Regional and School Buses!

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote

[...] I do put my helmet on before doing the stairs.

Does Burt Reynolds know this?.


No. Burt has only disdain for safety issues. Burt Reynolds lives on the
edge.



In fact, it may have been Jon who suggested there was
statistical proof of more fatalities per hour of exposure
just being at home than when cycling.

Nope.

By the fatality per hour study previously cited, home living
(active) is significantly *less risky* than bicycling. Sleeping
at home makes the odds even better.

I would suggest you stay home, but somebody said most
accidents occur within one half a mile of home. Sounds like a
dangerous place. So I suggest you move. Even better, become
homeless, but spend all your time in a home-like environment,
perhaps in someone else's home, mostly sleeping...



Maybe you best idea ever. Someone else's home. Now if I can just fine the
right someone. Not having to wear that stupid helmet to bed will be a big
plus.




[...] And when I take my bike someplace by auto I now wear my cycling
helmet in the car. Knowing now
that auto bike transport is more dangerous

If you're going to quote the study, make that, "has a greater risk
of fatality per hour of exposure"...


My bad as we used to say.



than the cycling, it only stands to reason there would be a greater need
to wear a helmet transporting the bike than when riding the bike. I
thank Jon for making this clear to me.

You're welcome. You'll have to decide whether or not to wear
your seatbelt, too, since in the event of a minor firey crash it may
kill you.


I'd venture a guess that cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of
exposure than minor firey crashes.


Oh, and just so you don't forget:

Cycling is not particularly dangerous.



Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure than just
about anything other than sleeping. That stratrider guy who started this
thread doesn't need to spend his time worrying about those busses on his way
to work. Hey stratrider - you don't need to wear your helmet either.
There's literature claiming it's safer for you to ride to work without your
helmet than it is for you to walk without your helmet. So if you really
want to wear a helmet get smart and wear it when you walk. So let it all
hang out and hammer that thing dude. No worries. Ride on. HTH

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote in message
[...]
Cycling is not particularly dangerous.

Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure than just
about anything other than sleeping. That stratrider guy who started this
thread doesn't need to spend his time worrying about those busses on his
way to work. Hey stratrider - you don't need to wear your helmet either.
There's literature claiming it's safer for you to ride to work without
your helmet than it is for you to walk without your helmet. So if you
really want to wear a helmet get smart and wear it when you walk. So let
it all hang out and hammer that thing dude. No worries. Ride on. HTH

Startrider has nothing in common with Jon Meinecke. Stratrider is an
intelligent cyclist who takes all necessary precautions and Meinecke is an
idiot. But Meinecke is worse than an idiot; he is a criminal idiot because
he dishes out bum advice which could easily cause cyclists to lose their
lives. If there were any justice in the world some motorist would hit him
from behind while he is 'taking the lane' thereby ridding the world of a
criminal idiot.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Wilson wrote:

idiocy snipped

Does your literature or your common sense tell you children don't need
to wear helmets when cycling?

Experience. They didn't exist when I learned to cycle as a child, and
the roads were more dangerous then than they are now. I am not aware of
any of my cycle riding child peers from those days that suffered a
serious head injury resulting from a cycling accident.

In the USA we don't have segregated sidewalks.

You do in the various bits of it I've ever been in, segregated by a
clear kerb from the adjacent roadway.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Wilson wrote:

Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure than just
about anything other than sleeping. That stratrider guy who started
this thread doesn't need to spend his time worrying about those busses
on his way to work.

No, but if he /does/ worry about them and takes them into account then
he's unlikely to be run over by one.

Hey stratrider - you don't need to wear your helmet
either. There's literature claiming it's safer for you to ride to work
without your helmet than it is for you to walk without your helmet. So
if you really want to wear a helmet get smart and wear it when you
walk.

Or get even smarter and realise (by reading the specification to which
they're built) that the sort of accident that kills people isn't going
to be affected much by a bike helmet. A helmet is designed for low
speed crashes with *no other vehicle involved*. It is specified so that
it will save you a bump and a graze and a nasty headache, not to save
your life (which is why they have no record of saving lives across
populations and have no clear effect on serious head injuries). Nothing
wrong with wearing one to reduce the possibility of a nasty headache,
but such a thing is very unlikely anyway and isn't going to kill you
even if it does happen.

So let it all hang out and hammer that thing dude. No worries.
Ride on.

"No worries" is a bad idea: if you don't worry /at all/ you may well
come a cropper. Worry a little, translate that into your riding and
you're quite probably going to be safe. Not definitely, but you can get
killed on the roads in a big car with air bags and crumple zones if the
worst comes to pass.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Wilson wrote:

idiocy snipped

idiocy snipped. The problem is that I'm joking around and you aren't.


Does your literature or your common sense tell you children don't need
to wear helmets when cycling?

Experience. They didn't exist when I learned to cycle as a child, and
the roads were more dangerous then than they are now. I am not aware of
any of my cycle riding child peers from those days that suffered a
serious head injury resulting from a cycling accident.



Peter's answer seems to be that he and his friends didn't need cycling
helmets when they were growing up and therefore your children don't need
them either. Rather than waste your money on cycling helmets for the kids
take the family out and have a nice MacMeal instead.



In the USA we don't have segregated sidewalks.

You do in the various bits of it I've ever been in, segregated by a
clear kerb from the adjacent roadway.


