Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why do cyclists' lives matter nothing in Krygowski's fallacious "reasoning"?
81 views
Skip to first unread message
Andre Jute
Sep 26, 2023, 7:03:53 AM9/26/23
to
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:54:53 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> The U.S. is a big country. All numbers are big. Is "nearly 1000" [cyclist] deaths
> cause for scaring people away from cycling, or convincing them to buy
> ineffective protective measures? Then why is the same logic not applied
> to the 6500+ pedestrians who die each year, or the ~40,000 motorist
> fatalities?
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Right, let's analyse Franki-boy Krygowski's cynical disregard for the lives of cyclists. First of all, he wants us to go save "the 6500+ pedestrians who die each year, or the ~40,000 motorist fatalities". This is just smoke he blows in our eyes. Pedestrians and motorists are not our constituency: cyclists are our constituency (with the exception that Franki-fascist isn't one of us or he wouldn't have such a cavalier attitude to the lives of cyclists who could be saved). Try this on, to understand how ridiculous this argument of Krygowski is: say we buckle under to this stupid fascist argument of Krygowski that individual cyclists, with whom we have common cause, count for nothing against the mass mob of motorists, and we save as many of the walkers and drivers as is possible, and prove that it is not possible to save the rest, then Franki-boy simply shifts his argument to the pedestrians and motorists of every other country in the world, and from there he puts on us the duty of saving all the famished in the world, and whoever he can think up who should be our next cause, and the next, until even the dumbest cyclists grasp that in Krygowski's worldview cyclists never get a turn to live.
>
Why do cyclists' lives matter nothing in Krygowski's fallacious "reasoning"?
>
Andre Jute
Frank Krygowski's disdain for the lives of cyclists is not the only reason I conclude he is malicious scum, but it is among the most serious reasons.
>
> The U.S. is a big country. All numbers are big. Is "nearly 1000" [cyclist] deaths
> cause for scaring people away from cycling, or convincing them to buy
> ineffective protective measures? Then why is the same logic not applied
> to the 6500+ pedestrians who die each year, or the ~40,000 motorist
> fatalities?
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Right, let's analyse Franki-boy Krygowski's cynical disregard for the lives of cyclists. First of all, he wants us to go save "the 6500+ pedestrians who die each year, or the ~40,000 motorist fatalities". This is just smoke he blows in our eyes. Pedestrians and motorists are not our constituency: cyclists are our constituency (with the exception that Franki-fascist isn't one of us or he wouldn't have such a cavalier attitude to the lives of cyclists who could be saved). Try this on, to understand how ridiculous this argument of Krygowski is: say we buckle under to this stupid fascist argument of Krygowski that individual cyclists, with whom we have common cause, count for nothing against the mass mob of motorists, and we save as many of the walkers and drivers as is possible, and prove that it is not possible to save the rest, then Franki-boy simply shifts his argument to the pedestrians and motorists of every other country in the world, and from there he puts on us the duty of saving all the famished in the world, and whoever he can think up who should be our next cause, and the next, until even the dumbest cyclists grasp that in Krygowski's worldview cyclists never get a turn to live.
>
Why do cyclists' lives matter nothing in Krygowski's fallacious "reasoning"?
>
Andre Jute
Frank Krygowski's disdain for the lives of cyclists is not the only reason I conclude he is malicious scum, but it is among the most serious reasons.
Andre Jute
Sep 26, 2023, 7:06:13 AM9/26/23
to
INTRODUCTORY NOTE:
The article below has been standing on RBT since 17 August 2010, and has been repeatedly reprinted. First I ask how dangerous cycling really is, and I show that it is safer than motoring or walking, despite Frank Krygowski screeching "Danger, danger," every time someone asks how cycling can be made safer; predictably, characteristically, Krygowski has never thanked me for showing that cycling is even safer than he claimed. Next I consider a full universe accounting (not a statistical sample, a full count) of serious cycling accidents requiring medical intervention in a very large city, New York, made over a period of eight years by first responders and medical staff for unbiased bureaucratic reasons, simple record keeping, and determine that the numbers indicate that out of 716 bicycle fatalities (in the then latest statistics) over the entire USA, between 235 and 400 cyclists could be saved. Krygoswki and all the other RBT AHZ have steadfastly refused to engage with the implications of the New York Full Count of Bicycle Fatalities. Finally I list both the pros and the cons of mandatory helmet wear.
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute
It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:
Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGyEjHFrJThRTYB53Wt7vubHxju7Q
It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.
HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010, 2023. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.
The article below has been standing on RBT since 17 August 2010, and has been repeatedly reprinted. First I ask how dangerous cycling really is, and I show that it is safer than motoring or walking, despite Frank Krygowski screeching "Danger, danger," every time someone asks how cycling can be made safer; predictably, characteristically, Krygowski has never thanked me for showing that cycling is even safer than he claimed. Next I consider a full universe accounting (not a statistical sample, a full count) of serious cycling accidents requiring medical intervention in a very large city, New York, made over a period of eight years by first responders and medical staff for unbiased bureaucratic reasons, simple record keeping, and determine that the numbers indicate that out of 716 bicycle fatalities (in the then latest statistics) over the entire USA, between 235 and 400 cyclists could be saved. Krygoswki and all the other RBT AHZ have steadfastly refused to engage with the implications of the New York Full Count of Bicycle Fatalities. Finally I list both the pros and the cons of mandatory helmet wear.
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute
It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:
Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGyEjHFrJThRTYB53Wt7vubHxju7Q
It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.
HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010, 2023. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.
Andre Jute
Sep 26, 2023, 7:07:56 AM9/26/23
to
Okay, now we have enough numbers to put a price in cyclist deaths on Frank Krygowski’s sinister political disdain for the lives of cyclists. Let’s see Krygowski’s Big Lie:
> The U.S. is a big country. All numbers are big. Is "nearly 1000" [cyclist] deaths
> cause for scaring people away from cycling, or convincing them to buy
> ineffective protective measures
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
Let’s accept Krygowski’s Big Number of “’nearly 1000’ [cyclist] deaths” at face value. I have demonstrated above that a full-universe count of eight years of cycling fatalities in New York will project conservatively onto the national scene as one third of cyclist lives which would otherwise be lost saved by helmets. So helmets are not, as Krygowski claims, an “ineffective protective measure”. Quite contrary, at the existential limit of possibilities and probabilities, a bicycle helmet could save a further 333 cyclist lives. Or more.
So, the bee in Krygowski’s bonnet costs a minimum of 333 cyclist lives. Every year, and growing.
QED.
Now you see why I call Krygowski “scum”. He’s a murderer at one remove, as are all the anti-helmet zealots,
Andre Jute
“Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes… His moral and ecological concerns are important.” -- Times Literary Supplement
> The U.S. is a big country. All numbers are big. Is "nearly 1000" [cyclist] deaths
> cause for scaring people away from cycling, or convincing them to buy
> ineffective protective measures
> - Frank Krygowski
Let’s accept Krygowski’s Big Number of “’nearly 1000’ [cyclist] deaths” at face value. I have demonstrated above that a full-universe count of eight years of cycling fatalities in New York will project conservatively onto the national scene as one third of cyclist lives which would otherwise be lost saved by helmets. So helmets are not, as Krygowski claims, an “ineffective protective measure”. Quite contrary, at the existential limit of possibilities and probabilities, a bicycle helmet could save a further 333 cyclist lives. Or more.
So, the bee in Krygowski’s bonnet costs a minimum of 333 cyclist lives. Every year, and growing.
QED.
Now you see why I call Krygowski “scum”. He’s a murderer at one remove, as are all the anti-helmet zealots,
Andre Jute
“Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes… His moral and ecological concerns are important.” -- Times Literary Supplement
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 26, 2023, 2:35:27 PM9/26/23
to
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:03:53 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
>
> >
< yet more perversion of life in general>
It must be so painful to have someone living rent free in your head to the extent that you have to dedicate a discussion to them, in which you reply to yourself twice, making less sense with each deluded posting.
Nothing but more jutestench.
>
> >
< yet more perversion of life in general>
It must be so painful to have someone living rent free in your head to the extent that you have to dedicate a discussion to them, in which you reply to yourself twice, making less sense with each deluded posting.
Nothing but more jutestench.
Tom Kunich
Sep 26, 2023, 4:09:54 PM9/26/23
to
The case against helmets? Frank has told us that he takes the road and doesn't let cars past. This will inevitably lead to a driver running over Frank and killing him. Oh, frabjous day calloo calla.
AMuzi
Sep 26, 2023, 4:27:42 PM9/26/23
to
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 26, 2023, 5:19:10 PM9/26/23
to
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
One must have faith in the protective headgear:
>That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Frank Krygowski
Sep 26, 2023, 8:29:05 PM9/26/23
to
On 9/26/2023 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> The case for helmets is simple - better to err on the side of caution but it is YOUR decision via the first Amendment.
?? I don't recall that in the First Amendment. Care to explain?
>
> The case for helmets is simple - better to err on the side of caution but it is YOUR decision via the first Amendment.
> The case against helmets? Frank has told us that he takes the road and doesn't let cars past. This will inevitably lead to a driver running over Frank and killing him.
it's safe_. If it's not safe - e.g. when the lane is too narrow to
safely share - I ride lane center, as the law allows. Then the motorists
are free to pass me using the next lane.
I frequently ask this: What do _you_ do if you're riding in a ten foot
lane and an 8.5 foot wide truck comes up behind?
IIRC, you've never answered.
In any case, a helmet has nothing to do with this situation. If you
squeeze into the gutter to let that truck pass and the trucker misjudges
clearance, your foam hat will not keep the rear wheels from squashing
your head.
> Oh, frabjous day calloo calla.
your mirror to educate you.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Sep 26, 2023, 8:29:55 PM9/26/23
to
On 9/26/2023 5:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>> headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
>
> One must have faith in the protective headgear:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
Are any CPSC certified to (barely) protect against a 14 mph impact?
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>> headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
>
> One must have faith in the protective headgear:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Sep 26, 2023, 8:58:56 PM9/26/23
to
>On 9/26/2023 3:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof" probably covers wearing a turban (:-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 26, 2023, 9:09:40 PM9/26/23
to
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg>
You have it backwards. The CPSC certifies the failures and not those
products that actually work as advertised:
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls>
The recall list for Shimano:
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls?tabset=on&search_combined_fields=Shimano&field_rc_hazards_target_id=All&field_rc_recall_by_product_target_id=All>
<https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/customer-services.html>
John B.
Sep 26, 2023, 9:10:36 PM9/26/23
to
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:18:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>>headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
>
>One must have faith in the protective headgear:
><https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
Middle Eastern religions seem to cover their head while Far Eastern,
i.e., Buddhists uncover theirs (:-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>>headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
>
>One must have faith in the protective headgear:
><https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
i.e., Buddhists uncover theirs (:-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
Sep 26, 2023, 9:33:05 PM9/26/23
to
On 9/26/2023 9:09 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 20:29:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2023 5:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>>>> headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> One must have faith in the protective headgear:
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
>
>> Are any CPSC certified to (barely) protect against a 14 mph impact?
>
> I don't "recall". Perhaps one of these safety devices?
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg>
>
> You have it backwards. The CPSC certifies the failures and not those
> products that actually work as advertised:
> <https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls>
> The recall list for Shimano:
> <https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls?tabset=on&search_combined_fields=Shimano&field_rc_hazards_target_id=All&field_rc_recall_by_product_target_id=All>
> <https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/customer-services.html>
CPSC does control the mandatory standard for U.S. bike helmets:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 20:29:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2023 5:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:27:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's it. Succinct and clear, albeit a bit vague about
>>>> headgear, Sikh turbans notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> One must have faith in the protective headgear:
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch>
>
>> Are any CPSC certified to (barely) protect against a 14 mph impact?
>
> I don't "recall". Perhaps one of these safety devices?
