Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.

It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)
I know. I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.


If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.

I was just being sarcastic. Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here. May as well discuss something that's cools about cycling.

On Aug 24, 4:49*pm, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:



On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane *wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? *A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. *A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: *"You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. *I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.

It wasn't that so much. *(Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)

I know. *I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. *I can't help it (but
I'll try). *I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. *Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. *It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.

I was just being sarcastic. *Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here. *May as well discuss something that's cool about cycling.

+1
There are two factors I have come to understand as suggesting that a
thread here is worth avoiding entirely.
(1) the number of post exceeds 25 or so (beyond that point there is
rarely anything on topic)
(2) it involves (multiple posts) by a certain (well 2 actually) vocal
but not very bright poster (especially if initiated by that poster)

If both criteria are met I can reasonably assume that conditions are
such that _intelligent_ life cannot survive.

DR

On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.

It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)

I know. I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.

I was just being sarcastic. Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here.

Because it's a hangout, I don't mind some OT, and in fact rather like
a mix of what's on folks' minds (some seemingly as crazy as myself -
which is oddly reassuring) who I have something in common with
(bikes).

For that matter, I don't see stuff about bike safety issues all that
OT to a bike oriented discussion group, but I *do* see the
condescending lectures entirely misplaced here.

May as well discuss something that's cools about cycling.

Love it!

(... but, I guess I must love a good argument, too - have to work on
that :-)

On 8/24/2011 10:18 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.
It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)
I know. I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.
I was just being sarcastic. Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here.
Because it's a hangout, I don't mind some OT, and in fact rather like
a mix of what's on folks' minds (some seemingly as crazy as myself -
which is oddly reassuring) who I have something in common with
(bikes).

For that matter, I don't see stuff about bike safety issues all that
OT to a bike oriented discussion group, but I *do* see the
condescending lectures entirely misplaced here.
Well this is being cross posted to r.b.misc and r.b.tech. I'm mostly
looking at
r.b.tech and I think there's nothing about pedestrian helmets and the
dangers of
gardening that would be on topic to a bicycle tech group.

Agreed about the condescending lectures.

May as well discuss something that's cools about cycling.
Love it!

(... but, I guess I must love a good argument, too - have to work on
that :-)
Nothing wrong with a good argument.

On Aug 24, 10:28*pm, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:18 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, Duane *wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane * wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? *A review might make things more clear..
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. *A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: *"You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. *I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.
It wasn't that so much. *(Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)
I know. *I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well..

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. *I can't help it (but
I'll try). *I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. *Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. *It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.
I was just being sarcastic. *Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here.
Because it's a hangout, I don't mind some OT, and in fact rather like
a mix of what's on folks' minds (some seemingly as crazy as myself -
which is oddly reassuring) who I have something in common with
(bikes).

For that matter, I don't see stuff about bike safety issues all that
OT to a bike oriented discussion group, but I *do* see the
condescending lectures entirely misplaced here.

Well this is being cross posted to r.b.misc and r.b.tech. *I'm mostly
looking at
r.b.tech and I think there's nothing about pedestrian helmets and the
dangers of
gardening that would be on topic to a bicycle tech group.

Seems to me the fundamental question about bike safety is, "Is
bicycling so dangerous that we need to take serious action?" The only
way to evaluate that is by comparison. If bicycling's no more
dangerous than other things people do without significant worry, than
we should stop the fear mongering.

So I've put up data (with citations) showing that by various measures,
used by serious researchers, bicycling is actually safer on average
than many common activities that generate no fear. I've also shown
(with citations) that competent cycling is even safer than average
cycling. And in one discussion with Duane, I showed (with citation)
that his claim of intense cycling danger in Montreal was false.

The latter got me kill filed by Duane. Some people can't stand being
proven wrong.

But I remain astonished that so many dedicated cyclists are so
dedicated to making cycling sound dangerous; and so enraged when
someone shows that it's comparatively safe!

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 24, 8:21 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:28 pm, Duane Hebert wrote:



On 8/24/2011 10:18 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.
It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)
I know. I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.
I was just being sarcastic. Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here.
Because it's a hangout, I don't mind some OT, and in fact rather like
a mix of what's on folks' minds (some seemingly as crazy as myself -
which is oddly reassuring) who I have something in common with
(bikes).

For that matter, I don't see stuff about bike safety issues all that
OT to a bike oriented discussion group, but I *do* see the
condescending lectures entirely misplaced here.

Well this is being cross posted to r.b.misc and r.b.tech. I'm mostly
looking at
r.b.tech and I think there's nothing about pedestrian helmets and the
dangers of
gardening that would be on topic to a bicycle tech group.

Seems to me the fundamental question about bike safety is, "Is
bicycling so dangerous that we need to take serious action?" The only
way to evaluate that is by comparison.

Sheer bull****.

If bicycling's no more
dangerous than other things people do without significant worry, than
we should stop the fear mongering.


Cite the mongering, please?

So I've put up data (with citations) showing that by various measures,
used by serious researchers, bicycling is actually safer on average
than many common activities that generate no fear. I've also shown
(with citations) that competent cycling is even safer than average
cycling. And in one discussion with Duane, I showed (with citation)
that his claim of intense cycling danger in Montreal was false.


blah, blah, blah, blah

The latter got me kill filed by Duane. Some people can't stand being
proven wrong.

