosted a membership drive on
.........>
>It seems that my fellow club member who was probably 30-40 feet behind
>me was not watching the bike traffic coming in the opposite direction.
> He was hunched over his drop bars and had momentarily concentrated
>his attention on his cyclometer when he collided head on with one of
>the two gentlemen we passed a couple of seconds earlier. I heard a
>sickening crunch sound and as I looked in my rear view mirror, they
>were still falling to the ground. I yelled out to my fellow riders
>that we had an accident. There were several more club members behind
>us and stopped to help our friend. It didn't look good for our guy.
>The other man was shaken up and upset more than anything else. He was
>not injured but our friend was in very bad shape. He couldn't move or
>feel his lower extremities. He also had a bad gash over one of his
>eyebrows. Someone in the group called 911 to have an ambulance
>dispatched. They got there in under 10 minutes and proceeded to
>secure him to put him in the ambulance. I pray that he will be
>alright and recover soon.
>......
>Be careful out there.
>
>Edward Wong
>Orlando, FL

On a cross South Carolina ride I was "breaking wind" (I like it better
than setting a draft) for a group of DFs. I saw the log truck
passing around the curve in our lane and heading right towards us and
I pulled over. After the obligatory "what the #&@* " they all came
over and thanked me and noted that if one of them had been leading
-they would be dead.

Don't know if they ever converted but they certainly feared for their
"souls".

[Dave Miller]

On 16 Aug 2003 19:38:48 -0700, (Edward Wong) wrote:

>Hopefully this somber message will get our minds off that silly and
>out of control "What's up with BiGHa" thread.
>
>Today my club the Florida Freewheelers hosted a membership drive on
.........>
>It seems that my fellow club member who was probably 30-40 feet behind
>me was not watching the bike traffic coming in the opposite direction.
> He was hunched over his drop bars and had momentarily concentrated
>his attention on his cyclometer when he collided head on with one of
>the two gentlemen we passed a couple of seconds earlier. I heard a
>sickening crunch sound and as I looked in my rear view mirror, they
>were still falling to the ground. I yelled out to my fellow riders
>that we had an accident. There were several more club members behind
>us and stopped to help our friend. It didn't look good for our guy.
>The other man was shaken up and upset more than anything else. He was
>not injured but our friend was in very bad shape. He couldn't move or
>feel his lower extremities. He also had a bad gash over one of his
>eyebrows. Someone in the group called 911 to have an ambulance
>dispatched. They got there in under 10 minutes and proceeded to
>secure him to put him in the ambulance. I pray that he will be
>alright and recover soon.
>......
>Be careful out there.
>
>Edward Wong
>Orlando, FL

On a cross South Carolina ride I was "breaking wind" (I like it better
than setting a draft) for a group of DFs. I saw the log truck
passing around the curve in our lane and heading right towards us and
I pulled over. After the obligatory "what the #&@* " they all came
over and thanked me and noted that if one of them had been leading
-they would be dead.

Don't know if they ever converted but they certainly feared for their
"souls".

[Edward Dolan]

Larry Varney > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
>
> From Bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/foolishconsi.html)
>
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

> A great person does not have to think consistently from one day to
> the next. This remark comes from the essay "Self-Reliance" by Ralph
> Waldo Emerson. Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish
> and wise consistency.

Thanks for the link to Bartleby. It looks interesting and is my kind
of site. Of course no one comes up with a line like "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds" as an original thought but I have to
limit how much time I am going to spend recreating on this newsgroup
and research for correctness and sources takes time. Actually, I think
I improved on old Waldo Emerson. When you insert too many qualifiers
you sort of detract from the heavy emphasis which I was seeking to
drive home. Still and all though, I do like to be consistent.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

Larry Varney > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
>
> From Bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/foolishconsi.html)
>
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

> A great person does not have to think consistently from one day to
> the next. This remark comes from the essay "Self-Reliance" by Ralph
> Waldo Emerson. Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish
> and wise consistency.

Thanks for the link to Bartleby. It looks interesting and is my kind
of site. Of course no one comes up with a line like "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds" as an original thought but I have to
limit how much time I am going to spend recreating on this newsgroup
and research for correctness and sources takes time. Actually, I think
I improved on old Waldo Emerson. When you insert too many qualifiers
you sort of detract from the heavy emphasis which I was seeking to
drive home. Still and all though, I do like to be consistent.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

(Chalo) wrote in message >...
> (Edward Wong) wrote:
>
> > "Samuel Burkeen" > wrote:
> >
> > > What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider recumbents to
> > > be less safe than uprights.
> >
> > It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
> > cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent.
>
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
........

Many thanks Chalo for your well thought out and well written post on
recumbent safety versus upright safety. What you have written ought to
be burned into the brain of every recumbent rider who thinks he is
safer on a recumbent than he would be on an upright for riding in the
real world that you so excellently described. I think many of us have
been riding recumbents for so long that we have forgotten all those
concerns that you indicate and we end up thinking we are far safer
than we actually are. And then most of us are going too fast anyway
and so we multiply the dangers that we are subject to. When the
traffic and road conditions get tricky I slow down on my recumbent.
That is the only way to be "safe".

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

(Chalo) wrote in message >...
> (Edward Wong) wrote:
>
> > "Samuel Burkeen" > wrote:
> >
> > > What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider recumbents to
> > > be less safe than uprights.
> >
> > It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
> > cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent.
>
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
........

Many thanks Chalo for your well thought out and well written post on
recumbent safety versus upright safety. What you have written ought to
be burned into the brain of every recumbent rider who thinks he is
safer on a recumbent than he would be on an upright for riding in the
real world that you so excellently described. I think many of us have
been riding recumbents for so long that we have forgotten all those
concerns that you indicate and we end up thinking we are far safer
than we actually are. And then most of us are going too fast anyway
and so we multiply the dangers that we are subject to. When the
traffic and road conditions get tricky I slow down on my recumbent.
That is the only way to be "safe".

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[harryo]

(Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
> As for the discussion at hand, the reason for the accident has nothing
> to do with a "momentary lapse" of attention. That happens when you
> mind "wanders off" which was not the case here. He was looking and
> tinkering with his cyclometer and didn't notice that he placed himself
> into the trajectory of the oncoming bicycle traffic. Now here is
> where I make my assertion that this would have been very difficult to
> happen in my bike. Because his cyclometer is mounted on the handlebar
> of an upright racing bicycle, he HAS to take his sight off the road in
> order to look at his cyclometer. There is no other way. My bicycle
> is an Over the Seat Steered recumbent and my Topeak Panoram is right
> in my line of sight so I can see how fast I am going and how far I
> have ridden WITHOUT losing the view of what's in front of me. And
> even if my mind wanders, my eyes are still registering and will alert
> me of any potential danger in front of me.

What i am saying is that if the situatuion requires one to devote his
full attention to what is at hand, which in this case was piloting a
bike in heavy bike traffic, then shifting one's attention from that is
a lapse. Perhaps a momentary diversion of attention would be more
accurate. Should one really be fiddling with their cyclometer, or
anything else on a bike, when in a large pack of cyclists, on a narrow
path, with other bikes approching from the opposite direction? Even
with a cyclometer on a bent mounted in front of you, is this really a
good idea and can you really see what you are doing, when fiddling
with it, without diverting your attention away from the road, or path,
for fraction of a second?

> on part of my co-member, that's fine with me. I am not going to argue
> back and forth about it. Accepted. And I will not continue to insist
> about the virtues of the "heads up" recumbent seating position. You
> ride one and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then why
> continue. Right?

Why do you view this as an argument? You offered your opinion and I
offered mine. Why can't we have a rational, analytical discussion,
which is what I thought we were doing?

> All I can say is that just about all the accidents that have happened
> in the club, most have been collisions involving drop handlebar road
> bikes. The accident victim usually hits something from behind because
> he/she didn't see the object, many a times another cyclist. We have
> not even registered these same type of accidents with anyone riding a
> mountain bike or a hybrid. They are riding more upright than the road
> bikers so that should say something. Whenever someone has an accident
> on one of those bikes, it is usually due to losing control of the
> handling. But even then, the potential to get hurt from falling down
> off one of those machines is greater than a bent. One cannot deny the
> laws of physics lest we dare argue with God and Sir Issac Newton.

I think you make too broad of a generalization. With the lack of any
real statistics from any research, anything we conclude is just
conjecture based on anecdotal evidence, which varies as much as
personal opinions. I don't see where physics has a thing to do with
it. Any one bicycle accident can have unique circumstances which can
contribute to any injuries. If those circumstances involve a human
body colliding with something else, I think the potential for injury
is great, no matter what the riding position.

> I have said enough. I will continue to post in this thread any new
> developments about my co-club member's recovery but no counterposts as
> to why I feel recumbents are safer.

This is your choice. I just assumed that since this is a discussion
group, you were open to discussion on this subject. My point is that
I am not sure that recumbents are safer than DFs. I wonder if the
belief they are might even cause some complacency by their riders.
Even bents are safer, I don't see what difference it makes besides
making bent riders feel better about their choice of bikes. I doubt
that very many DF riders will opt for a bent for this reason. If
someone markets a bike that by design is vastly safer than any other
bike available, I wonder how many of us would actually want to own,
and ride, one?