It was a bad joke Peter. You didn't get it, but there's no reason you
should. Yes we do have sidewalks for walking in the USA. Your observations
are correct.

"Wilson" wrote

"Jon" wrote

[Burt Reynolds]

[...] Burt has only disdain for safety issues.
Burt Reynolds lives on the edge

Be careful invoking a BR character, then.

I'd venture a guess that cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of
exposure than minor firey crashes.

Sorry, not according to the cited study. Nor residence fires.
Nor hunting. ... But please, if you have access to studies
that support or contradict the assertion that cycling is not
particularly dangerous, please post references.
..
Cycling is not particularly dangerous.

Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure
than just about anything other than sleeping.

Your assertion is not supported by any studies cited so far.
Logically, the fallacy of reductio adsurdum is transparent.
Rhetorically, it's not terribly effective, either.

HTH

Helpful? Revealing, perhaps slightly, but nothing very novel.

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote

"Jon" wrote

[Burt Reynolds]

[...] Burt has only disdain for safety issues.
Burt Reynolds lives on the edge

Be careful invoking a BR character, then.


I don't recall invoking or citing a Burt Reyonlds character as an authority
on safety. Truth is I doubt that anyone in the world has ever done that.



I'd venture a guess that cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of
exposure than minor firey crashes.

Sorry, not according to the cited study. Nor residence fires.
Nor hunting. ... But please, if you have access to studies
that support or contradict the assertion that cycling is not
particularly dangerous, please post references.
.


No, no I don't have any fancy studies backing me up. I have to guess at
everything. But I must tell you that it is a bit troubling to learn that
cycling has a greater risk of fatality per hour of exposure than crashing my
car and having it catch fire.



Cycling is not particularly dangerous.

Right. Cycling has less risk of fatality per hour of exposure
than just about anything other than sleeping.

Your assertion is not supported by any studies cited so far.
Logically, the fallacy of reductio adsurdum is transparent.
Rhetorically, it's not terribly effective, either.

HTH

Helpful? Revealing, perhaps slightly, but nothing very novel.



At least you get it. You may not think it's all that good, but then I'm a
true amateur.

"Wilson" wrote

I don't recall invoking or citing a Burt Reyonlds character as an
authority on safety. Truth is I doubt that anyone in the world has ever
done that.

Except indirectly as a moniker. _W.W. and the Dixie Dance
Kings_,-- Tarantino is quoted as admiring the movie. It's been
a long time since I last saw it. BR's not one of my favorite actors.

No, no I don't have any fancy studies backing me up.
I have to guess at everything.

Actually not. It's a choice. %^)

But I must tell you that it is a bit troubling to learn that cycling
has a greater risk of fatality per hour of exposure than crashing my car
and having it catch fire.

Since it has so little apparent risk. does it make you want to
stop cycling, load up your trunk with gas cans and stop your
car in the fast lane of the expressway? I hope not! %^o
Death in a post collision fire is just a subset of death
in a motor vehicle. The numbers do suggest that concerns
about seatbelts hindering exit after a collision may not
be well founded.

It's interesting to consider the arguments made when
seatbelts were first introduced and when their use was
made compulsuary. I'm old enough to remember
someone arguing, "I'd rather be thrown free of the
car, in the event of an accident."

At least you get it. You may not think it's all that good,
but then I'm a true amateur.

A decent fisher, actually. Decent bait selection. Reasonable
technique. Keep on posting,-- I'll take the bait when it strikes
my fancy. %^P

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote

I don't recall invoking or citing a Burt Reyonlds character as an
authority on safety. Truth is I doubt that anyone in the world has ever
done that.

Except indirectly as a moniker. _W.W. and the Dixie Dance
Kings_,-- Tarantino is quoted as admiring the movie. It's been
a long time since I last saw it. BR's not one of my favorite actors.


Tarantino admired the movie? Did he explain why or did he just leave it
hanging there? I take "it's been a long time since you last saw it" to
mean you've seen it more than once. Have you ever known anyone who claimed
BR was their favorite actor? Just wondering.


No, no I don't have any fancy studies backing me up.
I have to guess at everything.

Actually not. It's a choice. %^)

But I must tell you that it is a bit troubling to learn that cycling
has a greater risk of fatality per hour of exposure than crashing my car
and having it catch fire.

Since it has so little apparent risk. does it make you want to
stop cycling, load up your trunk with gas cans and stop your
car in the fast lane of the expressway? I hope not! %^o
Death in a post collision fire is just a subset of death
in a motor vehicle. The numbers do suggest that concerns
about seatbelts hindering exit after a collision may not
be well founded.

It's interesting to consider the arguments made when
seatbelts were first introduced and when their use was
made compulsuary. I'm old enough to remember
someone arguing, "I'd rather be thrown free of the
car, in the event of an accident."

At least you get it. You may not think it's all that good,
but then I'm a true amateur.

A decent fisher, actually. Decent bait selection. Reasonable
technique. Keep on posting,-- I'll take the bait when it strikes
my fancy. %^P


Perhaps good enough to get into Peter's kill file, but not in yours it would
seem.

Wilson wrote:

Perhaps good enough to get into Peter's kill file, but not in yours it
would seem.

No, you have to be an unreconstructed waster on a long term basis like
Ed to get into my Bozo Bin. You don't come close to qualifying, you're
just not as clued in about risk as you may like to think.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/