But I remain astonished that so many dedicated cyclists are so
dedicated to making cycling sound dangerous; and so enraged when
someone shows that it's comparatively safe!


(Picturing Frank's astonishment... :-)

You **** people off when you try to smear **** all over them.

On 8/25/2011 1:20 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:21 pm, Frank wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:28 pm, Duane wrote:



On 8/24/2011 10:18 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.
It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)
I know. I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.
If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.
I was just being sarcastic. Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here.
Because it's a hangout, I don't mind some OT, and in fact rather like
a mix of what's on folks' minds (some seemingly as crazy as myself -
which is oddly reassuring) who I have something in common with
(bikes).
For that matter, I don't see stuff about bike safety issues all that
OT to a bike oriented discussion group, but I *do* see the
condescending lectures entirely misplaced here.
Well this is being cross posted to r.b.misc and r.b.tech. I'm mostly
looking at
r.b.tech and I think there's nothing about pedestrian helmets and the
dangers of
gardening that would be on topic to a bicycle tech group.
Seems to me the fundamental question about bike safety is, "Is
bicycling so dangerous that we need to take serious action?" The only
way to evaluate that is by comparison.
Sheer bull****.

If bicycling's no more
dangerous than other things people do without significant worry, than
we should stop the fear mongering.

Cite the mongering, please?

So I've put up data (with citations) showing that by various measures,
used by serious researchers, bicycling is actually safer on average
than many common activities that generate no fear. I've also shown
(with citations) that competent cycling is even safer than average
cycling. And in one discussion with Duane, I showed (with citation)
that his claim of intense cycling danger in Montreal was false.

blah, blah, blah, blah

The latter got me kill filed by Duane. Some people can't stand being
proven wrong.

But I remain astonished that so many dedicated cyclists are so
dedicated to making cycling sound dangerous; and so enraged when
someone shows that it's comparatively safe!

(Picturing Frank's astonishment... :-)

You **** people off when you try to smear **** all over them.

Or by constantly pulling up their names and misrepresenting what they say,
even after they kill filed him.

Yeah Dan, you know me. Always going off about EXTREME CYCLING DANGER.

Dan O wrote:


You **** people off when you try to smear **** all over them.

And your claim that I "smear ****" is polite and genteel? Give me a
break, Dan.

You falsely claim I insult people when I'm merely disagreeing with them.
You read words written with politeness but insistence, and inject an
imaginary tone of mockery. And you don't seem to realize that you
insult me regularly and blatantly.

Yes, I will challenge nonsense. Granted, if someone repeatedly lies (as
Scharf does) or rudely attacks me (as some have done) I'll drop the
diplomacy.

FWIW, you've attacked me so frequently (the latest being your "smear
****" remark) that I wonder why I'm continuing to be polite to you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Duane Hebert wrote:
On 8/25/2011 1:20 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:21 pm, Frank wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:28 pm, Duane wrote:



On 8/24/2011 10:18 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:39 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right"
rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to
deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to
the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.
Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "
Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could
not
care less what
this guy thinks.
It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)
I know. I've been here long enough to have my share of that as well.
If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not
make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like
pedestrian
helmets and such?
I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an
approach
that worked great for the same purpose at
comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad
that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a
number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.
I was just being sarcastic. Nothing about this AHZ or Danger! Danger!
crud is on topic
here.
Because it's a hangout, I don't mind some OT, and in fact rather like
a mix of what's on folks' minds (some seemingly as crazy as myself -
which is oddly reassuring) who I have something in common with
(bikes).
For that matter, I don't see stuff about bike safety issues all that
OT to a bike oriented discussion group, but I *do* see the
condescending lectures entirely misplaced here.
Well this is being cross posted to r.b.misc and r.b.tech. I'm mostly
looking at
r.b.tech and I think there's nothing about pedestrian helmets and the
dangers of
gardening that would be on topic to a bicycle tech group.
Seems to me the fundamental question about bike safety is, "Is
bicycling so dangerous that we need to take serious action?" The only
way to evaluate that is by comparison.
Sheer bull****.

If bicycling's no more
dangerous than other things people do without significant worry, than
we should stop the fear mongering.

Cite the mongering, please?

So I've put up data (with citations) showing that by various measures,
used by serious researchers, bicycling is actually safer on average
than many common activities that generate no fear. I've also shown
(with citations) that competent cycling is even safer than average
cycling. And in one discussion with Duane, I showed (with citation)
that his claim of intense cycling danger in Montreal was false.

blah, blah, blah, blah

The latter got me kill filed by Duane. Some people can't stand being
proven wrong.

But I remain astonished that so many dedicated cyclists are so
dedicated to making cycling sound dangerous; and so enraged when
someone shows that it's comparatively safe!

(Picturing Frank's astonishment... :-)

You **** people off when you try to smear **** all over them.

Or by constantly pulling up their names and misrepresenting what they say,
even after they kill filed him.

Yeah Dan, you know me. Always going off about EXTREME CYCLING DANGER.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/24/2011 12:21 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:

Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.

What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.


Are you asking for a citation? :-)

Yes. Cessna, not Chevrolet, however.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.