Harry Jiles

[harryo]

(Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
> As for the discussion at hand, the reason for the accident has nothing
> to do with a "momentary lapse" of attention. That happens when you
> mind "wanders off" which was not the case here. He was looking and
> tinkering with his cyclometer and didn't notice that he placed himself
> into the trajectory of the oncoming bicycle traffic. Now here is
> where I make my assertion that this would have been very difficult to
> happen in my bike. Because his cyclometer is mounted on the handlebar
> of an upright racing bicycle, he HAS to take his sight off the road in
> order to look at his cyclometer. There is no other way. My bicycle
> is an Over the Seat Steered recumbent and my Topeak Panoram is right
> in my line of sight so I can see how fast I am going and how far I
> have ridden WITHOUT losing the view of what's in front of me. And
> even if my mind wanders, my eyes are still registering and will alert
> me of any potential danger in front of me.

What i am saying is that if the situatuion requires one to devote his
full attention to what is at hand, which in this case was piloting a
bike in heavy bike traffic, then shifting one's attention from that is
a lapse. Perhaps a momentary diversion of attention would be more
accurate. Should one really be fiddling with their cyclometer, or
anything else on a bike, when in a large pack of cyclists, on a narrow
path, with other bikes approching from the opposite direction? Even
with a cyclometer on a bent mounted in front of you, is this really a
good idea and can you really see what you are doing, when fiddling
with it, without diverting your attention away from the road, or path,
for fraction of a second?

> on part of my co-member, that's fine with me. I am not going to argue
> back and forth about it. Accepted. And I will not continue to insist
> about the virtues of the "heads up" recumbent seating position. You
> ride one and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then why
> continue. Right?

Why do you view this as an argument? You offered your opinion and I
offered mine. Why can't we have a rational, analytical discussion,
which is what I thought we were doing?

> All I can say is that just about all the accidents that have happened
> in the club, most have been collisions involving drop handlebar road
> bikes. The accident victim usually hits something from behind because
> he/she didn't see the object, many a times another cyclist. We have
> not even registered these same type of accidents with anyone riding a
> mountain bike or a hybrid. They are riding more upright than the road
> bikers so that should say something. Whenever someone has an accident
> on one of those bikes, it is usually due to losing control of the
> handling. But even then, the potential to get hurt from falling down
> off one of those machines is greater than a bent. One cannot deny the
> laws of physics lest we dare argue with God and Sir Issac Newton.

I think you make too broad of a generalization. With the lack of any
real statistics from any research, anything we conclude is just
conjecture based on anecdotal evidence, which varies as much as
personal opinions. I don't see where physics has a thing to do with
it. Any one bicycle accident can have unique circumstances which can
contribute to any injuries. If those circumstances involve a human
body colliding with something else, I think the potential for injury
is great, no matter what the riding position.

> I have said enough. I will continue to post in this thread any new
> developments about my co-club member's recovery but no counterposts as
> to why I feel recumbents are safer.

This is your choice. I just assumed that since this is a discussion
group, you were open to discussion on this subject. My point is that
I am not sure that recumbents are safer than DFs. I wonder if the
belief they are might even cause some complacency by their riders.
Even bents are safer, I don't see what difference it makes besides
making bent riders feel better about their choice of bikes. I doubt
that very many DF riders will opt for a bent for this reason. If
someone markets a bike that by design is vastly safer than any other
bike available, I wonder how many of us would actually want to own,
and ride, one?

Harry Jiles

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...When you insert too many qualifiers
> you sort of detract from the heavy emphasis which I was seeking to
> drive home. Still and all though, I do like to be consistent.

Qualifiers are often the most important portions of a text, if you wish
to avoid misinterpretation.

Tom Sherman - Somewhere in space and time

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...When you insert too many qualifiers
> you sort of detract from the heavy emphasis which I was seeking to
> drive home. Still and all though, I do like to be consistent.

Qualifiers are often the most important portions of a text, if you wish
to avoid misinterpretation.

Tom Sherman - Somewhere in space and time

[Eugene Cottrell]

I agree, I rode a recumbent last year and found it unstable and far more
unsafe than a DF. I put quite a bit more miles than you did and never felt
comfortable (2,500 miles). I had 4 falls on the recumbent vs. none ever on
a DF with averaging 3-5,000 miles a year for many, many years. (I did have
accidents on the DF, but I never fell over). I live in a hilly area and do
not use aerobars, which are much more common, and unsafe in my opinion, in
flat areas. I never felt that the recumbent gave me a better view, as a
matter of fact I had a better view on the DF due to height and I do ride a
"racing" bike. No-one I know rides in the drops, as most bent riders seem
to think is common, except when going down hill and then, not always. I
belong to a club of over 600 and there are many very fast riders, one of
which I once was considered. I have ridden across America and usually rode
5-6 days a week up until last year. I only say these things to let you know
that I am not a beginner and have had many years (and miles) experience to
base these opinions on.

Gene

"Chalo" > wrote in message
om...
> (Edward Wong) wrote:
>
> > "Samuel Burkeen" > wrote:
> >
> > > What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider
recumbents to
> > > be less safe than uprights.
> >
> > It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
> > cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent.
>
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
>
> I have ridden for a day on an Infinity LWB and for a long weekend on a
> BikeE. I did not crash either of the bikes during my time with them.
> It still feels like blind luck given the capricious ill handling of
> those bikes.
>
> My impression is that the perceived safety of 'bents is due to three
> main factors:
>
> 1) diminished distance from rider to ground compared to normal bikes
>
> 2) feet-first orientation of rider when in motion
>
> 3) heads-up seating position
>
> I believe the first two of these can actually serve to diminish the
> severity of injuries that might occur from a simple tipover or
> low-speed washout. However, I do not believe that the vertical fall
> height of these types of crash is accountable for much serious
> cycling-related injury to begin with.
>
> Furthermore, I think that the benefits of feet-first and heads-up
> seating on a bent are chiefly psychological. The perception of
> control offered by the former is offset by shortcomings in actual
> vehicle control, and the feeling of visibility granted by the latter
> is nullified by the inherent low ride height of most 'bents.
>
> I observed the following qualities of 'bents that I deemed to have a
> negative effect on safety:
>
> 1) inability to unweight or lift either wheel while in motion
>
> 2) inability to swerve the tires' contact path without changing
> direction
>
> 3) unstable handling, impossible to ride without hands on bars
>
> 4) rider low enough to be eclipsed by cars
>
> 5) rider viewpoint obstructed by all other road users
>
> My usual inbound commute is over a short section of road where I must
> negotiate a very fast downhill ending with a merge and exit at traffic
> speed (45+ mph), followed by a couple of crowded, confusing
> intersections and road surfaces scarred by several oblique train
> tracks and damage from heavy truck use. I think it's a great example
> of circumstances in which a 'bent would be a severe liability.
>
> For a bent to keep pace on the downhill would be no problem. The
> merge at the bottom, though, requires the cooperation of drivers as
> there is always some amount of competing traffic. I believe the
> higher, less easily obscured profile of a rider on a normal bike helps
> to attract the attention of sometimes-oblivious cagers. Bents vary a
> lot in the amount of their bike/rider combination that appears above
> the windowsills of the average car or truck, so some are sure to be
> better than others. A big-wheeled SWB machine (e.g. Optima Condor)
> would likely be similar to a normal bike in this respect.
>
> The next section, a series of crowded intersections with strange
> approach angles and unusual multi-lane convergences offers a lot more
> opportunities for a 'bent to disappear behind cars, much less of an
> overview of the traffic ahead than from a normal bike, and way fewer
> opportunities to "opt out" onto a sidewalk or divider than those
> available to a bike that can climb curbs.
>
> But all this pales compared to a 'bent's relative inability to cope
> with the pavement at the end of the run, which is deeply grooved with
> tracks at odd angles, horribly pocked and fractured throughout, and
> full of surprise edge traps. On a 'bent you can't lift your wheels,
> and you can't choose your line without changing your direction. A
> 'bent rider is much more at the mercy of crappy surfaces than a rider
> of a normal bike. I can't imagine how a 'bent rider would deal with
> oblique and subsided train tracks at all, except to slow to a crawl
> and jog across them perpendicularly, which is this case means
> approaching from the oncoming lane.
>
> Within the sub-4-mile length of my commute to work, there are probably
> 100 opportunities for a 'bent and its rider to wind up sprawled in the
> street with an equally ungainly loaded truck bearing down upon them,
> only some of which also apply to a cyclist on a normal bike. I'm sure
> that's not the only reason I've seen only one 'bent pass this way
> (piloted by the indomitable Joe Kochanowski), but it's something to
> consider. In such circumstances I find it impossible to imagine that
> any 'bent, least of all the small-wheeled, low-slung kind, could offer
> anything like equivalently safe passage to a normal upright bike.
>
> Chalo Colina

[Eugene Cottrell]

I agree, I rode a recumbent last year and found it unstable and far more
unsafe than a DF. I put quite a bit more miles than you did and never felt
comfortable (2,500 miles). I had 4 falls on the recumbent vs. none ever on
a DF with averaging 3-5,000 miles a year for many, many years. (I did have
accidents on the DF, but I never fell over). I live in a hilly area and do
not use aerobars, which are much more common, and unsafe in my opinion, in
flat areas. I never felt that the recumbent gave me a better view, as a
matter of fact I had a better view on the DF due to height and I do ride a
"racing" bike. No-one I know rides in the drops, as most bent riders seem
to think is common, except when going down hill and then, not always. I
belong to a club of over 600 and there are many very fast riders, one of
which I once was considered. I have ridden across America and usually rode
5-6 days a week up until last year. I only say these things to let you know
that I am not a beginner and have had many years (and miles) experience to
base these opinions on.