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg>
>
> You have it backwards. The CPSC certifies the failures and not those
> products that actually work as advertised:
> <https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls>
> The recall list for Shimano:
> <https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls?tabset=on&search_combined_fields=Shimano&field_rc_hazards_target_id=All&field_rc_recall_by_product_target_id=All>
> <https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/customer-services.html>
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/1999/CPSC-Issues-New-Safety-Standard-for-Bike-Helmets
It's not stated there, but the standard is based on "protecting" a
decapitated human head (or a magnesium model of one) in a ~14mph impact.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
Sep 27, 2023, 9:26:22 AM9/27/23
to
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:09:54 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:07:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > Okay, now we have enough numbers to put a price in cyclist deaths on Frank Krygowski’s sinister political disdain for the lives of cyclists. Let’s see Krygowski’s Big Lie:
> > > The U.S. is a big country. All numbers are big. Is "nearly 1000" [cyclist] deaths
> > > cause for scaring people away from cycling, or convincing them to buy
> > > ineffective protective measures
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > Let’s accept Krygowski’s Big Number of “’nearly 1000’ [cyclist] deaths” at face value. I have demonstrated above that a full-universe count of eight years of cycling fatalities in New York will project conservatively onto the national scene as one third of cyclist lives which would otherwise be lost saved by helmets. So helmets are not, as Krygowski claims, an “ineffective protective measure”. Quite contrary, at the existential limit of possibilities and probabilities, a bicycle helmet could save a further 333 cyclist lives. Or more.
> >
> > So, the bee in Krygowski’s bonnet costs a minimum of 333 cyclist lives. Every year, and growing.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> > Now you see why I call Krygowski “scum”. He’s a murderer at one remove, as are all the anti-helmet zealots,
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > “Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes… His moral and ecological concerns are important.” -- Times Literary Supplement
> The case for helmets is simple - better to err on the side of caution but it is YOUR decision via the first Amendment.
>
It's funny how the global warmies are so hot on the precautionary principle for themselves but how the same monkeys totally deny the precautionary principle when not even an instant later they become anti-helmet zealots.
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:07:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > Okay, now we have enough numbers to put a price in cyclist deaths on Frank Krygowski’s sinister political disdain for the lives of cyclists. Let’s see Krygowski’s Big Lie:
> > > The U.S. is a big country. All numbers are big. Is "nearly 1000" [cyclist] deaths
> > > cause for scaring people away from cycling, or convincing them to buy
> > > ineffective protective measures
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > Let’s accept Krygowski’s Big Number of “’nearly 1000’ [cyclist] deaths” at face value. I have demonstrated above that a full-universe count of eight years of cycling fatalities in New York will project conservatively onto the national scene as one third of cyclist lives which would otherwise be lost saved by helmets. So helmets are not, as Krygowski claims, an “ineffective protective measure”. Quite contrary, at the existential limit of possibilities and probabilities, a bicycle helmet could save a further 333 cyclist lives. Or more.
> >
> > So, the bee in Krygowski’s bonnet costs a minimum of 333 cyclist lives. Every year, and growing.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> > Now you see why I call Krygowski “scum”. He’s a murderer at one remove, as are all the anti-helmet zealots,
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > “Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes… His moral and ecological concerns are important.” -- Times Literary Supplement
> The case for helmets is simple - better to err on the side of caution but it is YOUR decision via the first Amendment.
>
>
> The case against helmets? Frank has told us that he takes the road and doesn't let cars past. This will inevitably lead to a driver running over Frank and killing him. Oh, frabjous day calloo calla.
>
Heh-heh! But I'm not keen on hurrying the day. Krygowski is the essence of leftist evil in a blandly boring envelope, more useful alive as an example than dead as worm-food.
> The case against helmets? Frank has told us that he takes the road and doesn't let cars past. This will inevitably lead to a driver running over Frank and killing him. Oh, frabjous day calloo calla.
>
>
Andre Jute
Conservationist
>
Andre Jute
Sep 27, 2023, 9:39:42 AM9/27/23
to
>
Andre Jute
Teflon
>
Andre Jute
Sep 27, 2023, 9:55:25 AM9/27/23
to
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:33:05 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> [The American CPSC] standard is based on "protecting" a
>
Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam.
>
>
> [The American CPSC] standard is based on "protecting" a
> decapitated human head (or a magnesium model of one) in a ~14mph impact.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Since that standard for bicycle helmets ruled over the period in which the New York Bicycle Accident Fatalities were counted, even with that helmet approximately one third of the bicycle fatalities you so casually dismiss can live. So tell us, Franki-boy, why you don't want to save the lives of 333 cyclists?
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam.
>
Tom Kunich
Sep 27, 2023, 11:01:11 AM9/27/23
to
I have repeatedly asked Scharf what he has EVER done to believe that there are experts and non-experts who cannot hold precisely the same ideas and opinions. He is so stupid he doesn't even understand the question.
Krygowski is a complete lost cause. Holding the power of a grade over student's heads if they dared to disagree with him gave him the total belief that he is king of all he surveys and he viciously hates the slightest sign of disagreement. Not to mention he is nothing more than a filthy little communist as long as it isn't his money being redistributed. I read a study one time that said that MOST people would rather live in abject poverty, starving slowly to death than to make a good living but someone else doing better than they. Frank, Liebermann and Flunky are perfect examples of this. Because I was actually a successful engineer all they can respond with is that somehow I am lying. Poor sick little nobodies.
Slow-come doesn't care that Frank hates his guts and will happily agree with Frank because he cannot stand that I see him for exactly what he is - a pretender that wants to be king in Frank's stead. That he and Liebermann's entire intellectual property is cutting and pasting Google articles is so comical that Liebermann doesn't even see even his so-called friends laughing up their sleeves. Relax Liebermann - at least you will always have the support of your wannabe lover, Flunky.
Tom Kunich
Sep 27, 2023, 11:02:34 AM9/27/23
to
Andre Jute
Sep 27, 2023, 10:03:25 PM9/27/23
to
>
But I suppose it is one of those "inevitabilities" that Marxists believe in. Krygowski is a follower of Forester, who believed in a clearway for the elite of expert commuters, and wanted all other cyclists, and especially slower riders, to get the hell out of his way. For a certain class of psychopath, it's a short step from there to wishing them dead, especially with a little help from the global warmies, who want to reduce the earth's population by whatever means come to hand.
>
Andre Jute
The knee bone is attached to the thighbone, and the thighbone is...
>
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 5:10:35 AM9/28/23
to
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 19:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:02:34?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:55:25?AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
if I'd read his book. I hadn't of course, nor had I, nor will I, read
any books about how to ride bicycles, since I'm well versed on how to
ride bicycles.
I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
allowed to go.
Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:02:34?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:55:25?AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:33:05?AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [The American CPSC] standard is based on "protecting" a
>> > > decapitated human head (or a magnesium model of one) in a ~14mph impact.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > - Frank Krygowski
>> > >
>> > Since that standard for bicycle helmets ruled over the period in which the New York Bicycle Accident Fatalities were counted, even with that helmet approximately one third of the bicycle fatalities you so casually dismiss can live. So tell us, Franki-boy, why you don't want to save the lives of 333 cyclists?
>> > >
>> > Andre Jute
>> > Just the fax, mam.
>> > >
>> Because most of them have minds of their own and so would not agree with him.
>>
>That's a shocking thing to hear about anyone, even the enemies of free speech like Krygowski.
>>
>But I suppose it is one of those "inevitabilities" that Marxists believe in. Krygowski is a follower of Forester, who believed in a clearway for the elite of expert commuters, and wanted all other cyclists, and especially slower riders, to get the hell out of his way. For a certain class of psychopath, it's a short step from there to wishing them dead, especially with a little help from the global warmies, who want to reduce the earth's population by whatever means come to hand.
>>
>Andre Jute
>The knee bone is attached to the thighbone, and the thighbone is...
>>
I actually looked up that guy (John Forester) after Krygowski asked me
>> > >
>> > > [The American CPSC] standard is based on "protecting" a
>> > > decapitated human head (or a magnesium model of one) in a ~14mph impact.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > - Frank Krygowski
>> > >
>> > Since that standard for bicycle helmets ruled over the period in which the New York Bicycle Accident Fatalities were counted, even with that helmet approximately one third of the bicycle fatalities you so casually dismiss can live. So tell us, Franki-boy, why you don't want to save the lives of 333 cyclists?
>> > >
>> > Andre Jute
>> > Just the fax, mam.
>> > >
>> Because most of them have minds of their own and so would not agree with him.
>>
>That's a shocking thing to hear about anyone, even the enemies of free speech like Krygowski.
>>
>But I suppose it is one of those "inevitabilities" that Marxists believe in. Krygowski is a follower of Forester, who believed in a clearway for the elite of expert commuters, and wanted all other cyclists, and especially slower riders, to get the hell out of his way. For a certain class of psychopath, it's a short step from there to wishing them dead, especially with a little help from the global warmies, who want to reduce the earth's population by whatever means come to hand.
>>
>Andre Jute
>The knee bone is attached to the thighbone, and the thighbone is...
>>
if I'd read his book. I hadn't of course, nor had I, nor will I, read
any books about how to ride bicycles, since I'm well versed on how to
ride bicycles.
I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
allowed to go.
Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
Tom Kunich
Sep 28, 2023, 11:03:16 AM9/28/23
to
Tom Kunich
Sep 28, 2023, 11:07:10 AM9/28/23
to
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 2:49:02 PM9/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't. The only bicycle related books, pamplets, websites, etc, that
I want to see are about building, fixing and maintaining bicycles.
I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
what, and how to ride bikes.
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to see are about building, fixing and maintaining bicycles.
I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
what, and how to ride bikes.
Frank Krygowski
Sep 28, 2023, 3:54:26 PM9/28/23
to
On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
> what, and how to ride bikes.
Such dedication to ignorance!
>
> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
> what, and how to ride bikes.
If ignorance really were bliss, our Florida tricycle rider wouldn't be
so grumpy all the time. :-)
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 4:36:29 PM9/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:54:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
>> what, and how to ride bikes.
>
>Such dedication to ignorance!
Ignorance is when a person doesn't know what he needs to know. I
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
>> what, and how to ride bikes.
>
>Such dedication to ignorance!
already know everything I need to know about riding a bicycle
>If ignorance really were bliss, our Florida tricycle rider wouldn't be
>so grumpy all the time. :-)
"The tricycle rider has carefully omitted that my questions above were
in direct response to _HIS_ bragging: "BY the way, I grew up and spent
many hours riding on roads, so I have all the courage and experience I
need. Probably more than you."
I was naturally curious about the "probably more than you." Was this
really someone who knows about riding in the real world? So I asked
for details. And I got no details. "
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/AiTZjdi5RDc/m/hdWvvjytAAAJ
Krygowski whines because I ignored his demands for my personal
information.....
Also note that Krygowski apparently believes that it's a "normal"
thing to demand other's personal information.
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 5:21:41 PM9/28/23
to
I lived for a while at what is now called Little Harbor
Marina near Ruskin Florida. The marina was much simpler
than it is today and I had no phone nor internet access
on my boat.
I road my bicycle three and a half miles to and from
Ruskin two or three times a week to visit the library,
post office, and buy groceries and supplies. The boat
had a tiny refrigerator and an even tinier freezer
compartment about the size of an ice tray compartment.
As a result, I needed to restock regularly and I could
carry a six pack of beer, meat and veggies on my Giant
bicycle with a couple of canvas bags hanging on the
handlebars.
There was a small broken up sidewalk along Shell
Pont road, (Google maps tell me it's been improved, now)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ficPR1T8U5gJ2toJ7
so I always rode on the road.
I remember once a couple of guys driving behind me, furiously
honking their horn, instead of passing me. When they finally
did pass, they stopped, one guy got out of the car waving a
stick, and screaming that I had no business on the road.