Gene

"Chalo" > wrote in message
om...
> (Edward Wong) wrote:
>
> > "Samuel Burkeen" > wrote:
> >
> > > What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider
recumbents to
> > > be less safe than uprights.
> >
> > It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
> > cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent.
>
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
>
> I have ridden for a day on an Infinity LWB and for a long weekend on a
> BikeE. I did not crash either of the bikes during my time with them.
> It still feels like blind luck given the capricious ill handling of
> those bikes.
>
> My impression is that the perceived safety of 'bents is due to three
> main factors:
>
> 1) diminished distance from rider to ground compared to normal bikes
>
> 2) feet-first orientation of rider when in motion
>
> 3) heads-up seating position
>
> I believe the first two of these can actually serve to diminish the
> severity of injuries that might occur from a simple tipover or
> low-speed washout. However, I do not believe that the vertical fall
> height of these types of crash is accountable for much serious
> cycling-related injury to begin with.
>
> Furthermore, I think that the benefits of feet-first and heads-up
> seating on a bent are chiefly psychological. The perception of
> control offered by the former is offset by shortcomings in actual
> vehicle control, and the feeling of visibility granted by the latter
> is nullified by the inherent low ride height of most 'bents.
>
> I observed the following qualities of 'bents that I deemed to have a
> negative effect on safety:
>
> 1) inability to unweight or lift either wheel while in motion
>
> 2) inability to swerve the tires' contact path without changing
> direction
>
> 3) unstable handling, impossible to ride without hands on bars
>
> 4) rider low enough to be eclipsed by cars
>
> 5) rider viewpoint obstructed by all other road users
>
> My usual inbound commute is over a short section of road where I must
> negotiate a very fast downhill ending with a merge and exit at traffic
> speed (45+ mph), followed by a couple of crowded, confusing
> intersections and road surfaces scarred by several oblique train
> tracks and damage from heavy truck use. I think it's a great example
> of circumstances in which a 'bent would be a severe liability.
>
> For a bent to keep pace on the downhill would be no problem. The
> merge at the bottom, though, requires the cooperation of drivers as
> there is always some amount of competing traffic. I believe the
> higher, less easily obscured profile of a rider on a normal bike helps
> to attract the attention of sometimes-oblivious cagers. Bents vary a
> lot in the amount of their bike/rider combination that appears above
> the windowsills of the average car or truck, so some are sure to be
> better than others. A big-wheeled SWB machine (e.g. Optima Condor)
> would likely be similar to a normal bike in this respect.
>
> The next section, a series of crowded intersections with strange
> approach angles and unusual multi-lane convergences offers a lot more
> opportunities for a 'bent to disappear behind cars, much less of an
> overview of the traffic ahead than from a normal bike, and way fewer
> opportunities to "opt out" onto a sidewalk or divider than those
> available to a bike that can climb curbs.
>
> But all this pales compared to a 'bent's relative inability to cope
> with the pavement at the end of the run, which is deeply grooved with
> tracks at odd angles, horribly pocked and fractured throughout, and
> full of surprise edge traps. On a 'bent you can't lift your wheels,
> and you can't choose your line without changing your direction. A
> 'bent rider is much more at the mercy of crappy surfaces than a rider
> of a normal bike. I can't imagine how a 'bent rider would deal with
> oblique and subsided train tracks at all, except to slow to a crawl
> and jog across them perpendicularly, which is this case means
> approaching from the oncoming lane.
>
> Within the sub-4-mile length of my commute to work, there are probably
> 100 opportunities for a 'bent and its rider to wind up sprawled in the
> street with an equally ungainly loaded truck bearing down upon them,
> only some of which also apply to a cyclist on a normal bike. I'm sure
> that's not the only reason I've seen only one 'bent pass this way
> (piloted by the indomitable Joe Kochanowski), but it's something to
> consider. In such circumstances I find it impossible to imagine that
> any 'bent, least of all the small-wheeled, low-slung kind, could offer
> anything like equivalently safe passage to a normal upright bike.
>
> Chalo Colina

[Eugene Cottrell]

Bachetta Strada


"Mike Rice" > wrote in message
...
> What style recumbent did you ride? I fell like I've got a great field
> of view with my DF, but am about to start out a more comfortable
> adventure.
>
> Mike

[Eugene Cottrell]

Bachetta Strada


"Mike Rice" > wrote in message
...
> What style recumbent did you ride? I fell like I've got a great field
> of view with my DF, but am about to start out a more comfortable
> adventure.
>
> Mike

[skip]

"Eugene Cottrell" > wrote in message
...
> Bachetta Strada

Before you give up on recumbents altogether I suggest you try a Tour Easy,
if you haven't already. It's at the other end of the bent spectrum from the
Strada.

If you don't like the TE or the Strada then you are probably aren't a bent
kind of guy.

Good luck.

skip

[skip]

"Eugene Cottrell" > wrote in message
...
> Bachetta Strada

Before you give up on recumbents altogether I suggest you try a Tour Easy,
if you haven't already. It's at the other end of the bent spectrum from the
Strada.

If you don't like the TE or the Strada then you are probably aren't a bent
kind of guy.

Good luck.

skip

[S. Delaire \Rotatorrecumbent\]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Every now and then I have the misfortune of having to ride an upright bike.
It reminds me, in a few short feet why 80% of the injuries of upright riders are
upper body injuries. Just like the injuries that started this post. It is much
easier to fly over the bars of an upright then a recumbent.
And this does not even mention the ergonomic injuries that uprights cause.
To me a recumbent feels like driving a go-kart. I can slide the tires around turns
and retain control. Over rough road sections I can "unload" or "bunny hop". (not as
well as I could with a BMX bike but I CAN do it)
It is possible to ride off road with a recumbent. Limited, but possible.
The speed I get from my recumbents is NOT possible with an upright. That alone
keeps me interested.
The recumbents you tried are decent machines.
The rider did not learn them properly.
Speedy

Chalo wrote:

> (Edward Wong) wrote:
>
> > "Samuel Burkeen" > wrote:
> >
> > > What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider recumbents to
> > > be less safe than uprights.
> >
> > It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
> > cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent.
>
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
>
> I have ridden for a day on an Infinity LWB and for a long weekend on a
> BikeE. I did not crash either of the bikes during my time with them.
> It still feels like blind luck given the capricious ill handling of
> those bikes.
>
> My impression is that the perceived safety of 'bents is due to three
> main factors:
>
> 1) diminished distance from rider to ground compared to normal bikes
>
> 2) feet-first orientation of rider when in motion
>
> 3) heads-up seating position
>
> I believe the first two of these can actually serve to diminish the
> severity of injuries that might occur from a simple tipover or
> low-speed washout. However, I do not believe that the vertical fall
> height of these types of crash is accountable for much serious
> cycling-related injury to begin with.
>
> Furthermore, I think that the benefits of feet-first and heads-up
> seating on a bent are chiefly psychological. The perception of
> control offered by the former is offset by shortcomings in actual
> vehicle control, and the feeling of visibility granted by the latter
> is nullified by the inherent low ride height of most 'bents.
>
> I observed the following qualities of 'bents that I deemed to have a
> negative effect on safety:
>
> 1) inability to unweight or lift either wheel while in motion
>
> 2) inability to swerve the tires' contact path without changing
> direction
>
> 3) unstable handling, impossible to ride without hands on bars
>
> 4) rider low enough to be eclipsed by cars
>
> 5) rider viewpoint obstructed by all other road users
>
> My usual inbound commute is over a short section of road where I must
> negotiate a very fast downhill ending with a merge and exit at traffic
> speed (45+ mph), followed by a couple of crowded, confusing
> intersections and road surfaces scarred by several oblique train
> tracks and damage from heavy truck use. I think it's a great example
> of circumstances in which a 'bent would be a severe liability.
>
> For a bent to keep pace on the downhill would be no problem. The
> merge at the bottom, though, requires the cooperation of drivers as
> there is always some amount of competing traffic. I believe the
> higher, less easily obscured profile of a rider on a normal bike helps
> to attract the attention of sometimes-oblivious cagers. Bents vary a
> lot in the amount of their bike/rider combination that appears above
> the windowsills of the average car or truck, so some are sure to be
> better than others. A big-wheeled SWB machine (e.g. Optima Condor)
> would likely be similar to a normal bike in this respect.
>
> The next section, a series of crowded intersections with strange
> approach angles and unusual multi-lane convergences offers a lot more
> opportunities for a 'bent to disappear behind cars, much less of an
> overview of the traffic ahead than from a normal bike, and way fewer
> opportunities to "opt out" onto a sidewalk or divider than those
> available to a bike that can climb curbs.
>
> But all this pales compared to a 'bent's relative inability to cope
> with the pavement at the end of the run, which is deeply grooved with
> tracks at odd angles, horribly pocked and fractured throughout, and
> full of surprise edge traps. On a 'bent you can't lift your wheels,
> and you can't choose your line without changing your direction. A
> 'bent rider is much more at the mercy of crappy surfaces than a rider
> of a normal bike. I can't imagine how a 'bent rider would deal with
> oblique and subsided train tracks at all, except to slow to a crawl
> and jog across them perpendicularly, which is this case means
> approaching from the oncoming lane.
>
> Within the sub-4-mile length of my commute to work, there are probably
> 100 opportunities for a 'bent and its rider to wind up sprawled in the
> street with an equally ungainly loaded truck bearing down upon them,
> only some of which also apply to a cyclist on a normal bike. I'm sure
> that's not the only reason I've seen only one 'bent pass this way
> (piloted by the indomitable Joe Kochanowski), but it's something to
> consider. In such circumstances I find it impossible to imagine that
> any 'bent, least of all the small-wheeled, low-slung kind, could offer
> anything like equivalently safe passage to a normal upright bike.
>
> Chalo Colina



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[S. Delaire \Rotatorrecumbent\]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Every now and then I have the misfortune of having to ride an upright bike.
It reminds me, in a few short feet why 80% of the injuries of upright riders are
upper body injuries. Just like the injuries that started this post. It is much
easier to fly over the bars of an upright then a recumbent.
And this does not even mention the ergonomic injuries that uprights cause.
To me a recumbent feels like driving a go-kart. I can slide the tires around turns
and retain control. Over rough road sections I can "unload" or "bunny hop". (not as
well as I could with a BMX bike but I CAN do it)
It is possible to ride off road with a recumbent. Limited, but possible.
The speed I get from my recumbents is NOT possible with an upright. That alone
keeps me interested.
The recumbents you tried are decent machines.
The rider did not learn them properly.
Speedy

Chalo wrote:

> (Edward Wong) wrote:
>
> > "Samuel Burkeen" > wrote:
> >
> > > What seems to amaze me is that most people I talk to consider recumbents to
> > > be less safe than uprights.
> >
> > It can get a little frustrating how ignorant some conventional
> > cyclists are about the greater safety offered by a recumbent.
>
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
>
> I have ridden for a day on an Infinity LWB and for a long weekend on a
> BikeE. I did not crash either of the bikes during my time with them.
> It still feels like blind luck given the capricious ill handling of
> those bikes.
>
> My impression is that the perceived safety of 'bents is due to three
> main factors:
>
> 1) diminished distance from rider to ground compared to normal bikes
>
> 2) feet-first orientation of rider when in motion
>
> 3) heads-up seating position
>
> I believe the first two of these can actually serve to diminish the
> severity of injuries that might occur from a simple tipover or
> low-speed washout. However, I do not believe that the vertical fall
> height of these types of crash is accountable for much serious
> cycling-related injury to begin with.
>
> Furthermore, I think that the benefits of feet-first and heads-up
> seating on a bent are chiefly psychological. The perception of
> control offered by the former is offset by shortcomings in actual
> vehicle control, and the feeling of visibility granted by the latter
> is nullified by the inherent low ride height of most 'bents.
>
> I observed the following qualities of 'bents that I deemed to have a
> negative effect on safety:
>
> 1) inability to unweight or lift either wheel while in motion
>
> 2) inability to swerve the tires' contact path without changing
> direction
>
> 3) unstable handling, impossible to ride without hands on bars
>
> 4) rider low enough to be eclipsed by cars
>
> 5) rider viewpoint obstructed by all other road users
>
> My usual inbound commute is over a short section of road where I must
> negotiate a very fast downhill ending with a merge and exit at traffic
> speed (45+ mph), followed by a couple of crowded, confusing
> intersections and road surfaces scarred by several oblique train
> tracks and damage from heavy truck use. I think it's a great example
> of circumstances in which a 'bent would be a severe liability.
>
> For a bent to keep pace on the downhill would be no problem. The
> merge at the bottom, though, requires the cooperation of drivers as
> there is always some amount of competing traffic. I believe the
> higher, less easily obscured profile of a rider on a normal bike helps
> to attract the attention of sometimes-oblivious cagers. Bents vary a
> lot in the amount of their bike/rider combination that appears above
> the windowsills of the average car or truck, so some are sure to be
> better than others. A big-wheeled SWB machine (e.g. Optima Condor)
> would likely be similar to a normal bike in this respect.
>
> The next section, a series of crowded intersections with strange
> approach angles and unusual multi-lane convergences offers a lot more
> opportunities for a 'bent to disappear behind cars, much less of an
> overview of the traffic ahead than from a normal bike, and way fewer
> opportunities to "opt out" onto a sidewalk or divider than those
> available to a bike that can climb curbs.
>
> But all this pales compared to a 'bent's relative inability to cope
> with the pavement at the end of the run, which is deeply grooved with
> tracks at odd angles, horribly pocked and fractured throughout, and
> full of surprise edge traps. On a 'bent you can't lift your wheels,
> and you can't choose your line without changing your direction. A
> 'bent rider is much more at the mercy of crappy surfaces than a rider
> of a normal bike. I can't imagine how a 'bent rider would deal with
> oblique and subsided train tracks at all, except to slow to a crawl
> and jog across them perpendicularly, which is this case means
> approaching from the oncoming lane.
>
> Within the sub-4-mile length of my commute to work, there are probably
> 100 opportunities for a 'bent and its rider to wind up sprawled in the
> street with an equally ungainly loaded truck bearing down upon them,
> only some of which also apply to a cyclist on a normal bike. I'm sure
> that's not the only reason I've seen only one 'bent pass this way
> (piloted by the indomitable Joe Kochanowski), but it's something to
> consider. In such circumstances I find it impossible to imagine that
> any 'bent, least of all the small-wheeled, low-slung kind, could offer
> anything like equivalently safe passage to a normal upright bike.
>
> Chalo Colina



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[S. Delaire \Rotatorrecumbent\]

In the 20 years of being involved in recumbents I have heard of only 4 fatalities of recumbent riders. (small
community that keeps in touch with each other)
AAA research claims 800 to 900 bicycle fatalities per year in america but do not separate the style of bike.
No doubt there are other recumbent fatalities but I doubt they number in the hundreds like the other style
bikes.
Speedy

harryo wrote:

> (Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
> > As for the discussion at hand, the reason for the accident has nothing
> > to do with a "momentary lapse" of attention. That happens when you
> > mind "wanders off" which was not the case here. He was looking and
> > tinkering with his cyclometer and didn't notice that he placed himself
> > into the trajectory of the oncoming bicycle traffic. Now here is
> > where I make my assertion that this would have been very difficult to
> > happen in my bike. Because his cyclometer is mounted on the handlebar
> > of an upright racing bicycle, he HAS to take his sight off the road in
> > order to look at his cyclometer. There is no other way. My bicycle
> > is an Over the Seat Steered recumbent and my Topeak Panoram is right
> > in my line of sight so I can see how fast I am going and how far I
> > have ridden WITHOUT losing the view of what's in front of me. And
> > even if my mind wanders, my eyes are still registering and will alert
> > me of any potential danger in front of me.
>
> What i am saying is that if the situatuion requires one to devote his
> full attention to what is at hand, which in this case was piloting a
> bike in heavy bike traffic, then shifting one's attention from that is
> a lapse. Perhaps a momentary diversion of attention would be more
> accurate. Should one really be fiddling with their cyclometer, or
> anything else on a bike, when in a large pack of cyclists, on a narrow
> path, with other bikes approching from the opposite direction? Even
> with a cyclometer on a bent mounted in front of you, is this really a
> good idea and can you really see what you are doing, when fiddling
> with it, without diverting your attention away from the road, or path,
> for fraction of a second?
>
> > on part of my co-member, that's fine with me. I am not going to argue
> > back and forth about it. Accepted. And I will not continue to insist
> > about the virtues of the "heads up" recumbent seating position. You
> > ride one and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then why
> > continue. Right?
>
> Why do you view this as an argument? You offered your opinion and I
> offered mine. Why can't we have a rational, analytical discussion,
> which is what I thought we were doing?
>
> > All I can say is that just about all the accidents that have happened
> > in the club, most have been collisions involving drop handlebar road
> > bikes. The accident victim usually hits something from behind because
> > he/she didn't see the object, many a times another cyclist. We have
> > not even registered these same type of accidents with anyone riding a
> > mountain bike or a hybrid. They are riding more upright than the road
> > bikers so that should say something. Whenever someone has an accident
> > on one of those bikes, it is usually due to losing control of the
> > handling. But even then, the potential to get hurt from falling down
> > off one of those machines is greater than a bent. One cannot deny the
> > laws of physics lest we dare argue with God and Sir Issac Newton.
>
> I think you make too broad of a generalization. With the lack of any
> real statistics from any research, anything we conclude is just
> conjecture based on anecdotal evidence, which varies as much as
> personal opinions. I don't see where physics has a thing to do with
> it. Any one bicycle accident can have unique circumstances which can
> contribute to any injuries. If those circumstances involve a human
> body colliding with something else, I think the potential for injury
> is great, no matter what the riding position.
>
> > I have said enough. I will continue to post in this thread any new
> > developments about my co-club member's recovery but no counterposts as
> > to why I feel recumbents are safer.
>
> This is your choice. I just assumed that since this is a discussion
> group, you were open to discussion on this subject. My point is that
> I am not sure that recumbents are safer than DFs. I wonder if the
> belief they are might even cause some complacency by their riders.
> Even bents are safer, I don't see what difference it makes besides
> making bent riders feel better about their choice of bikes. I doubt
> that very many DF riders will opt for a bent for this reason. If
> someone markets a bike that by design is vastly safer than any other
> bike available, I wonder how many of us would actually want to own,
> and ride, one?
>
> Harry Jiles



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[S. Delaire \Rotatorrecumbent\]