That's when I first carried a gun. It was my big heavy Ruger
p94 .40 caliber that I carried awkwardly in a shoulder holster
under my mostly unbuttoned shirt, clearly visible as I rode
the bike. I still don't know if it was legal back then.
Roger Meriman
Sep 28, 2023, 5:25:50 PM9/28/23
to
movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
one of many motorways ringing london!
Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
moved on.
Roger Merriman
Andre Jute
Sep 28, 2023, 5:37:14 PM9/28/23
to
>
Notice how that coward Frank Krygowski refuses to engage with the New York Full Universe Cyclist Fatality Count Report, because it isn't one of those incompetent "samples" the AHZ love so much because they can abuse the numbers to make them mean anything they want, or failing that dodge try to discredit the sampling method. Krygowski, who is anyway forced to work with my numbers on how safe cycling is because I caught him out incompetently making cycling sound more dangerous than it was, knows in his marrow that with the New York Full Universe Count of Cyclist Fatalities.in hand I will steamroller his petty objections to mandatory helmets and there will be no corner of his own statistical incompetence and crookery for him to hide in. And, as explained above, I've once more caught out Krugowski casually admitting that the bee in his bonnet about helmets costs the lives of around 333 cyclists, every year. In the 13 years since I published my analysis of the New York numbers here on RBT, Krygowski and the rest of the AHZ have cost the lives of at least 4329 cyclists have needn't have died. When he retired, Krygowki confessed that he dreamed of "being a spokesman for bicycles". He is -- he's the spokesman for an avoidable rolling bicyclist massacre.
>
Andre Jute
Righteous
>
Notice how that coward Frank Krygowski refuses to engage with the New York Full Universe Cyclist Fatality Count Report, because it isn't one of those incompetent "samples" the AHZ love so much because they can abuse the numbers to make them mean anything they want, or failing that dodge try to discredit the sampling method. Krygowski, who is anyway forced to work with my numbers on how safe cycling is because I caught him out incompetently making cycling sound more dangerous than it was, knows in his marrow that with the New York Full Universe Count of Cyclist Fatalities.in hand I will steamroller his petty objections to mandatory helmets and there will be no corner of his own statistical incompetence and crookery for him to hide in. And, as explained above, I've once more caught out Krugowski casually admitting that the bee in his bonnet about helmets costs the lives of around 333 cyclists, every year. In the 13 years since I published my analysis of the New York numbers here on RBT, Krygowski and the rest of the AHZ have cost the lives of at least 4329 cyclists have needn't have died. When he retired, Krygowki confessed that he dreamed of "being a spokesman for bicycles". He is -- he's the spokesman for an avoidable rolling bicyclist massacre.
>
Andre Jute
Righteous
>
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 5:37:39 PM9/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:25:45 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Here, in west central Florida, several new highways have been
built/rebuilt and several more in construction that have 8 or 12 foot
asphalt paths/trails/bikeways running parallel to them. It's a
definate trend here.
wrote:
built/rebuilt and several more in construction that have 8 or 12 foot
asphalt paths/trails/bikeways running parallel to them. It's a
definate trend here.
AMuzi
Sep 28, 2023, 5:47:21 PM9/28/23
to
Humans reflexively protect the head in a moment of danger,
as we can all attest. Which is why a model of simple physics
(average height of rider's head, assumed impact speed, force
vectors etc) predicts a much higher fatality rate from
cycling crashes than actually observed.
And although we (mostly) agree that helmets do something,
they clearly do not do everything, as evidenced by severe
crashes in which helmeted riders die, as would anyone.
We're left with a muddle and a large grey area in which
helmets may have helped or may not have depending on a lot
of unknown variables (microseconds of reaction time, cm
differences in impact etc).
For all of which I conclude that if one's personal risk
assessment leads a rider to wear a helmet, fine, Conversely
if not, not. There's no logical way to be categorical,
although passions do flare.
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 6:06:07 PM9/28/23
to
the issue either way on usenet is not only obtrusive but useless.
John B.
Sep 28, 2023, 7:03:07 PM9/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:37:34 -0400, Catrike Rider
Here nearly all multi lane roads and highways have a strip as a
breakdown.bus/parking/whatever lane, on the sides of the road which
bicycles and small motorcycles, i,e, slow vehicles, are required to
use.
Most of my Sundays rides in the past few years was on the main highway
to N.E. Thailand a 4 - 6 lane divided highway with very heavy traffic
and a speed limit of 120 kph.
I never felt endangered riding there and in fact I prefer to ride on
the highway rather then on the narrow 2 lane roads in the village.
--
Cheers,
John B.
breakdown.bus/parking/whatever lane, on the sides of the road which
bicycles and small motorcycles, i,e, slow vehicles, are required to
use.
Most of my Sundays rides in the past few years was on the main highway
to N.E. Thailand a 4 - 6 lane divided highway with very heavy traffic
and a speed limit of 120 kph.
I never felt endangered riding there and in fact I prefer to ride on
the highway rather then on the narrow 2 lane roads in the village.
--
Cheers,
John B.
John B.
Sep 28, 2023, 7:08:33 PM9/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:03:25?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:02:34?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:55:25?AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-dna-idUSL2N2VQ2OU
--
Cheers,
John B.
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:03:25?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:02:34?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:55:25?AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:33:05?AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > [The American CPSC] standard is based on "protecting" a
>> > > > decapitated human head (or a magnesium model of one) in a ~14mph impact.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > - Frank Krygowski
>> > > >
>> > > Since that standard for bicycle helmets ruled over the period in which the New York Bicycle Accident Fatalities were counted, even with that helmet approximately one third of the bicycle fatalities you so casually dismiss can live. So tell us, Franki-boy, why you don't want to save the lives of 333 cyclists?
>> > > >
>> > > Andre Jute
>> > > Just the fax, mam.
>> > > >
>> > Because most of them have minds of their own and so would not agree with him.
>> >
>> That's a shocking thing to hear about anyone, even the enemies of free speech like Krygowski.
>> >
>> But I suppose it is one of those "inevitabilities" that Marxists believe in. Krygowski is a follower of Forester, who believed in a clearway for the elite of expert commuters, and wanted all other cyclists, and especially slower riders, to get the hell out of his way. For a certain class of psychopath, it's a short step from there to wishing them dead, especially with a little help from the global warmies, who want to reduce the earth's population by whatever means come to hand.
>> >
>> Andre Jute
>> The knee bone is attached to the thighbone, and the thighbone is...
>> >
>
>
>One of the recent Swedish studies appears to be saying that the mRNA vaccines has caused as much as 37% of women to have serious reproduction harm. This is the sort of thing that the Stupid 4 approve of.
And Tommy Boy strikes out again. See
>> > > >
>> > > > [The American CPSC] standard is based on "protecting" a
>> > > > decapitated human head (or a magnesium model of one) in a ~14mph impact.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > - Frank Krygowski
>> > > >
>> > > Since that standard for bicycle helmets ruled over the period in which the New York Bicycle Accident Fatalities were counted, even with that helmet approximately one third of the bicycle fatalities you so casually dismiss can live. So tell us, Franki-boy, why you don't want to save the lives of 333 cyclists?
>> > > >
>> > > Andre Jute
>> > > Just the fax, mam.
>> > > >
>> > Because most of them have minds of their own and so would not agree with him.
>> >
>> That's a shocking thing to hear about anyone, even the enemies of free speech like Krygowski.
>> >
>> But I suppose it is one of those "inevitabilities" that Marxists believe in. Krygowski is a follower of Forester, who believed in a clearway for the elite of expert commuters, and wanted all other cyclists, and especially slower riders, to get the hell out of his way. For a certain class of psychopath, it's a short step from there to wishing them dead, especially with a little help from the global warmies, who want to reduce the earth's population by whatever means come to hand.
>> >
>> Andre Jute
>> The knee bone is attached to the thighbone, and the thighbone is...
>> >
>
>
>One of the recent Swedish studies appears to be saying that the mRNA vaccines has caused as much as 37% of women to have serious reproduction harm. This is the sort of thing that the Stupid 4 approve of.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-dna-idUSL2N2VQ2OU
--
Cheers,
John B.
John B.
Sep 28, 2023, 7:31:29 PM9/28/23
to
treated are due to head injuries but having said that I have crashed
twice seriously enough to break bones and in neither case did my head
hit the ground sufficiently hard to make a mark on my helmet.
But then, Air Force pilots wear parachutes and over water carry
flotation gear... not because they think that they are going to have
to bail out but rather if they have to bail out.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 7:45:57 PM9/28/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 06:03:00 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
Here, in most cases the bikeway/trail/?? is smooth asphalt and
separated from the highway by an 10/50 foot strip of grass, and
sometimes a chain link fence. Why anyone would rather ride with the
traffic is beyond my understanding. I note that some of Krygowski's
bike club has rides on rail trails.
Of course, if most of one's rides are to the grocery or library, one
will have to ride on suburban streets, something I really dislike. I
prefer riding with very little stopping. Stop and go riding is not my
style.
separated from the highway by an 10/50 foot strip of grass, and
sometimes a chain link fence. Why anyone would rather ride with the
traffic is beyond my understanding. I note that some of Krygowski's
bike club has rides on rail trails.
Of course, if most of one's rides are to the grocery or library, one
will have to ride on suburban streets, something I really dislike. I
prefer riding with very little stopping. Stop and go riding is not my
style.
Catrike Rider
Sep 28, 2023, 7:51:01 PM9/28/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 06:31:22 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've had other kayakers question that I have a large compass mounted
on my kayak. I always wondered if the people who followed us back
across the bay in a super dense fog were the same people. Trying to
paddle while reading a small hand-held device doesn't work.
wrote:
on my kayak. I always wondered if the people who followed us back
across the bay in a super dense fog were the same people. Trying to
paddle while reading a small hand-held device doesn't work.
John B.
Sep 28, 2023, 9:27:51 PM9/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:45:52 -0400, Catrike Rider
I've ridden in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia over the
past 50, or so years, and honestly I can remember only two times that
I really felt that I was in danger... and both times it was solely due
to my own foolishness.
Perhaps it is because that bicycles, as a transportation device, are,
or were, more common in developing countries, or, in the case of
Thailand, the fact that if you kill someone on the roads you may be
charged with "causing a death" which can be awarded with 10 years in
jail.
--
Cheers,
John B.
past 50, or so years, and honestly I can remember only two times that
I really felt that I was in danger... and both times it was solely due
to my own foolishness.
Perhaps it is because that bicycles, as a transportation device, are,
or were, more common in developing countries, or, in the case of
Thailand, the fact that if you kill someone on the roads you may be
charged with "causing a death" which can be awarded with 10 years in
jail.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Roger Meriman
Sep 28, 2023, 10:16:57 PM9/28/23
to
to have 4 orbital motorways and so on, absolutely have motorways but it’s
much reduced and scaled down to what was planned! And seems to be fairly
common ie post world war and car was king and so on.
Roger Merriman
Andre Jute
Sep 29, 2023, 12:37:04 AM9/29/23
to
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:47:21 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/28/2023 4:37 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>
> > Notice how that coward Frank Krygowski refuses to engage with the New York Full Universe Cyclist Fatality Count Report, because it isn't one of those incompetent "samples" the AHZ love so much because they can abuse the numbers to make them mean anything they want, or failing that dodge try to discredit the sampling method. Krygowski, who is anyway forced to work with my numbers on how safe cycling is because I caught him out incompetently making cycling sound more dangerous than it was, knows in his marrow that with the New York Full Universe Count of Cyclist Fatalities.in hand I will steamroller his petty objections to mandatory helmets and there will be no corner of his own statistical incompetence and crookery for him to hide in. And, as explained above, I've once more caught out Krugowski casually admitting that the bee in his bonnet about helmets costs the lives of around 333 cyclists, every year. In the 13 years since I published my analysis of the New York numbers here on RBT, Krygowski and the rest of the AHZ have cost the lives of at least 4329 cyclists have needn't have died. When he retired, Krygowki confessed that he dreamed of "being a spokesman for bicycles". He is -- he's the spokesman for an avoidable rolling bicyclist massacre.