In the 20 years of being involved in recumbents I have heard of only 4 fatalities of recumbent riders. (small
community that keeps in touch with each other)
AAA research claims 800 to 900 bicycle fatalities per year in america but do not separate the style of bike.
No doubt there are other recumbent fatalities but I doubt they number in the hundreds like the other style
bikes.
Speedy

harryo wrote:

> (Edward Wong) wrote in message >...
> > As for the discussion at hand, the reason for the accident has nothing
> > to do with a "momentary lapse" of attention. That happens when you
> > mind "wanders off" which was not the case here. He was looking and
> > tinkering with his cyclometer and didn't notice that he placed himself
> > into the trajectory of the oncoming bicycle traffic. Now here is
> > where I make my assertion that this would have been very difficult to
> > happen in my bike. Because his cyclometer is mounted on the handlebar
> > of an upright racing bicycle, he HAS to take his sight off the road in
> > order to look at his cyclometer. There is no other way. My bicycle
> > is an Over the Seat Steered recumbent and my Topeak Panoram is right
> > in my line of sight so I can see how fast I am going and how far I
> > have ridden WITHOUT losing the view of what's in front of me. And
> > even if my mind wanders, my eyes are still registering and will alert
> > me of any potential danger in front of me.
>
> What i am saying is that if the situatuion requires one to devote his
> full attention to what is at hand, which in this case was piloting a
> bike in heavy bike traffic, then shifting one's attention from that is
> a lapse. Perhaps a momentary diversion of attention would be more
> accurate. Should one really be fiddling with their cyclometer, or
> anything else on a bike, when in a large pack of cyclists, on a narrow
> path, with other bikes approching from the opposite direction? Even
> with a cyclometer on a bent mounted in front of you, is this really a
> good idea and can you really see what you are doing, when fiddling
> with it, without diverting your attention away from the road, or path,
> for fraction of a second?
>
> > on part of my co-member, that's fine with me. I am not going to argue
> > back and forth about it. Accepted. And I will not continue to insist
> > about the virtues of the "heads up" recumbent seating position. You
> > ride one and if that's not sufficient to convince you, then why
> > continue. Right?
>
> Why do you view this as an argument? You offered your opinion and I
> offered mine. Why can't we have a rational, analytical discussion,
> which is what I thought we were doing?
>
> > All I can say is that just about all the accidents that have happened
> > in the club, most have been collisions involving drop handlebar road
> > bikes. The accident victim usually hits something from behind because
> > he/she didn't see the object, many a times another cyclist. We have
> > not even registered these same type of accidents with anyone riding a
> > mountain bike or a hybrid. They are riding more upright than the road
> > bikers so that should say something. Whenever someone has an accident
> > on one of those bikes, it is usually due to losing control of the
> > handling. But even then, the potential to get hurt from falling down
> > off one of those machines is greater than a bent. One cannot deny the
> > laws of physics lest we dare argue with God and Sir Issac Newton.
>
> I think you make too broad of a generalization. With the lack of any
> real statistics from any research, anything we conclude is just
> conjecture based on anecdotal evidence, which varies as much as
> personal opinions. I don't see where physics has a thing to do with
> it. Any one bicycle accident can have unique circumstances which can
> contribute to any injuries. If those circumstances involve a human
> body colliding with something else, I think the potential for injury
> is great, no matter what the riding position.
>
> > I have said enough. I will continue to post in this thread any new
> > developments about my co-club member's recovery but no counterposts as
> > to why I feel recumbents are safer.
>
> This is your choice. I just assumed that since this is a discussion
> group, you were open to discussion on this subject. My point is that
> I am not sure that recumbents are safer than DFs. I wonder if the
> belief they are might even cause some complacency by their riders.
> Even bents are safer, I don't see what difference it makes besides
> making bent riders feel better about their choice of bikes. I doubt
> that very many DF riders will opt for a bent for this reason. If
> someone markets a bike that by design is vastly safer than any other
> bike available, I wonder how many of us would actually want to own,
> and ride, one?
>
> Harry Jiles



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[harryo]

"S. Delaire \"Rotatorrecumbent\"" > wrote in message >...
> In the 20 years of being involved in recumbents I have heard of only 4 fatalities of recumbent riders. (small
> community that keeps in touch with each other)
> AAA research claims 800 to 900 bicycle fatalities per year in america but do not separate the style of bike.
> No doubt there are other recumbent fatalities but I doubt they number in the hundreds like the other style
> bikes.
> Speedy

No offense, and I am not disputing what you say, but what exactly does this prove?

Harry Jiles

[harryo]

"S. Delaire \"Rotatorrecumbent\"" > wrote in message >...
> In the 20 years of being involved in recumbents I have heard of only 4 fatalities of recumbent riders. (small
> community that keeps in touch with each other)
> AAA research claims 800 to 900 bicycle fatalities per year in america but do not separate the style of bike.
> No doubt there are other recumbent fatalities but I doubt they number in the hundreds like the other style
> bikes.
> Speedy

No offense, and I am not disputing what you say, but what exactly does this prove?

Harry Jiles

[Eugene Cottrell]

In my area, DFs outnumber recumbents by more than 400 to 1 and a large
percentage of fatalities are probably very young people, who don't often
ride recumbents. I rarely, if ever have seen an under 40 person riding a
recumbent. So, I agree there are probably far, far fewer deaths of
recumbent riders. I would like to see statistics for per 100,000 miles
ridden for both types of riders over 30 years old. I suspect, not a lot of
difference.

Gene


"S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent"" > wrote in message
...
> In the 20 years of being involved in recumbents I have heard of only 4
fatalities of recumbent riders. (small
> community that keeps in touch with each other)
> AAA research claims 800 to 900 bicycle fatalities per year in america but
do not separate the style of bike.
> No doubt there are other recumbent fatalities but I doubt they number in
the hundreds like the other style
> bikes.
> Speedy
>

[Eugene Cottrell]

In my area, DFs outnumber recumbents by more than 400 to 1 and a large
percentage of fatalities are probably very young people, who don't often
ride recumbents. I rarely, if ever have seen an under 40 person riding a
recumbent. So, I agree there are probably far, far fewer deaths of
recumbent riders. I would like to see statistics for per 100,000 miles
ridden for both types of riders over 30 years old. I suspect, not a lot of
difference.

Gene


"S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent"" > wrote in message
...
> In the 20 years of being involved in recumbents I have heard of only 4
fatalities of recumbent riders. (small
> community that keeps in touch with each other)
> AAA research claims 800 to 900 bicycle fatalities per year in america but
do not separate the style of bike.
> No doubt there are other recumbent fatalities but I doubt they number in
the hundreds like the other style
> bikes.
> Speedy
>

[harryo]

"S. Delaire \"Rotatorrecumbent\"" > wrote in message >...
> Every now and then I have the misfortune of having to ride an upright bike.
> It reminds me, in a few short feet why 80% of the injuries of upright riders are
> upper body injuries. Just like the injuries that started this post. It is much
> easier to fly over the bars of an upright then a recumbent.

Where do your statistics come from? I have never seen any injury
statistics that are actually specific to upright bicycles.

The injuries that started this post occured from a head on collision
from a rider who apparently was not looking ahead because he was
distracted by his cyclometer. Would you suggest that a recumbent
rider would be less apt to be distracted by his equipment?

Never was it written that flying over the bars had anything to do with
the accident Mr. Wong reported. Even it that was a factor, can you
definitively state that if the rider was on a bent, and did not go
over the bars, he would have suffered no serious injuries, including
those to the head and spine? Some bents put the rider in an upright
position where they can easily go flying off the bike. Could it not
also be argued that the low, laid-back seating position of other bents
could make their riders more susceptable to injuries from running
underneath high motor vehicles and other objects?

My point is we don't really know, and can't really say, with any
certainty. We can surmise, and suppose, all we want but without any
specific, reliable statistics, it is still only conjecture. If a bent
owner feels that he is safer on a bent, great. I don't have a problem
with that. However, I also don't have a problem if an upright rider
feels he is safer on an upright. I will not say that either is right
or wrong I have yet to see any data to prove one over the other.

I believe that if bent riders are using the "bents are safer than
uprights" argument to try to convince others to ride bents and if bent
manufacturers are using the same argument to sell bents, they are
doing themselves, and possible bent buyers, a disservice, and possibly
being deceptive, since I have yet to see any facts to back up such a
claim.

Harry Jiles

[harryo]

"S. Delaire \"Rotatorrecumbent\"" > wrote in message >...
> Every now and then I have the misfortune of having to ride an upright bike.
> It reminds me, in a few short feet why 80% of the injuries of upright riders are
> upper body injuries. Just like the injuries that started this post. It is much
> easier to fly over the bars of an upright then a recumbent.

Where do your statistics come from? I have never seen any injury
statistics that are actually specific to upright bicycles.

The injuries that started this post occured from a head on collision
from a rider who apparently was not looking ahead because he was
distracted by his cyclometer. Would you suggest that a recumbent
rider would be less apt to be distracted by his equipment?

Never was it written that flying over the bars had anything to do with
the accident Mr. Wong reported. Even it that was a factor, can you
definitively state that if the rider was on a bent, and did not go
over the bars, he would have suffered no serious injuries, including
those to the head and spine? Some bents put the rider in an upright
position where they can easily go flying off the bike. Could it not
also be argued that the low, laid-back seating position of other bents
could make their riders more susceptable to injuries from running
underneath high motor vehicles and other objects?

My point is we don't really know, and can't really say, with any
certainty. We can surmise, and suppose, all we want but without any
specific, reliable statistics, it is still only conjecture. If a bent
owner feels that he is safer on a bent, great. I don't have a problem
with that. However, I also don't have a problem if an upright rider
feels he is safer on an upright. I will not say that either is right
or wrong I have yet to see any data to prove one over the other.

I believe that if bent riders are using the "bents are safer than
uprights" argument to try to convince others to ride bents and if bent
manufacturers are using the same argument to sell bents, they are
doing themselves, and possible bent buyers, a disservice, and possibly
being deceptive, since I have yet to see any facts to back up such a
claim.

Harry Jiles

[Zippy the Pinhead]

This thread has taken on a life of its own.

Recalling the accident in question, there are two issues to discuss.

First, does riding a recumbent reduce the likelihood of a lapse in
attention (looking at a bike computer instead of where you're going,
as was the case in the accident originally described)? Clearly, no.
If you're going to space out doing 20+ mph in the face of oncoming
bike traffic, you're as likely to do that on a bent as on an upright.

But recall the mechanism of injury incurred by the victim of the
accident originally described: forceful hyperextension of the head on
the neck. THAT is more likely in the upright riding posture than it
is on the bent for a couple of reasons. First, the thing that first
impacts with the oncoming object or vehicle won't be the forehead or
the front of the helmet on a bent as would be the case on the upright.
Second, as has been pointed out, the rider is less likely to be thrown
head-first over the handlebars than is the rider of an upright.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

This thread has taken on a life of its own.

Recalling the accident in question, there are two issues to discuss.

First, does riding a recumbent reduce the likelihood of a lapse in
attention (looking at a bike computer instead of where you're going,
as was the case in the accident originally described)? Clearly, no.
If you're going to space out doing 20+ mph in the face of oncoming
bike traffic, you're as likely to do that on a bent as on an upright.

But recall the mechanism of injury incurred by the victim of the
accident originally described: forceful hyperextension of the head on
the neck. THAT is more likely in the upright riding posture than it
is on the bent for a couple of reasons. First, the thing that first
impacts with the oncoming object or vehicle won't be the forehead or
the front of the helmet on a bent as would be the case on the upright.
Second, as has been pointed out, the rider is less likely to be thrown
head-first over the handlebars than is the rider of an upright.

[Joseph Kochanowski]

(Chalo) wrote in message news:
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
>
> I have ridden for a day on an Infinity LWB and for a long weekend on a
> BikeE. I did not crash either of the bikes during my time with them.
> It still feels like blind luck given the capricious ill handling of
> those bikes.
> I observed the following qualities of 'bents that I deemed to have a
> negative effect on safety:
>
> 1) inability to unweight or lift either wheel while in motion
>
> 2) inability to swerve the tires' contact path without changing
> direction
>
> 3) unstable handling, impossible to ride without hands on bars
>
> 4) rider low enough to be eclipsed by cars
>
> 5) rider viewpoint obstructed by all other road users
>
> My usual inbound commute is over a short section of road where I must
> negotiate a very fast downhill ending with a merge and exit at traffic
> speed (45+ mph), followed by a couple of crowded, confusing
> intersections and road surfaces scarred by several oblique train
> tracks and damage from heavy truck use. I think it's a great example
> of circumstances in which a 'bent would be a severe liability.
>
> For a bent to keep pace on the downhill would be no problem. The
> merge at the bottom, though, requires the cooperation of drivers as
> there is always some amount of competing traffic. I believe the
> higher, less easily obscured profile of a rider on a normal bike helps
> to attract the attention of sometimes-oblivious cagers. Bents vary a
> lot in the amount of their bike/rider combination that appears above
> the windowsills of the average car or truck, so some are sure to be
> better than others. A big-wheeled SWB machine (e.g. Optima Condor)
> would likely be similar to a normal bike in this respect.
>
> The next section, a series of crowded intersections with strange
> approach angles and unusual multi-lane convergences offers a lot more
> opportunities for a 'bent to disappear behind cars, much less of an
> overview of the traffic ahead than from a normal bike, and way fewer
> opportunities to "opt out" onto a sidewalk or divider than those
> available to a bike that can climb curbs.
>
> But all this pales compared to a 'bent's relative inability to cope
> with the pavement at the end of the run, which is deeply grooved with
> tracks at odd angles, horribly pocked and fractured throughout, and
> full of surprise edge traps. On a 'bent you can't lift your wheels,
> and you can't choose your line without changing your direction. A
> 'bent rider is much more at the mercy of crappy surfaces than a rider
> of a normal bike. I can't imagine how a 'bent rider would deal with
> oblique and subsided train tracks at all, except to slow to a crawl
> and jog across them perpendicularly, which is this case means
> approaching from the oncoming lane.
>
> Within the sub-4-mile length of my commute to work, there are probably
> 100 opportunities for a 'bent and its rider to wind up sprawled in the
> street with an equally ungainly loaded truck bearing down upon them,
> only some of which also apply to a cyclist on a normal bike. I'm sure
> that's not the only reason I've seen only one 'bent pass this way
> (piloted by the indomitable Joe Kochanowski), but it's something to
> consider. In such circumstances I find it impossible to imagine that
> any 'bent, least of all the small-wheeled, low-slung kind, could offer
> anything like equivalently safe passage to a normal upright bike.
>
> Chalo Colina
Seattle, where Chalo and I both live,is one of the best cities in
the USA to ride a bicycle. Wherever this strecth of road is, it is not
as bad as some of the roads I have been on in Pittsburgh,PA and
Cleveland OH. The comparison between bents and UCI approved bikes is
too vague. There are bents that would be easy to ride on that four
mile stretch of road just like my UCI approved time trial regular bike
would have a difficult time on that road. This is why I am always
interested in what makes a bike work well under adverse conditions.
The majority of recumbents on the market are not designed by crash
test fanatics like me. If the cover of every mountain bike magazine
always has a bike rider in the air, then recumbent magazine covers
should have crash test action pictures as well as bents riding on
adverse road condition. But this is not the case. This is why I am
getting bored with the stagnation in the whole evolution in recumbent
design. I do not have any problems in any traffic with my bents
compared to the feeling of helplessness and vulnerability that I find
riding some factory stock bents and ANY UCI approved bike. Also, it
has been pointed out to me in a previous thread that bicycle riding is
safer than driving a car and most other recreational activities.

[Joseph Kochanowski]

(Chalo) wrote in message news:
> I come to this discussion as a longtime rider with only a little
> riding experience on recumbents. However, that little experience
> leads me to question the oft-repeated assertion that 'bents are
> somehow safer to ride than normal bikes.
>
> I have ridden for a day on an Infinity LWB and for a long weekend on a
> BikeE. I did not crash either of the bikes during my time with them.
> It still feels like blind luck given the capricious ill handling of
> those bikes.
> I observed the following qualities of 'bents that I deemed to have a
> negative effect on safety:
>
> 1) inability to unweight or lift either wheel while in motion
>
> 2) inability to swerve the tires' contact path without changing
> direction
>
> 3) unstable handling, impossible to ride without hands on bars
>
> 4) rider low enough to be eclipsed by cars
>
> 5) rider viewpoint obstructed by all other road users
>
> My usual inbound commute is over a short section of road where I must
> negotiate a very fast downhill ending with a merge and exit at traffic
> speed (45+ mph), followed by a couple of crowded, confusing
> intersections and road surfaces scarred by several oblique train
> tracks and damage from heavy truck use. I think it's a great example
> of circumstances in which a 'bent would be a severe liability.
>
> For a bent to keep pace on the downhill would be no problem. The
> merge at the bottom, though, requires the cooperation of drivers as
> there is always some amount of competing traffic. I believe the
> higher, less easily obscured profile of a rider on a normal bike helps
> to attract the attention of sometimes-oblivious cagers. Bents vary a
> lot in the amount of their bike/rider combination that appears above
> the windowsills of the average car or truck, so some are sure to be
> better than others. A big-wheeled SWB machine (e.g. Optima Condor)
> would likely be similar to a normal bike in this respect.
>
> The next section, a series of crowded intersections with strange
> approach angles and unusual multi-lane convergences offers a lot more
> opportunities for a 'bent to disappear behind cars, much less of an
> overview of the traffic ahead than from a normal bike, and way fewer
> opportunities to "opt out" onto a sidewalk or divider than those
> available to a bike that can climb curbs.
>
> But all this pales compared to a 'bent's relative inability to cope
> with the pavement at the end of the run, which is deeply grooved with
> tracks at odd angles, horribly pocked and fractured throughout, and
> full of surprise edge traps. On a 'bent you can't lift your wheels,
> and you can't choose your line without changing your direction. A
> 'bent rider is much more at the mercy of crappy surfaces than a rider
> of a normal bike. I can't imagine how a 'bent rider would deal with
> oblique and subsided train tracks at all, except to slow to a crawl
> and jog across them perpendicularly, which is this case means
> approaching from the oncoming lane.
>
> Within the sub-4-mile length of my commute to work, there are probably
> 100 opportunities for a 'bent and its rider to wind up sprawled in the
> street with an equally ungainly loaded truck bearing down upon them,
> only some of which also apply to a cyclist on a normal bike. I'm sure
> that's not the only reason I've seen only one 'bent pass this way
> (piloted by the indomitable Joe Kochanowski), but it's something to
> consider. In such circumstances I find it impossible to imagine that
> any 'bent, least of all the small-wheeled, low-slung kind, could offer
> anything like equivalently safe passage to a normal upright bike.
>
> Chalo Colina
Seattle, where Chalo and I both live,is one of the best cities in
the USA to ride a bicycle. Wherever this strecth of road is, it is not
as bad as some of the roads I have been on in Pittsburgh,PA and
Cleveland OH. The comparison between bents and UCI approved bikes is
too vague. There are bents that would be easy to ride on that four
mile stretch of road just like my UCI approved time trial regular bike
would have a difficult time on that road. This is why I am always
interested in what makes a bike work well under adverse conditions.
The majority of recumbents on the market are not designed by crash
test fanatics like me. If the cover of every mountain bike magazine
always has a bike rider in the air, then recumbent magazine covers
should have crash test action pictures as well as bents riding on
adverse road condition. But this is not the case. This is why I am
getting bored with the stagnation in the whole evolution in recumbent
design. I do not have any problems in any traffic with my bents
compared to the feeling of helplessness and vulnerability that I find
riding some factory stock bents and ANY UCI approved bike. Also, it
has been pointed out to me in a previous thread that bicycle riding is
safer than driving a car and most other recreational activities.