> >>
> > Andre Jute
> > Righteous
> >>
> You don't know that. Nor do I.
>
Oh, but I do know it, Andrew, and if you had carefully observed in the last 13 years since I made that analysis how Krygowski twists and turns to avoid coming face to face with that report, because he knows that report is game up for his arguments against cycling helmet mandation, you would know it too.
> On 9/28/2023 4:37 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>
> > Notice how that coward Frank Krygowski refuses to engage with the New York Full Universe Cyclist Fatality Count Report, because it isn't one of those incompetent "samples" the AHZ love so much because they can abuse the numbers to make them mean anything they want, or failing that dodge try to discredit the sampling method. Krygowski, who is anyway forced to work with my numbers on how safe cycling is because I caught him out incompetently making cycling sound more dangerous than it was, knows in his marrow that with the New York Full Universe Count of Cyclist Fatalities.in hand I will steamroller his petty objections to mandatory helmets and there will be no corner of his own statistical incompetence and crookery for him to hide in. And, as explained above, I've once more caught out Krugowski casually admitting that the bee in his bonnet about helmets costs the lives of around 333 cyclists, every year. In the 13 years since I published my analysis of the New York numbers here on RBT, Krygowski and the rest of the AHZ have cost the lives of at least 4329 cyclists have needn't have died. When he retired, Krygowki confessed that he dreamed of "being a spokesman for bicycles". He is -- he's the spokesman for an avoidable rolling bicyclist massacre.
> >>
> > Andre Jute
> > Righteous
> >>
> You don't know that. Nor do I.
>
>
> Humans reflexively protect the head in a moment of danger,
> as we can all attest. Which is why a model of simple physics
> (average height of rider's head, assumed impact speed, force
> vectors etc) predicts a much higher fatality rate from
> cycling crashes than actually observed.
>
Sure, a gazillion factors enter into the discussion. But, while I agree with you, my analysis is downstream from a full universe count in a very large city over eight years of all cyclists seriously hurt. Those factors may be, and are argued about till the cows come home, and in the New York report they have all been taken into account, because with a full universe count in such a large city over such a long time, we are looking at the results of all those factors, including helmet worn/no helmet worn, as effected in A&E and the mortuary.
> Humans reflexively protect the head in a moment of danger,
> as we can all attest. Which is why a model of simple physics
> (average height of rider's head, assumed impact speed, force
> vectors etc) predicts a much higher fatality rate from
> cycling crashes than actually observed.
>
>
> And although we (mostly) agree that helmets do something,
> they clearly do not do everything, as evidenced by severe
> crashes in which helmeted riders die, as would anyone.
>
Once more, sure, the good is the enemy of the best. But would you want a thousand cyclists who could be alive to die every three years while you wait for a better helmet? I think not. In the first instance it's stupid, in the second it's immoral, and in the third instance it is hypocritical for anyone who wears a safety belt in his car to want to wait to recommend helmets until they can protect cyclists from stubbed toes as well. On the day after that New York report was published, anyone who previously had belonged to the anti-helmet brigade and who didn't instantly start advising people to wear helmets became as liable for dead cyclists as those people who still want DDT banned are guilty for around a quarter-billion deaths by starvation and malaria -- the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, all to prove that the environments had government clout (they bragged about it).
> And although we (mostly) agree that helmets do something,
> they clearly do not do everything, as evidenced by severe
> crashes in which helmeted riders die, as would anyone.
>
>
> We're left with a muddle
>
You may be. I'm not. And no competent statistician can be "muddled" after working with those numbers out of New York for as much as half an hour. Hell, they're so obvious that even that incompetent Klown Krygowski probably has long since grasped their meaning -- and that they fatally undermine his closest held beliefs, his faith you might say.
> We're left with a muddle
>
>
> and a large grey area
>
There are always pray areas. Courage consists mainly of evaluating the available facts and making a decision while losers still whine that they need more information.
> and a large grey area
>
>
> in which
> helmets may have helped or may not have
>
There's no doubt in my mind that the New York numbers prove without any qualification whatsoever that had those cyclists who died would have lived up to perhaps half their number. That conclusion is so clear in the numbers, and so inarguable by the most stubborn and ignorant and stupid of the AHZ, that I included it in my very brief remarks about the NY compilation in the second post in this thread. No grey areas there.
> in which
> helmets may have helped or may not have
>
>
>depending on a lot
> of unknown variables (microseconds of reaction time, cm
> differences in impact etc).
>
Again, the numbers and my analysis of them were downstream of these "unknown variables", so they were full accounted for in the results. This sort of argument is just another case of the good being the enemy of the perfect: it's a demand that the statistics explain everything before a decision can be taken. It's a bullshit excuse for not acting when the action is morally clear.
>depending on a lot
> of unknown variables (microseconds of reaction time, cm
> differences in impact etc).
>
>
> For all of which I conclude that if one's personal risk
> assessment leads a rider to wear a helmet, fine, Conversely
> if not, not.
>
Sure. I agree with you. I don't have a dog in this race. I don't care if people of their own free will kill themselves on the roads. The only reason I'm in it is that Krygowski pissed me off by trying to exclude me when I arrived on RBT -- and he has a dearly beloved mutt in the race.
> For all of which I conclude that if one's personal risk
> assessment leads a rider to wear a helmet, fine, Conversely
> if not, not.
>
>
>There's no logical way to be categorical,
>
Pft! I used to be paid 6m dollars a years, back when a million bucks was real money, for being able to extract from much less illuminating numbers than these of the New York cyclist fatalities enough sense to make investments in the tens and hundreds of millions. And that was in an industry which eats its own children... This NY report is a slam-dunk even for a statistical moron like Franki-boy. Any sophomore would be unable to miss the points I made from it. You don't need a guy whose education cost three-quarters of a million dollars for an analysis that flashes neon numbers in the report. Through the fog of his deliberate, malicious ignorance, Krygowski knows that much in his marrow, which is why he runs from that report. So yes, there's a logical way to be categorical in this rare and wonderful instance: it's down in black and white for all men of goodwill to see.
>There's no logical way to be categorical,
>
>
> although passions do flare.
>
Gee, I haven't noticed! We're just discussing known unknowns in L tables.
Andre Jute
Actuaries don't have passions.
>
Andre Jute
Sep 29, 2023, 12:51:11 AM9/29/23
to
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:06:07 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> I don't wear a bicycle helmet, never have, never will, but advocating
> the issue either way on usenet is not only obtrusive but useless.
>
I wear a helmet to save my face from road rash and being sunburnt. I don't care if someone else wears or doesn't wear a helmet. But I don't mind being obtrusive to some of the nastier klowns on the net, and in that respect one soon discovers that the jerks among the cyclists are all anti-helmet zealots, though not all those who are against mandatory helmets are nasties. Helmet wear is a handy stick to beat them with. Watch Krygowski run away screeching like a black cat which has just seen the Witchfinder-General ride into town, every time I bring up the NY report of cyclist fatalities; it undermines the core of his faith. -- AJ
>
> I don't wear a bicycle helmet, never have, never will, but advocating
> the issue either way on usenet is not only obtrusive but useless.
>
>
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 3:27:58 AM9/29/23
to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't believe there are any mandatory bicycle helmet laws for
adullts around any more and I believe that's a good thing.
I do believe, however, that if I was going to ride HDBU (head down,
butt up) in traffic, I'd at least look into wearing a bicycle helmet.
Since I do not intend to, nor have I ever, ridden HDBU in traffic,
there'll be no bicycle helmet. That riding position, with my head
leading the way out over the front wheel, was terribly uncomfortable
for me even without a helmet.
I always wore a helmet on my motorcycles, even when there was no law
about it.
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
adullts around any more and I believe that's a good thing.
I do believe, however, that if I was going to ride HDBU (head down,
butt up) in traffic, I'd at least look into wearing a bicycle helmet.
Since I do not intend to, nor have I ever, ridden HDBU in traffic,
there'll be no bicycle helmet. That riding position, with my head
leading the way out over the front wheel, was terribly uncomfortable
for me even without a helmet.
I always wore a helmet on my motorcycles, even when there was no law
about it.
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 4:13:16 AM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:27:44 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
Only two times for me too. Now, I've related both incidents. By the
way, after I left Little Harbor and moved to St Pete Beach, I stopped
carrying the gun... and then, the incident on the Catrike...
The way I have it set up, it's very easy to carry the little Bersa
.380. It doesn't interfere with my pedaling, it's easy to reach and
the trigger is protected from accidentally being pulled.
There is an added benefit of carrying a gun in that it seems to
irritate the anti-gun bobble-heads.
>Perhaps it is because that bicycles, as a transportation device, are,
>or were, more common in developing countries, or, in the case of
>Thailand, the fact that if you kill someone on the roads you may be
>charged with "causing a death" which can be awarded with 10 years in
>jail.
Should be more than that, if it was because of the driver's
irresponsible behavior, such as alcohol or texting. Consequences
should be fearful if you expect them to be a deterrent.
way, after I left Little Harbor and moved to St Pete Beach, I stopped
carrying the gun... and then, the incident on the Catrike...
The way I have it set up, it's very easy to carry the little Bersa
.380. It doesn't interfere with my pedaling, it's easy to reach and
the trigger is protected from accidentally being pulled.
There is an added benefit of carrying a gun in that it seems to
irritate the anti-gun bobble-heads.
>Perhaps it is because that bicycles, as a transportation device, are,
>or were, more common in developing countries, or, in the case of
>Thailand, the fact that if you kill someone on the roads you may be
>charged with "causing a death" which can be awarded with 10 years in
>jail.
irresponsible behavior, such as alcohol or texting. Consequences
should be fearful if you expect them to be a deterrent.
John B.
Sep 29, 2023, 6:52:50 AM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 04:13:11 -0400, Catrike Rider
If you have been drinking and drive the penalty, assuming that there
is no accident is a year in jail and a fine of 5,000 - 20,000 baht.
(divide by 340 to get an idea of how many days wages that is at
minimum salary).
--
Cheers,
John B.
is no accident is a year in jail and a fine of 5,000 - 20,000 baht.
(divide by 340 to get an idea of how many days wages that is at
minimum salary).
--
Cheers,
John B.
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 7:55:13 AM9/29/23
to
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:39:42 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:03:53 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > < yet more perversion of life in general>
> >
> > It must be so painful to have someone living rent free in your head to the extent that you have to dedicate a discussion to them, in which you reply to yourself twice, making less sense with each deluded posting.
> >
> > Nothing but more jutestench.
> >
> Yo, cowardly anonymous monkeyface, that your intelligence is proportionate to your lack of height isn't my problem. In 13 years no one has contested my numbers (they came from your government, link in my second post in this thread) or my logic and conclusions. You're welcome to try, of course, and I'll roll over you and tomorrow have to ask which one of the chattering monkeys you were. Meanwhile, all you have is generic abuse. It suits you well.
None of which has anything to do with what I wrote - Nice try at obfuscation, shitstain, too bad all it did was prove that Frank lives rent-free in your head.
> >
> Andre Jute
> T̶e̶f̶l̶o̶n̶ shitstain
> >
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:03:53 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > < yet more perversion of life in general>
> >
> > It must be so painful to have someone living rent free in your head to the extent that you have to dedicate a discussion to them, in which you reply to yourself twice, making less sense with each deluded posting.
> >
> > Nothing but more jutestench.
> >
> Yo, cowardly anonymous monkeyface, that your intelligence is proportionate to your lack of height isn't my problem. In 13 years no one has contested my numbers (they came from your government, link in my second post in this thread) or my logic and conclusions. You're welcome to try, of course, and I'll roll over you and tomorrow have to ask which one of the chattering monkeys you were. Meanwhile, all you have is generic abuse. It suits you well.
None of which has anything to do with what I wrote - Nice try at obfuscation, shitstain, too bad all it did was prove that Frank lives rent-free in your head.
> >
> Andre Jute
> T̶e̶f̶l̶o̶n̶ shitstain
> >
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 7:57:58 AM9/29/23
to
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Teflon
> > >
> The comments from the Stupid 4 are angry because they simply can't get their way. Flunky is in love with Liebermann and that is clear. They are in total agreement on every point that Liebermann wants to make. Flunky isn't even smart enough to understand the stupid things Liebermann says but like all good little queers is willing to hold hands with his wannabe boy friend. That is so obvious that non-homosexuals could see it with a stick.
Jutelist#1. Repeatedly accusing people of being "queer". He's a closeted queer, afraid people will find out.
>
> I have repeatedly asked Scharf what he has EVER done to believe that there are experts and non-experts who cannot hold precisely the same ideas and opinions. He is so stupid he doesn't even understand the question.
>
> Krygowski is a complete lost cause. Holding the power of a grade over student's heads if they dared to disagree with him gave him the total belief that he is king of all he surveys and he viciously hates the slightest sign of disagreement. Not to mention he is nothing more than a filthy little communist as long as it isn't his money being redistributed. I read a study one time that said that MOST people would rather live in abject poverty, starving slowly to death than to make a good living but someone else doing better than they. Frank, Liebermann and Flunky are perfect examples of this. Because I was actually a successful engineer all they can respond with is that somehow I am lying. Poor sick little nobodies.
>
> Slow-come doesn't care that Frank hates his guts and will happily agree with Frank because he cannot stand that I see him for exactly what he is - a pretender that wants to be king in Frank's stead. That he and Liebermann's entire intellectual property is cutting and pasting Google articles is so comical that Liebermann doesn't even see even his so-called friends laughing up their sleeves. Relax Liebermann - at least you will always have the support of your wannabe lover, Flunky.
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:39:42 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:03:53 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > < yet more perversion of life in general>
> > >
> > > It must be so painful to have someone living rent free in your head to the extent that you have to dedicate a discussion to them, in which you reply to yourself twice, making less sense with each deluded posting.
> > >
> > > Nothing but more jutestench.
> > >
> > Yo, cowardly anonymous monkeyface, that your intelligence is proportionate to your lack of height isn't my problem. In 13 years no one has contested my numbers (they came from your government, link in my second post in this thread) or my logic and conclusions. You're welcome to try, of course, and I'll roll over you and tomorrow have to ask which one of the chattering monkeys you were. Meanwhile, all you have is generic abuse. It suits you well.
> > >
> > Andre Jute
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:03:53 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > < yet more perversion of life in general>
> > >
> > > It must be so painful to have someone living rent free in your head to the extent that you have to dedicate a discussion to them, in which you reply to yourself twice, making less sense with each deluded posting.
> > >
> > > Nothing but more jutestench.
> > >
> > Yo, cowardly anonymous monkeyface, that your intelligence is proportionate to your lack of height isn't my problem. In 13 years no one has contested my numbers (they came from your government, link in my second post in this thread) or my logic and conclusions. You're welcome to try, of course, and I'll roll over you and tomorrow have to ask which one of the chattering monkeys you were. Meanwhile, all you have is generic abuse. It suits you well.
> > >
> > Teflon
> > >
> The comments from the Stupid 4 are angry because they simply can't get their way. Flunky is in love with Liebermann and that is clear. They are in total agreement on every point that Liebermann wants to make. Flunky isn't even smart enough to understand the stupid things Liebermann says but like all good little queers is willing to hold hands with his wannabe boy friend. That is so obvious that non-homosexuals could see it with a stick.
Jutelist#1. Repeatedly accusing people of being "queer". He's a closeted queer, afraid people will find out.
>
> I have repeatedly asked Scharf what he has EVER done to believe that there are experts and non-experts who cannot hold precisely the same ideas and opinions. He is so stupid he doesn't even understand the question.
>
> Krygowski is a complete lost cause. Holding the power of a grade over student's heads if they dared to disagree with him gave him the total belief that he is king of all he surveys and he viciously hates the slightest sign of disagreement. Not to mention he is nothing more than a filthy little communist as long as it isn't his money being redistributed. I read a study one time that said that MOST people would rather live in abject poverty, starving slowly to death than to make a good living but someone else doing better than they. Frank, Liebermann and Flunky are perfect examples of this. Because I was actually a successful engineer all they can respond with is that somehow I am lying. Poor sick little nobodies.
>
> Slow-come doesn't care that Frank hates his guts and will happily agree with Frank because he cannot stand that I see him for exactly what he is - a pretender that wants to be king in Frank's stead. That he and Liebermann's entire intellectual property is cutting and pasting Google articles is so comical that Liebermann doesn't even see even his so-called friends laughing up their sleeves. Relax Liebermann - at least you will always have the support of your wannabe lover, Flunky.
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 7:59:17 AM9/29/23
to
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 8:02:22 AM9/29/23
to
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:37:04 AM UTC-4, shitstain wrote:
>
> The only reason I'm in it is that Krygowski pissed me off by trying to exclude me when I arrived on RBT.
WAHHHHH!!!!! FRANKIE DOESN'T LIKE ME!!!!
teflon, indeed....
>
> The only reason I'm in it is that Krygowski pissed me off by trying to exclude me when I arrived on RBT.
WAHHHHH!!!!! FRANKIE DOESN'T LIKE ME!!!!
teflon, indeed....
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 8:05:26 AM9/29/23
to
"In the case of scientific knowledge, overconfidence might be particularly significant, as the lack of awareness of one's own ignorance can impact behaviors, pose risks to public policies, and even jeopardize health."
AMuzi
Sep 29, 2023, 8:41:37 AM9/29/23
to
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 9:16:24 AM9/29/23
to
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:10:35 AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>
> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
> taking away my choice to do that.
So you refuse to read his book, but feel qualified to make a pejorative comment about his intentions.
>
> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
> taking away my choice to do that.
catrike rider - putting the 'duh' in floriduh
funkma...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2023, 9:39:33 AM9/29/23
to
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:36:29 PM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:54:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
> >> what, and how to ride bikes.
> >
> >Such dedication to ignorance!
> Ignorance is when a person doesn't know what he needs to know. I
> already know everything I need to know about riding a bicycle
subjective assessment duley noted
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:54:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
> >> what, and how to ride bikes.
> >
> >Such dedication to ignorance!
> Ignorance is when a person doesn't know what he needs to know. I
> already know everything I need to know about riding a bicycle
> >If ignorance really were bliss, our Florida tricycle rider wouldn't be
> >so grumpy all the time. :-)
> The irony bell rings again... see below:
>
> "The tricycle rider has carefully omitted that my questions above were
> in direct response to _HIS_ bragging: "BY the way, I grew up and spent
> many hours riding on roads, so I have all the courage and experience I
> need. Probably more than you."
>
> I was naturally curious about the "probably more than you." Was this
> really someone who knows about riding in the real world? So I asked
> for details. And I got no details. "
>
> Frank Krygowski
> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/AiTZjdi5RDc/m/hdWvvjytAAAJ
>
> Krygowski whines because I ignored his demands for my personal
> information.....
>
> Also note that Krygowski apparently believes that it's a "normal"
> thing to demand other's personal information.
Tom Kunich
Sep 29, 2023, 10:03:50 AM9/29/23
to
As Andrew points out, head injuries are rare to begin with and although a helmet is worthwhile for people personally, statistically it is undetectable. The helmet industry for quite some time attempted to pay people to recommend helmets as life saving devices. They are not and never were. Even the Wavecell helmet I recommend, only reduces your chances of concussion. Concussions do not kill. They are even very rarely of the sort I had - the worst level of concussion you can get.
Andre is merely arguing his points with Krygowski who has absolutely no means of responding. Over and over, Krygowski has shown that his only response in a debate is "I know best". Remember that he was a teacher so he was never in the real world. Students did what he said or he flunked them. That power gave him that narcissistic turn of mind that makes him the idiot he is.
AMuzi
Sep 29, 2023, 10:22:46 AM9/29/23
to
https://nypost.com/2023/09/28/disney-workers-among-200-arrested-in-fl-human-trafficking-sting/
Although it's OK to explicitly threaten a reporter with a
machete:
https://nypost.com/2023/09/28/co-eds-shocked-nyc-college-hired-machete-wielding-prof-shellyne-rodriguez/
depends on which groups you represent, intersectionally
speaking.
Tom Kunich
Sep 29, 2023, 10:29:56 AM9/29/23
to
Children may not be made slaves for any purpose. The punishment of those Disney workers are liable to be more than they bargained for. Felons in prison do NOT like pedophiles. They have children that they have to worry about as well.
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 10:34:33 AM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 06:39:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:36:29?PM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:54:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
>> >> what, and how to ride bikes.
>> >
>> >Such dedication to ignorance!
>> Ignorance is when a person doesn't know what he needs to know. I
>> already know everything I need to know about riding a bicycle
>
>subjective assessment duley noted
Well, obviously, Dummy. That's why I used the word "I," ...twice
>> >If ignorance really were bliss, our Florida tricycle rider wouldn't be
>> >so grumpy all the time. :-)
>> The irony bell rings again... see below:
>>
>> "The tricycle rider has carefully omitted that my questions above were
>> in direct response to _HIS_ bragging: "BY the way, I grew up and spent
>> many hours riding on roads, so I have all the courage and experience I
>> need. Probably more than you."
>>
>> I was naturally curious about the "probably more than you." Was this
>> really someone who knows about riding in the real world? So I asked
>> for details. And I got no details. "
>>
>> Frank Krygowski
>
>You might want to look up 'irony' - what you copy/pasted ain't it.
Hypocrisy is a form of situational irony, Dummy.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327868ms2103_3
>> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/AiTZjdi5RDc/m/hdWvvjytAAAJ
>>
>> Krygowski whines because I ignored his demands for my personal
>> information.....
>>
>> Also note that Krygowski apparently believes that it's a "normal"
>> thing to demand other's personal information.
>
>So do kunich and the shit stain, you don't seem to have a problem with that, fucking hypocrite.....
>
If they ever demand personal information from me, I'll definitely have
a problem with it, Dummy.
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:36:29?PM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:54:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/28/2023 2:48 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm not interested in anyone who wants to advise me about when, where,
>> >> what, and how to ride bikes.
>> >
>> >Such dedication to ignorance!
>> Ignorance is when a person doesn't know what he needs to know. I
>> already know everything I need to know about riding a bicycle
>
>subjective assessment duley noted
>> >If ignorance really were bliss, our Florida tricycle rider wouldn't be
>> >so grumpy all the time. :-)
>> The irony bell rings again... see below:
>>
>> "The tricycle rider has carefully omitted that my questions above were
>> in direct response to _HIS_ bragging: "BY the way, I grew up and spent
>> many hours riding on roads, so I have all the courage and experience I
>> need. Probably more than you."
>>
>> I was naturally curious about the "probably more than you." Was this
>> really someone who knows about riding in the real world? So I asked
>> for details. And I got no details. "
>>
>> Frank Krygowski
>
>You might want to look up 'irony' - what you copy/pasted ain't it.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327868ms2103_3
>> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/AiTZjdi5RDc/m/hdWvvjytAAAJ
>>
>> Krygowski whines because I ignored his demands for my personal
>> information.....
>>
>> Also note that Krygowski apparently believes that it's a "normal"
>> thing to demand other's personal information.
>
>So do kunich and the shit stain, you don't seem to have a problem with that, fucking hypocrite.....
>
a problem with it, Dummy.