[Tom Sherman]

Sticker Jim wrote:
>
> "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> >
> > Edward Wong wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> > >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> > >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
> >
> > The problem with you types is that because you look
> > so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> > privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> > myself.
> >
> > The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> > you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> > I would let ride with me.
> >
> > Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> > very safe and under control even though we are moving
> > faster than you could image.
> >
> > As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> > when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> > session and demand respect from you.
>
> WOW! "DEMAND respect"???? Must have some beefy rims and tires to carry
> your massive ego around....

Fabrizio floats his massive ego with all the hot air he produces.

Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers

[Sticker Jim]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> Edward Wong wrote in message
>...
> >
> >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
>
> The problem with you types is that because you look
> so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> myself.
>
> The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> I would let ride with me.
>
> Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> very safe and under control even though we are moving
> faster than you could image.
>
> As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> session and demand respect from you.


WOW! "DEMAND respect"???? Must have some beefy rims and tires to carry
your massive ego around. I'd love for some arrogant biker, of any type, to
"demand" respect or ANTYHING from me. I think it would be an interesting
exercise to have a DFer hit me head on. I build my trikes tough and a
collision would launch both the rider and the bike far over my head, and my
trike. Whatever if left of the DF would likely be good enough to salvage a
few parts off of for a new trike :)

I am glad there is NO ONE around where I live with as big of a chip on their
shoulder as you. Some of the hard core DFers with very nice and very
expensive racing bikes have asked to take a ride on my trike and came back
with the standard "recumbent grin". Some are a little put off when I tell
them a rough price for bents and trikes, but I point out that it isn't too
difficult to build one either. Some have invited me along to ride with them
too. They are more interested in biking itself than they are about HOW
people bike.

At times, I think you must be intentionally trolling as I can't ever
remember coming across anyone who is as genuinely conceited as you
(thankfully). Have fun with your supposed "elite" riding partners and
please continue to stay far away from where I live.

[B. Sanders]

"Sticker Jim" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
>
> "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> >
> > Edward Wong wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> > >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> > >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
> >
> > The problem with you types is that because you look
> > so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> > privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> > myself.
> >
> > The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> > you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> > I would let ride with me.
> >
> > Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> > very safe and under control even though we are moving
> > faster than you could image.
> >
> > As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> > when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> > session and demand respect from you.

>
> WOW! "DEMAND respect"???? Must have some beefy rims and tires to carry
> your massive ego around. I'd love for some arrogant biker, of any type,
to

> At times, I think you must be intentionally trolling as I can't ever
> remember coming across anyone who is as genuinely conceited as you
> (thankfully).

Fabby is a professional troll, who may not even ride a bike for all we can
tell. He's probably some pathetic Euro-wannabe fanboy who sleeps on stacks
of sticky, dog-eared copies of Velonews and eats his lunch from a feedbag
(even when he's off the bike).

Unfortunately, Fab isn't very far afield from actual roadies that I've
known. I don't know what makes them so arrogant. Probably trying to make
up for how silly they look, and the fact that most people could give a sh*t.

-=B=-

[Robert Haston]

Although I think its a troll, it is an interesting argument.

He can blab on all he likes about wedgie riders being faster. All I know is
I beat my pace by 2 MPH when I switch from my carbon fiber upright to my
heavy steel dual suspension Shockproof. I have never been passed by a
wedgie rider.

If he wants to contend that on the whole road racing cyclists as a group are
faster than recumbents, so what? It is like comparing "rice rocket"
motorcyclists to Harley riders. Hammering like hell while sniffing each
other's farts while checking their heart rate is their way to have fun.

The best way to shut them up is ask them to put their money where their
mouth is, and support repealing the UCI restrictions against recumbents. If
bents are so slow, why are they an "unfair aerodynamic advantage"?


"Sticker Jim" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
>
> "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> >
> > Edward Wong wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> > >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> > >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
> >
> > The problem with you types is that because you look
> > so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> > privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> > myself.
> >
> > The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> > you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> > I would let ride with me.
> >
> > Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> > very safe and under control even though we are moving
> > faster than you could image.
> >
> > As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> > when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> > session and demand respect from you.
>
>
> WOW! "DEMAND respect"???? Must have some beefy rims and tires to carry
> your massive ego around. I'd love for some arrogant biker, of any type,
to
> "demand" respect or ANTYHING from me. I think it would be an interesting
> exercise to have a DFer hit me head on. I build my trikes tough and a
> collision would launch both the rider and the bike far over my head, and
my
> trike. Whatever if left of the DF would likely be good enough to salvage
a
> few parts off of for a new trike :)
>
> I am glad there is NO ONE around where I live with as big of a chip on
their
> shoulder as you. Some of the hard core DFers with very nice and very
> expensive racing bikes have asked to take a ride on my trike and came back
> with the standard "recumbent grin". Some are a little put off when I tell
> them a rough price for bents and trikes, but I point out that it isn't too
> difficult to build one either. Some have invited me along to ride with
them
> too. They are more interested in biking itself than they are about HOW
> people bike.
>
> At times, I think you must be intentionally trolling as I can't ever
> remember coming across anyone who is as genuinely conceited as you
> (thankfully). Have fun with your supposed "elite" riding partners and
> please continue to stay far away from where I live.
>
>

[Fabrizio Mazzolini]

"Robert Haston" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Although I think its a troll, it is an interesting argument.
>
> The best way to shut them up is ask them to put their money where their
> mouth is, and support repealing the UCI restrictions against recumbents. If
> bents are so slow, why are they an "unfair aerodynamic advantage"?
>
Rob, next time there is a Crit near you, you should go
and watch. You will see just how fast it is. You will
realize when you witness us diving into the cornors
and sprinting out that a lame bent wouldn't have a
chance in hell in there.

Keep your bents out on the highway doing your silly
'means nothing' speed record thing.

Bike racing is all about acceleration, bents are left
in the dust.

[B. Sanders]

"Fabrizio Mazzolini" > wrote in message
news:D9jfb.11163$pl3.8501@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Robert Haston" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Although I think its a troll, it is an interesting argument.
> >
> > The best way to shut them up is ask them to put their money where their
> > mouth is, and support repealing the UCI restrictions against recumbents.
If
> > bents are so slow, why are they an "unfair aerodynamic advantage"?
> >
> Rob, next time there is a Crit near you, you should go
> and watch. You will see just how fast it is. You will
> realize when you witness us diving into the cornors
> and sprinting out that a lame bent wouldn't have a
> chance in hell in there.

So, Fab, show us a web photo gallery with photos of you racing and accepting
a medal on a podium. I'm sure an L33T racer like yourself wins a lot of
races, right? So, some of your fans and teammates must be taking photos of
the big winner, the team leader that they all look up to. Where are they?

BTW, 81MPH under human power on level ground is not meaningless. It's
incredible.

-=B=-

[Carl]

In article <D9jfb.11163$pl3.8501@pd7tw3no>, Fabrizio Mazzolini
> wrote:

<snipped troll drivel>

I was sure I had both his addresses in my killfile. Double checking I
found that it was there, but the last name is spelled different. It
used to be Mazzoleni, now it's Mazzolini.

Hey Fab, can't even spell your own name correctly?

You needn't bother replying, this address has been added to the
killfile as well.

-Carl

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:Wujfb.488979$cF.171379@rwcrnsc53...
>> BTW, 81MPH under human power on level ground is not meaningless. It's
> incredible.

Sanders, there's road races, crits, and TTs done on
proper TT bikes, people don't care about stuff like
your speed events.

[MLB]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in
news:Wujfb.488979$cF.171379@rwcrnsc53:

> "Fabrizio Mazzolini" > wrote in message
> news:D9jfb.11163$pl3.8501@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> "Robert Haston" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> > Although I think its a troll, it is an interesting argument.
>> >
>> > The best way to shut them up is ask them to put their money where
>> > their mouth is, and support repealing the UCI restrictions against
>> > recumbents.
> If
>> > bents are so slow, why are they an "unfair aerodynamic advantage"?
>> >
>> Rob, next time there is a Crit near you, you should go
>> and watch. You will see just how fast it is. You will
>> realize when you witness us diving into the cornors
>> and sprinting out that a lame bent wouldn't have a
>> chance in hell in there.
>
> So, Fab, show us a web photo gallery with photos of you racing and
> accepting a medal on a podium. I'm sure an L33T racer like yourself
> wins a lot of races, right? So, some of your fans and teammates must
> be taking photos of the big winner, the team leader that they all look
> up to. Where are they?
>
> BTW, 81MPH under human power on level ground is not meaningless. It's
> incredible.
>
> -=B=-
>
>

Sanders, this guy was exposed as a lonely poser some time back. Don't
bother looking for his proof, there isn't any.