Tom Kunich
Sep 29, 2023, 11:04:34 AM9/29/23
to
Frank Krygowski
Sep 29, 2023, 1:01:42 PM9/29/23
to
On 9/29/2023 3:27 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> I don't believe there are any mandatory bicycle helmet laws for
> adullts around any more ...
>
> I don't believe there are any mandatory bicycle helmet laws for
Such ignorance.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Sep 29, 2023, 1:31:29 PM9/29/23
to
On 9/28/2023 5:25 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>> I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
>> trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
>> do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
>> ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
>> allowed to go.
>>
> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>> I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
>> trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
>> do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
>> ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
>> allowed to go.
>>
>> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
>> taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
>> failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
>> vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
>>
> To be fair it’s more road cyclepaths/ways they don’t like but it’s not a
> movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
> years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
> changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
> one of many motorways ringing london!
>
> Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
> moved on.
The timid tricycle rider rides ONLY on segregated bike paths, with very
>> failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
>> vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
>>
> To be fair it’s more road cyclepaths/ways they don’t like but it’s not a
> movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
> years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
> changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
> one of many motorways ringing london!
>
> Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
> moved on.
rare exceptions. As I've said, if that keeps him moving, fine. I'd say
the same for an invalid that can walk only by using a walker. But being
limited to a walker - or a bike path - is a sign of personal weakness.
Almost all bike paths are really just linear parks, useful for only easy
back-and-forth recreation. I'm in contact with many "vehicular
cyclists," and I was a friend of John Forester, who coined the term.
Few, if any, object to the existence of those linear parks. None have
tried to prohibit their use, despite Mr. Tricycle's ignorant fears.
Personally, I object to their being funded with _transportation_ funds,
instead of park funds; but that's a detail.
So what is "Vehicular Cycling," which Roger claims to be outmoded? It's
essentially riding a bicycle - which is legally a vehicle - on normal
roads, according to the existing laws! What about that enrages people??
OK, it may enrage someone like our kiddy-path rider, who is too
terrified to do it and embarrassed that others know. He's like a kid
saying "I can let go of Mommy's hand anytime I want. I just don't wanna!"
But if a person is going to use a bike to explore his world, to do any
practical transportation, to really travel, to replace car trips, to do
anything but boring out-and-back rides, he is going to have to ride on
normal roads.
There are some few special bike facilities that work well for certain
few destinations; but those access only a tiny fraction of destinations.
Despite the dreamy (and "socialist!") fantasies of the paint-and-path
crew there will NEVER be a complete parallel network of bike-only
facilities to duplicate the normal road system.
And anyone who does summon the minimal courage to ride on a normal road
will do best to behave as a legal vehicle operator. Nobody has proposed
a realistic better alternative.
Riding on normal roads, according to the actual traffic laws, takes only
a bit of intelligence, knowledge, skill and courage. Those lacking
should not mock it. They should strive to improve themselves.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Sep 29, 2023, 1:37:24 PM9/29/23
to
On 9/28/2023 5:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> I remember once a couple of guys driving behind me, furiously
> honking their horn, instead of passing me. When they finally
> did pass, they stopped, one guy got out of the car waving a
> stick, and screaming that I had no business on the road.
>
> That's when I first carried a gun.
Oh Gawd.
I've had people honk, I've had people scream, I've had people get out of
cars and stomp toward me, I've had people threaten me. It's rare but it
happens.
I've never backed down from any of them, and I've never been so timid as
to need a gun while riding a bike.
--
- Frank Krygowski
>
> I remember once a couple of guys driving behind me, furiously
> honking their horn, instead of passing me. When they finally
> did pass, they stopped, one guy got out of the car waving a
> stick, and screaming that I had no business on the road.
>
> That's when I first carried a gun.
Oh Gawd.
I've had people honk, I've had people scream, I've had people get out of
cars and stomp toward me, I've had people threaten me. It's rare but it
happens.
I've never backed down from any of them, and I've never been so timid as
to need a gun while riding a bike.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
Sep 29, 2023, 3:02:23 PM9/29/23
to
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:03:50 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Andre is merely arguing his points with Krygowski who has absolutely no means of responding. Over and over, Krygowski has shown that his only response in a debate is "I know best".
>
Oh, I wouldn't make up anything, or do shoddy and dishonest statistics just to discombobulate that smug poltroon Krygowski. The statistical analysis in the opening articles of this thread is inarguably copacetic and Persil-white, stainless (heh-heh!), which is why Franki-boy runs from them and Cowardly Anonymous Flunky doesn't even pretend to dispute my findings.
>
> Andre is merely arguing his points with Krygowski who has absolutely no means of responding. Over and over, Krygowski has shown that his only response in a debate is "I know best".
>
>
But you're right, normally I would not waste time doing so much work merely to impress the truth on anti-social quarter-wits at the risk of offending principled people who take the other view on Constitutional grounds I admire.
>
Andre Jute
Yo, Flunky, the other coward, Koward Krygowski, is welcome to try living in my head until I sneeze him out: it would be an education opportunity for him.
>
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 3:20:20 PM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:31:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/28/2023 5:25 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
>>> trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
>>> do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
>>> ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
>>> allowed to go.
>>>
>>> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
>>> taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
>>> failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
>>> vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
>>>
>> To be fair it’s more road cyclepaths/ways they don’t like but it’s not a
>> movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
>> years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
>> changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
>> one of many motorways ringing london!
>>
>> Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
>> moved on.
>
>The timid tricycle rider rides ONLY on segregated bike paths, with very
>rare exceptions. As I've said, if that keeps him moving, fine. I'd say
>the same for an invalid that can walk only by using a walker. But being
>limited to a walker - or a bike path - is a sign of personal weakness.
Being afraid to clip your feet to the pedals is a *real* sign of
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/28/2023 5:25 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
>>> trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
>>> do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
>>> ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
>>> allowed to go.
>>>
>>> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
>>> taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
>>> failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
>>> vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
>>>
>> To be fair it’s more road cyclepaths/ways they don’t like but it’s not a
>> movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
>> years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
>> changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
>> one of many motorways ringing london!
>>
>> Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
>> moved on.
>
>The timid tricycle rider rides ONLY on segregated bike paths, with very
>rare exceptions. As I've said, if that keeps him moving, fine. I'd say
>the same for an invalid that can walk only by using a walker. But being
>limited to a walker - or a bike path - is a sign of personal weakness.
personal weakness.
>Almost all bike paths are really just linear parks, useful for only easy
>back-and-forth recreation. I'm in contact with many "vehicular
>cyclists," and I was a friend of John Forester, who coined the term.
Forester was a jackass. So are his followers. So are any people who
>Almost all bike paths are really just linear parks, useful for only easy
>back-and-forth recreation. I'm in contact with many "vehicular
>cyclists," and I was a friend of John Forester, who coined the term.
want to restrict when, where, and how to ride bicycles.
>Few, if any, object to the existence of those linear parks. None have
>tried to prohibit their use, despite Mr. Tricycle's ignorant fears.
>Personally, I object to their being funded with _transportation_ funds,
>instead of park funds; but that's a detail.
>So what is "Vehicular Cycling," which Roger claims to be outmoded? It's
>essentially riding a bicycle - which is legally a vehicle - on normal
>roads, according to the existing laws! What about that enrages people??
pissed when people try to tell me what to do, but it always passes
when I laugh off their advice
>OK, it may enrage someone like our kiddy-path rider, who is too
>terrified to do it and embarrassed that others know. He's like a kid
>saying "I can let go of Mommy's hand anytime I want. I just don't wanna!"
Forester have the ability to enrage me.
>But if a person is going to use a bike to explore his world, to do any
>practical transportation, to really travel, to replace car trips, to do
>anything but boring out-and-back rides, he is going to have to ride on
>normal roads.
>There are some few special bike facilities that work well for certain
>few destinations; but those access only a tiny fraction of destinations.
>Despite the dreamy (and "socialist!") fantasies of the paint-and-path
>crew there will NEVER be a complete parallel network of bike-only
>facilities to duplicate the normal road system.
>And anyone who does summon the minimal courage to ride on a normal road
>will do best to behave as a legal vehicle operator. Nobody has proposed
>a realistic better alternative.
>Riding on normal roads, according to the actual traffic laws, takes only
>a bit of intelligence, knowledge, skill and courage. Those lacking
>should not mock it. They should strive to improve themselves.
you have access to a car or truck, so yeah, I'm mocking it.
--
Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to the
pedals. Nowdays,I always truck my bike to where I start my ride. I
tried and found riding a bike to the grocery store and other routine
trips to be boring. I hope I am never reduced to riding like that.
I am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments. As an introvert, I also value my solitude,
where I'm free to tune into my own inner monologue.
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 3:21:59 PM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:37:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/28/2023 5:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> I remember once a couple of guys driving behind me, furiously
>> honking their horn, instead of passing me. When they finally
>> did pass, they stopped, one guy got out of the car waving a
>> stick, and screaming that I had no business on the road.
>>
>> That's when I first carried a gun.
>
>Oh Gawd.
Yes?
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/28/2023 5:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> I remember once a couple of guys driving behind me, furiously
>> honking their horn, instead of passing me. When they finally
>> did pass, they stopped, one guy got out of the car waving a
>> stick, and screaming that I had no business on the road.
>>
>> That's when I first carried a gun.
>
>Oh Gawd.
>I've had people honk, I've had people scream, I've had people get out of
>cars and stomp toward me, I've had people threaten me. It's rare but it
>happens.
>I've never backed down from any of them, and I've never been so timid as
>to need a gun while riding a bike.
--
Roger Meriman
Sep 29, 2023, 3:52:20 PM9/29/23
to
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/28/2023 5:25 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
>>> trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
>>> do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
>>> ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
>>> allowed to go.
>>>
>>> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
>>> taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
>>> failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
>>> vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
>>>
>> To be fair it’s more road cyclepaths/ways they don’t like but it’s not a
>> movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
>> years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
>> changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
>> one of many motorways ringing london!
>>
>> Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
>> moved on.
>
> The timid tricycle rider rides ONLY on segregated bike paths, with very
> rare exceptions. As I've said, if that keeps him moving, fine. I'd say
> the same for an invalid that can walk only by using a walker. But being
> limited to a walker - or a bike path - is a sign of personal weakness.
>
Plenty of bike only places lots of MTBer use bike parks I occasionally use
> On 9/28/2023 5:25 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have few problems with bicyclists sharing the road with cars and
>>> trucks whenever the bicyclist sees that it's in his best interest to
>>> do so. I've done it myself, many times, but I often, nowdays more then
>>> ever, see that it's in my interest to ride where vehicles are not
>>> allowed to go.
>>>
>>> Jackasses like John Forester and his jackass followers are intent upon
>>> taking away my choice to do that. Thank goodnesss their efforts are
>>> failing. Here in west central Florida, trails and paths that prohibit
>>> vehicle traffic are springing up all over.
>>>
>> To be fair it’s more road cyclepaths/ways they don’t like but it’s not a
>> movement or ideology that has much effect, it briefly did in some 40/50
>> years ago and the name was coined ie Vehicular Cycling but as times have
>> changed ie don’t want motorways everywhere, the cycleway to work was to be
>> one of many motorways ringing london!
>>
>> Essentially a few older men convinced it is “the way” but the world has
>> moved on.
>
> The timid tricycle rider rides ONLY on segregated bike paths, with very
> rare exceptions. As I've said, if that keeps him moving, fine. I'd say
> the same for an invalid that can walk only by using a walker. But being
> limited to a walker - or a bike path - is a sign of personal weakness.
>
them but I like well getting into the hills and I like the up’s where as
the parks are generally down focused.
He cycles for leisure if he enjoys the bike paths? While I do ride in
london and though traffic for pleasure I’ll generally choose a calmer
route.