[harv]

It used to Fabbio too. Methinks some ****** is just monkeying around on a
slow mirth day.
"Carl" > wrote in message
...
> In article <D9jfb.11163$pl3.8501@pd7tw3no>, Fabrizio Mazzolini
> > wrote:
>
> <snipped troll drivel>
>
> I was sure I had both his addresses in my killfile. Double checking I
> found that it was there, but the last name is spelled different. It
> used to be Mazzoleni, now it's Mazzolini.
>
> Hey Fab, can't even spell your own name correctly?
>
> You needn't bother replying, this address has been added to the
> killfile as well.
>
> -Carl

[Dean Arthur]

"Timothy B. Storey" wrote:
>
> Yesterday I actually shouted out "Can you Hear me Now" when I passed a
> person riding with no hands all over the bike lane whilst she talked on her
> cell phone.
>
> Tim Storey


I carry a ham radio dual-band transceiver operating in scan mode while
cycling. Use a VOX-boom mike so I can stop on active frequency and chat
without giving up attention to what is happening fore and aft. Head is
CONSTANTLY moving from roadway to mirrors and back. Been run off road
because of belief in Good Samaritan rule rather than "Let's see if I can
scare the s__t out of this biker," attitude of the [blessed] few
ignoramuses on the highways.

Did, on two occasions put a .357 mag slug thru block of attacking
motorist. Stopped it more effectively than brakes could have. Operator
fled on foot and I couldn't positively ID operator when same arrived at
scene. Its excuse was, "I left keys in car while shopping." I guess
replacement of engine might have taught owner to be more careful. Never
know if victim is armed or not until engine seizes from lead poisoning.

[Dean Arthur]

"EZ Biker :-)" wrote:
>
> Edward, I'm happy to report that the bicycle events I attend around here in
> South Florida "All" do require the use of a helmet - or you don't
> participate in the event.

EZ Biker to chicken to post his addy )


You'll never read of the number of broken necks from the Pendulum Action
of the helmeted heads of riders who come off the bike and bounce down
the road til friction brings their bodies to a halt.

Back in the 70s, Road Rider mag [motorcycle mag from back east] did
in-depth [stuck their faces in those of hospital personnel for info not
otherwise available] study of helmeted vs. non-helmeted rider injuries.
Found out that pendulum-injuries killed as many cyclists as lost lives
from not wearing helmets. Left choice to cyclist - except in those
states where helmets were mandatory.

I wore helmet of light-weight design but never had to rely on it.
Wearing of Ruger pistol on left side in cross-draw configuration may
have contributed to motorists looking for easier, less defended prey.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:20:10 -0600, Dean Arthur
> wrote:

>You'll never read of the number of broken necks from the Pendulum Action
>of the helmeted heads of riders who come off the bike and bounce down
>the road til friction brings their bodies to a halt.

Well, you read it here, and it came from the same fact factory that
gave us your story of a one-shot kill on a moving car resulting from
your .357

You have brown eyes, don't you?

[MLB]

Dean Arthur > wrote in
:

> "EZ Biker :-)" wrote:
>>
>> Edward, I'm happy to report that the bicycle events I attend around
>> here in South Florida "All" do require the use of a helmet - or you
>> don't participate in the event.
>
> EZ Biker to chicken to post his addy )
>
>
> You'll never read of the number of broken necks from the Pendulum
> Action of the helmeted heads of riders who come off the bike and
> bounce down the road til friction brings their bodies to a halt.
>
> Back in the 70s, Road Rider mag [motorcycle mag from back east] did
> in-depth [stuck their faces in those of hospital personnel for info
> not otherwise available] study of helmeted vs. non-helmeted rider
> injuries. Found out that pendulum-injuries killed as many cyclists as
> lost lives from not wearing helmets. Left choice to cyclist - except
> in those states where helmets were mandatory.
>
> I wore helmet of light-weight design but never had to rely on it.
> Wearing of Ruger pistol on left side in cross-draw configuration may
> have contributed to motorists looking for easier, less defended prey.
>

Weight of bike helmet is not even CLOSE to a motorcycle helmut.
I don't believe it anyway.

[Sticker Jim]

Doing a quick web search comes up with a Fabby fan club and points it to
"Frenchy's world" here:

http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/

Not much to do with bicycling there except for it pointing to a little ride
that this guy did in BC, which he got a t-shirt from. Me-thinks you are
correct - nothing but a troll spewing some garbage on usenet while he's
waiting for his next game of Boggle :)

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:oh_cb.434004$Oz4.238264@rwcrnsc54...
> "Sticker Jim" > wrote in message
> . rogers.com...
> >
> > "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
> > . ca...
> > >
> > > Edward Wong wrote in message
> > >...
> > > >
> > > >Next time someone asks you questions about your bent and why you ride
> > > >one, be sure to highlight the safety advantages of a recumbent. You
> > > >could be doing someone and yourself a great service.
> > >
> > > The problem with you types is that because you look
> > > so silly on those contraptions you will never get the
> > > privilege of riding with top quality roadies such as
> > > myself.
> > >
> > > The only cyclists who would been seen anywhere near
> > > you are the squirrelly lower class road riders, not anyone
> > > I would let ride with me.
> > >
> > > Believe me, guys like me when riding in a group are
> > > very safe and under control even though we are moving
> > > faster than you could image.
> > >
> > > As I've stated in here before, please stay out of our way
> > > when out on the road, we are doing a planned training
> > > session and demand respect from you.
>
> >
> > WOW! "DEMAND respect"???? Must have some beefy rims and tires to carry
> > your massive ego around. I'd love for some arrogant biker, of any type,
> to
>
> > At times, I think you must be intentionally trolling as I can't ever
> > remember coming across anyone who is as genuinely conceited as you
> > (thankfully).
>
> Fabby is a professional troll, who may not even ride a bike for all we can
> tell. He's probably some pathetic Euro-wannabe fanboy who sleeps on
stacks
> of sticky, dog-eared copies of Velonews and eats his lunch from a feedbag
> (even when he's off the bike).
>
> Unfortunately, Fab isn't very far afield from actual roadies that I've
> known. I don't know what makes them so arrogant. Probably trying to make
> up for how silly they look, and the fact that most people could give a
sh*t.
>
> -=B=-
>
>
>
>

[Sticker Jim]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:Wujfb.488979$cF.171379@rwcrnsc53...
> "Fabrizio Mazzolini" > wrote in message
> news:D9jfb.11163$pl3.8501@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > "Robert Haston" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > Although I think its a troll, it is an interesting argument.
> > >
> > > The best way to shut them up is ask them to put their money where
their
> > > mouth is, and support repealing the UCI restrictions against
recumbents.
> If
> > > bents are so slow, why are they an "unfair aerodynamic advantage"?
> > >
> > Rob, next time there is a Crit near you, you should go
> > and watch. You will see just how fast it is. You will
> > realize when you witness us diving into the cornors
> > and sprinting out that a lame bent wouldn't have a
> > chance in hell in there.
>
> So, Fab, show us a web photo gallery with photos of you racing and
accepting
> a medal on a podium. I'm sure an L33T racer like yourself wins a lot of
> races, right? So, some of your fans and teammates must be taking photos of
> the big winner, the team leader that they all look up to. Where are they?
>
> BTW, 81MPH under human power on level ground is not meaningless. It's
> incredible.

Well, he DID get a t-shirt from a UBC criterium this year. He might have
paid for it though and that doesn't guaratee that he actually rode it. :)

http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/bike/tshirt.jpg

[ckaudio1]

"harv" > wrote in message >...
> It used to Fabbio too. Methinks some ****** is just monkeying around on a
> slow mirth day.
> "Carl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <D9jfb.11163$pl3.8501@pd7tw3no>, Fabrizio Mazzolini
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <snipped troll drivel>
> >
> > I was sure I had both his addresses in my killfile. Double checking I
> > found that it was there, but the last name is spelled different. It
> > used to be Mazzoleni, now it's Mazzolini.
> >
> > Hey Fab, can't even spell your own name correctly?
> >
> > You needn't bother replying, this address has been added to the
> > killfile as well.
> >

Well, I participated in a crit this year on my lowracer. I got a
gold medal too for superstock class. The stock class riders were
pulling the same speeds and lap times at the Arlington Crits as what
the cat 1 riders were doing. The only difference is that the speed
bikers weren't drafting each other too much like what the cat 1 riders
were doing.

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2003/HPVA_National_Championship_results.htm

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2003/arlingtoncrit/arlington_crit_2003.htm
> > -Carl

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Sticker Jim" > wrote in message cable.rogers.com...
>
> "> Well, he DID get a t-shirt from a UBC criterium this year. He might have
> paid for it though and that doesn't guaratee that he actually rode it. :)

If you do a little checking over on rec.bicycles.misc you will see that
Ryan and me have never posted with the same ISP.

Ryan lives 80km from me.

Ryan is only a amateur racer and has never raced on a pro
euro team.

We are two different people!

Get your facts straight!