Even my commute the faster way is though Heathrow but it’s a lot more work
than the parks and cycleway.
> Almost all bike paths are really just linear parks, useful for only easy
> back-and-forth recreation. I'm in contact with many "vehicular
> cyclists," and I was a friend of John Forester, who coined the term.
> Few, if any, object to the existence of those linear parks. None have
> tried to prohibit their use, despite Mr. Tricycle's ignorant fears.
> Personally, I object to their being funded with _transportation_ funds,
> instead of park funds; but that's a detail.
>
> So what is "Vehicular Cycling," which Roger claims to be outmoded? It's
> essentially riding a bicycle - which is legally a vehicle - on normal
> roads, according to the existing laws! What about that enrages people??
>
dubious.
But times have changed and in general old men and it always them are the
only folks interested in the concept, quite a lot of cycle campaigners out
there now and it’s a much more rounded demographic.
It’s simply not on the list of ideas to make life better, it popped up on
the social few weeks back, the response wasn’t favourable, more what on
earth where they thinking!
I kinda get that it’s a useful tool for some big fast roads, though lots of
of cyclists particularly roadies tend to do that instinctively so its
usefulness isn’t huge.
> OK, it may enrage someone like our kiddy-path rider, who is too
> terrified to do it and embarrassed that others know. He's like a kid
> saying "I can let go of Mommy's hand anytime I want. I just don't wanna!"
>
> But if a person is going to use a bike to explore his world, to do any
> practical transportation, to really travel, to replace car trips, to do
> anything but boring out-and-back rides, he is going to have to ride on
> normal roads.
>
but clearly is space for more to be done, london in particular is for most
part getting its act together.
> There are some few special bike facilities that work well for certain
> few destinations; but those access only a tiny fraction of destinations.
> Despite the dreamy (and "socialist!") fantasies of the paint-and-path
> crew there will NEVER be a complete parallel network of bike-only
> facilities to duplicate the normal road system.
>
experience and prejudice from decades back.
> And anyone who does summon the minimal courage to ride on a normal road
> will do best to behave as a legal vehicle operator. Nobody has proposed
> a realistic better alternative.
>
> Riding on normal roads, according to the actual traffic laws, takes only
> a bit of intelligence, knowledge, skill and courage. Those lacking
> should not mock it. They should strive to improve themselves.
>
Car Centric cities and organisations such as CTC and lead to essentially
survival of the fittest type of cycling which is what Vehicular Cycling is
hence its supporter’s demographic ie older male roadies.
Roger Merriman
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 4:04:00 PM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:52:16 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>
wrote:
I regularly see high speed, nose to fanny, peloton groups on the bike
trails. Doesn't look like leisure to me.
I strive to improve myself regularly. None of it involves riding a
bike as a form of transporation.
>And that is why cycling has continued to drop in % for years due to well
>Car Centric cities and organisations such as CTC and lead to essentially
>survival of the fittest type of cycling which is what Vehicular Cycling is
>hence its supporter’s demographic ie older male roadies.
>
>Roger Merriman
I have no issue with someone using a bike for transportation, only
with the bone-headed jackasses who insist everybody should do it.
wrote:
trails. Doesn't look like leisure to me.
bike as a form of transporation.
>And that is why cycling has continued to drop in % for years due to well
>Car Centric cities and organisations such as CTC and lead to essentially
>survival of the fittest type of cycling which is what Vehicular Cycling is
>hence its supporter’s demographic ie older male roadies.
>
>Roger Merriman
with the bone-headed jackasses who insist everybody should do it.
Frank Krygowski
Sep 29, 2023, 4:52:37 PM9/29/23
to
>> So what is "Vehicular Cycling," which Roger claims to be outmoded? It's
>> essentially riding a bicycle - which is legally a vehicle - on normal
>> roads, according to the existing laws! What about that enrages people??
>>
> It’s more the anti cycle lanes/paths now granted in the 70’s most of it was
> dubious.
Forester and others have pointed out bad designs of bike facilities, and
>> essentially riding a bicycle - which is legally a vehicle - on normal
>> roads, according to the existing laws! What about that enrages people??
>>
> It’s more the anti cycle lanes/paths now granted in the 70’s most of it was
> dubious.
inherent conflicts generated by even officially approved designs. As one
example: A typical bike lane puts straight ahead cyclists to the right
of traffic that may be turning right. That geometry never exists with
any other roadway design.
> But times have changed and in general old men and it always them are the
> only folks interested in the concept, quite a lot of cycle campaigners out
> there now and it’s a much more rounded demographic.
>
> It’s simply not on the list of ideas to make life better, it popped up on
> the social few weeks back, the response wasn’t favourable, more what on
> earth where they thinking!
Your phrasing isn't clear to me. Are you saying old men are the only
> only folks interested in the concept, quite a lot of cycle campaigners out
> there now and it’s a much more rounded demographic.
>
> It’s simply not on the list of ideas to make life better, it popped up on
> the social few weeks back, the response wasn’t favourable, more what on
> earth where they thinking!
ones interested in cycling competently on normal streets?
As it happens, this afternoon I stopped at a small local bike shop. I
had a pleasant conversation with a young guy working there, probably
about 18 years old. Much of our conversation was about his upcoming
career choice.
But it ranged into bicycling, and he, not I, initiated complaints about
the newest "innovative" local bike facilities. His attitude matched
yours: "What were they thinking?" except he said he refuses to ride
there; he uses the road instead. I do the same, as you'd expect.
> I kinda get that it’s a useful tool for some big fast roads, though lots of
> of cyclists particularly roadies tend to do that instinctively so its
> usefulness isn’t huge.
way of riding on any paved street. Again, at its heart it consists of
riding according to normal traffic laws. The signature move, so to
speak, is to ride near lane center if the lane is too narrow to safely
share, and that's codified in law. Other fine points are "destination
positioning," (e.g. don't turn left from the right gutter), change lanes
properly, etc. On top of that, Vehicular Cycling adds competence with
emergency maneuvers, being aware of possible hazards etc.
To what do you object? (And have you read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin,
to be sure you're aware of the concepts?)
> No one sane is claiming that every road needs a cycle infrastructure lanes...
You're not reading the same advocacy screeds I am! I can agree with you
only if we underline the word _sane_. There are tons of fools saying "We
need barrier protected bike lanes everywhere!"
>> There are some few special bike facilities that work well for certain
>> few destinations; but those access only a tiny fraction of destinations.
>> Despite the dreamy (and "socialist!") fantasies of the paint-and-path
>> crew there will NEVER be a complete parallel network of bike-only
>> facilities to duplicate the normal road system.
>>
> Again I don’t think you’ve experienced these stuff is changing your using
> experience and prejudice from decades back.
built in my area in the last month, the last 3 months and the last 2 years.
Admittedly, not _all_ are bad. There are some bike facilities I approve
of. But as one of my knowledgeable friends said in a nationwide forum
"99% of bike lanes give the rest a bad name."
>> Riding on normal roads, according to the actual traffic laws, takes only
>> a bit of intelligence, knowledge, skill and courage. Those lacking
>> should not mock it. They should strive to improve themselves.
>>
> And that is why cycling has continued to drop in % for years due to well
> Car Centric cities and organisations such as CTC and lead to essentially
> survival of the fittest type of cycling which is what Vehicular Cycling is
> hence its supporter’s demographic ie older male roadies.
cycling to surge - has recently been disproven by Portland, Oregon. For
decades it's been the poster child for "If you build it, they will come!"
Portland pretty much led the way with bike lanes, bike boxes, green
paint and more; and its fans said "See? Bike mode share over 6%! Any
city can do this!" (The 6% was an exaggeration, BTW, based on weird
accounting. But still...)
Jay Beattie, a regular poster until Tom drove him crazy, lives there. He
liked many of its bike lanes, but as the designs got weirder he began to
complain strenuously.
But Portland continued building more and more "innovative" facilities.
And now Portland's bike advocates are trying to understand what's gone
wrong. Because the bike mode share has dropped like a rock, to less than
3%.
https://bikeportland.org/2023/03/15/city-counts-reveal-data-behind-portlands-precipitous-drop-in-cycling-371407
Personally, I think simple fashion is as big an influence as bike
facilities. If people think it's cool to ride, they'll ride. If they
don't think it's cool, they won't, no matter what luxury accommodations
you provide. Oh, and making driving very inconvenient also helps - but
no American politician is likely to do that.
You want to drive bike use through the roof? Get Taylor Swift to do a
song about it, and to arrive at concerts by bike.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Rider
Sep 29, 2023, 6:58:17 PM9/29/23
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:01:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/29/2023 3:27 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe there are any mandatory bicycle helmet laws for
>> adullts around any more ...
>
>Such ignorance.
Local juridictions, eh? Ah, well, the people in the local
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/29/2023 3:27 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe there are any mandatory bicycle helmet laws for
>> adullts around any more ...
>
>Such ignorance.
jurisdictions who live with those rules elected the people who keep
them on the books, so it's none of my business to know.... or care...
I'm sure glad that I stayed here in Florida, even without the boat.
Tom Kunich
Sep 30, 2023, 11:50:32 AM9/30/23
to
Tom Kunich
Sep 30, 2023, 11:58:20 AM9/30/23
to
Catrike Rider
Sep 30, 2023, 12:24:54 PM9/30/23
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just roll my eyes and laugh at anyone telling what I should do
without being asked.
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
without being asked.
Message has been deleted
Tom Kunich
Sep 30, 2023, 12:42:42 PM9/30/23
to
Andre Jute
Sep 30, 2023, 1:43:24 PM9/30/23
to
>
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 5:56:07 PM9/30/23
to
On 9/30/2023 1:43 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> That is what Krygowski cannot fight, so he runs. -- AJ
That's the trouble with ignoring a troll. Many trolls don't get it. They
> That is what Krygowski cannot fight, so he runs. -- AJ
think "he's running from me."
Jute, you're a complete waste of time.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 5:58:15 PM9/30/23
to
On 9/30/2023 11:58 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> John Forrester wrote a book suggesting that you should ride a bicycle like you drive a car with the same attention to traffic signals and other traffic. This is correct as far as it goes, but cyclist should and do run stop signs...
It's obvious you either never read exactly what Forester said about stop
signs. Or else you've totally forgotten. I suppose both possibilities
are equally likely.
--
- Frank Krygowski
>
> John Forrester wrote a book suggesting that you should ride a bicycle like you drive a car with the same attention to traffic signals and other traffic. This is correct as far as it goes, but cyclist should and do run stop signs...
It's obvious you either never read exactly what Forester said about stop
signs. Or else you've totally forgotten. I suppose both possibilities
are equally likely.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 6:05:18 PM9/30/23
to
On 9/30/2023 12:42 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I find it curious that Frank has this series of "experts" whose authority he could never question. While John Forrester is fine as far as he goes, people with a hell of a lot more experience and intelligence than John do not adhere strictly to his ideas.
Please don't pretend that John and I agreed on everything. He used to
>
> I find it curious that Frank has this series of "experts" whose authority he could never question. While John Forrester is fine as far as he goes, people with a hell of a lot more experience and intelligence than John do not adhere strictly to his ideas.
post in these r.b. forums, and he and I certainly differed on certain
matters. A mutual friend who also used to post related that John said he
enjoyed debating me.
Forester was far from faultless or infallible; and people are still fine
tuning the concepts he introduced. However, his contribution to road
cycling knowledge was, IMO, greater than anyone's. Any cyclist wanting
to use a bike for anything beyond bike path out-and-back tootling would
do far better using his methods than using any alternative.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Rider
Sep 30, 2023, 7:44:17 PM9/30/23
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 09:42:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone care what Frank would consider?
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Catrike Rider
Sep 30, 2023, 7:49:25 PM9/30/23
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:56:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/30/2023 1:43 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> That is what Krygowski cannot fight, so he runs. -- AJ
>
>That's the trouble with ignoring a troll. Many trolls don't get it. They
>think "he's running from me."
Krygoski runs away from posts he can't deal with
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/30/2023 1:43 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> That is what Krygowski cannot fight, so he runs. -- AJ
>
>That's the trouble with ignoring a troll. Many trolls don't get it. They
>think "he's running from me."
>Jute, you're a complete waste of time.
Catrike Rider
Sep 30, 2023, 7:51:30 PM9/30/23
to
advice.
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 8:24:29 PM9/30/23
to
On 9/30/2023 7:44 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> Does anyone care what Frank would consider?
:-) Well, there's a weird guy in Florida who's fixated on everything I
> Does anyone care what Frank would consider?
say! He certainly seems to care, because he often responds within minutes.
Not that it matters to me, BTW. It's just funny to watch his compulsive
behavior.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 8:24:51 PM9/30/23
to
On 9/30/2023 7:44 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone care what Frank would consider?
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 8:26:45 PM9/30/23
to
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Sep 30, 2023, 8:41:32 PM9/30/23
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 08:50:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:02:23?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Tell us Tom, how do you know that the New York study was wrong? Do you
have any data? Or is it simply your imagination?
I ask as I read the N.Y. statistics to say that:
Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%),
but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
--
Cheers,
John B.
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:02:23?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
have any data? Or is it simply your imagination?
I ask as I read the N.Y. statistics to say that:
Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%),
but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
Sep 30, 2023, 9:02:09 PM9/30/23
to
https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2022.pdf
Far more pedestrians than bicyclists die annually in NYC. In 2022 it was
115 vs. 15, more than seven times as many. And roughly zero pedestrians
wear helmets. Oddly, nobody even scolds them about it!
The helmet scolding is an example of discrimination against cyclists and
cycling. It's so common that even (purported) cyclists do it to other
cyclists. It's weird.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Sep 30, 2023, 10:07:48 PM9/30/23
to
in there were two rules that applied to bicycles, (1) do not impede
other traffic, and (2) Obey the traffic laws.
This is, of course, not to imply that every bicyclist obeys all the
laws but if you don't then the problem is all yours. A recent case
here, a tourist girl on a bike ran a red light, got hit by a car and
killed. The local girl that was riding with her stopped at the red
light. The driver of the car that hit the tourist was absolved of any
wrong doing.
Re Impeding other traffic, you are required to ride as close to the
side of the road as is feasible, as are small motorcycles, and in
single file.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Catrike Rider
Oct 1, 2023, 3:36:10 AM10/1/23
to
Krygowski's reply?
"....people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble
handling anything they view as criticism. They can:
Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special recognition
or treatment.
Have major problems interacting with others and easily feel slighted.
React with rage or contempt and try to belittle other people to
make themselves appear superior.
Have difficulty managing their emotions and behavior.
Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change.
Withdraw from or avoid situations in which they might fail.
Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection.
Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, humiliation and fear of
being exposed as a failure.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
Catrike Rider
Oct 1, 2023, 3:37:29 AM10/1/23
to
replied twice to it.
Catrike Rider
Oct 1, 2023, 3:43:06 AM10/1/23
to
On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 09:07:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
Coming back from Grandson's little league game yesterday afternoon, my
wife suggested that we slip into the downtown, North St Petersburg
waterfront for dinner like we used to do many years ago.
We hadn't been there for a long time. It was very different from the
way we remembered it. Taken over by high rise hotels and their
clients.
The area was packed with cars and bicycle riders, and noticeably, very
few stop lights. Most intersections were "controlled" by take-turn
stop signs which were obeyed by vehicles, but ignored by every
bicyclist we saw.
The area was too touristy and too crowded to look for a parking space
so we headed out a few blocks west and happened on a small casual
neighborhood restaurant that looked to have more vehicles parked
around it than appeared to be capable of handling, yet still had open
parking spaces.
I pulled into one of them.
It had great atmosphere, great food, great service, and there were
more locals than tourists eating there. Yeah, I can tell them apart.
My kind of restaurant.
I especially like the sign that said, "we don't call 911," with a
picture of a revolver hanging below it.
https://www.theshrimpstore.com/
Check out the pictures here...
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g34607-d466932-Reviews-Fourth_Street_Shrimp_Store-St_Petersburg_Florida.html
wife suggested that we slip into the downtown, North St Petersburg
waterfront for dinner like we used to do many years ago.
We hadn't been there for a long time. It was very different from the
way we remembered it. Taken over by high rise hotels and their
clients.
The area was packed with cars and bicycle riders, and noticeably, very
few stop lights. Most intersections were "controlled" by take-turn
stop signs which were obeyed by vehicles, but ignored by every
bicyclist we saw.
The area was too touristy and too crowded to look for a parking space
so we headed out a few blocks west and happened on a small casual
neighborhood restaurant that looked to have more vehicles parked
around it than appeared to be capable of handling, yet still had open
parking spaces.
I pulled into one of them.
It had great atmosphere, great food, great service, and there were
more locals than tourists eating there. Yeah, I can tell them apart.
My kind of restaurant.
I especially like the sign that said, "we don't call 911," with a
picture of a revolver hanging below it.
https://www.theshrimpstore.com/
Check out the pictures here...
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g34607-d466932-Reviews-Fourth_Street_Shrimp_Store-St_Petersburg_Florida.html
Catrike Rider
Oct 1, 2023, 3:43:27 AM10/1/23
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 20:26:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
When a narcissist feels threatened, such as when their views about
themselves, others, and the world do not match their made-up
fantasies, or they encounter someone who appears to have a quality
they lack, such as real confidence and popularity, they tend to
demean and bully the other person. Narcissists will also belittle
anyone who challenges them or won't submit to their will as well,
causing the narcissist to use cruel tactics like bullying and
intimidation to get what they want.
The only way they know how to neutralize a threat and to improve
their diminishing ego is to bully and demean the other individual
into submission. They may do this in a dismissive or patronizing
manner to prove the individual means nothing to them (which is
often not true) or they might attack with insults, name-calling,
bullying, and threaten the other person to back off and know their
place. Do these tactics work? Not always, especially if a non-
narcissist can outwit the narcissist or are aware of these signs and
can act accordingly to handle the situation in an appropriate manner.
https://tinyurl.com/yncneagp
themselves, others, and the world do not match their made-up
fantasies, or they encounter someone who appears to have a quality
they lack, such as real confidence and popularity, they tend to
demean and bully the other person. Narcissists will also belittle
anyone who challenges them or won't submit to their will as well,
causing the narcissist to use cruel tactics like bullying and
intimidation to get what they want.
The only way they know how to neutralize a threat and to improve
their diminishing ego is to bully and demean the other individual
into submission. They may do this in a dismissive or patronizing
manner to prove the individual means nothing to them (which is
often not true) or they might attack with insults, name-calling,
bullying, and threaten the other person to back off and know their
place. Do these tactics work? Not always, especially if a non-
narcissist can outwit the narcissist or are aware of these signs and
can act accordingly to handle the situation in an appropriate manner.
https://tinyurl.com/yncneagp
John B.
Oct 1, 2023, 4:40:26 AM10/1/23
to
On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 03:42:59 -0400, Catrike Rider
What is the meaning of the sign, "Best stop before the trop"? What is
a "trop"?
--
Cheers,
John B.
a "trop"?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Catrike Rider
Oct 1, 2023, 5:25:06 AM10/1/23
to
On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 15:40:14 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
Tropicana baseball stadium. Tampa Bay Rays. My wife was an activity
director at an assisted living home and she had me, as a vounteer
there, take some of "her people" to a game there. Since then, I call
it "the dome of horror."
director at an assisted living home and she had me, as a vounteer
there, take some of "her people" to a game there. Since then, I call
it "the dome of horror."
Tom Kunich
Oct 1, 2023, 10:31:59 AM10/1/23
to
AMuzi
Oct 1, 2023, 10:57:22 AM10/1/23
to
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/dontcall.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
Oct 1, 2023, 1:39:22 PM10/1/23
to
On 9/30/2023 10:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> It must be a "U.S." sort of thing. In the foreign countries I've lived
> in there were two rules that applied to bicycles, (1) do not impede
> other traffic, and (2) Obey the traffic laws.
So you know only two facts about riding a bike. And one of your facts is
>
> It must be a "U.S." sort of thing. In the foreign countries I've lived
> in there were two rules that applied to bicycles, (1) do not impede
> other traffic, and (2) Obey the traffic laws.
wrong, at least for the U.S. and many if not most other countries.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Rider
Oct 1, 2023, 2:48:40 PM10/1/23
to
two facts about riding a bike. I suspect my eight year old grand
daughter knows more than two facts about riding a bicyle. It's really
very simple.
Tom Kunich
Oct 1, 2023, 5:07:15 PM10/1/23
to
Andre Jute
Oct 1, 2023, 5:34:45 PM10/1/23
to
>
Let's see you contest my conclusions from the New York study, then, if you can, if after thirteen years of calling me names and offering no reasoned argument, you've suddenly discovered a smidgin of brains.
>
Andre Jute
Lord, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Surely there must be an anti=helmet *somewhere* who can manage even one reasoned argument.
>
Andre Jute
Oct 1, 2023, 5:51:25 PM10/1/23
to
>
Andre Jute
Oct 1, 2023, 6:13:21 PM10/1/23
to
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:02:09 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/30/2023 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > [snip] I read the N.Y. statistics to say that:
> On 9/30/2023 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
> >
> > Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
> >
> > Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%),
> > but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
>
>Some data:
>
> https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2022.pdf
>
> Far more pedestrians than bicyclists die annually in NYC. In 2022 it was
> 115 vs. 15, more than seven times as many. And roughly zero pedestrians
> wear helmets.
>
The poor Klown Krygowski can't even invent some new smoke to blow.
> > Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
> >
> > Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
> >
> > Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%),
> > but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
>
>Some data:
>
> https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2022.pdf
>
> Far more pedestrians than bicyclists die annually in NYC. In 2022 it was
> 115 vs. 15, more than seven times as many. And roughly zero pedestrians
> wear helmets.
>
>
>Oddly, nobody even scolds them about it!
>
First of all, of course, pedestrians are not our constituency. Krygowski will next claim we should stop people getting herpes by putting them in helmets before we put cyclists in helmets. It's a dumb argument from the back of the mentally handicapped school bus. Krygowski is disrespecting even that dumb cluck Flunky by making this argument.
>Oddly, nobody even scolds them about it!
>
>
Secondly, what Krygowski's numbers actually prove by simple consideration of the relative sizes of the universes from which those fatalities are drawn, eight or nine million pedestrians against maybe a few tens of thousands of cyclists, is that head injuries for pedestrians is an infinitely rarer occasions than for cyclists. Another offensive lie from Krygowski.
>
> The helmet scolding is an example of discrimination against cyclists and
> cycling.
>
Crrrrrrr-ap! Do seat belts "discriminate" against motorists? Do liquor laws discriminate against juveniles? Do seaworthiness codes discriminate against ferry passengers? Krygowski is so stupid, so arrogant, he apparently doesn't believe we will catch him out in the limp, disrespectful excuses for arguments.
> The helmet scolding is an example of discrimination against cyclists and
> cycling.
>
>
> It's so common that even (purported) cyclists do it to other
> cyclists. It's weird.
>
Vintage Krygowski. When he's lost the argument, he starts on abuse. Prove that anyone who disputes with you isn't a cyclist, Krygowski, or apologise. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Krygowski to do the obvious right thing.
> It's so common that even (purported) cyclists do it to other
> cyclists. It's weird.
>
>
>
> Frank Krygowski
>
Scum is as scum does.
>
Andre Jute
Nobless oblige. Only a strong sense of duty justifies bothering with a loser like Krygowski.
>
Andre Jute
Oct 1, 2023, 6:18:44 PM10/1/23
to
>
Andre Jute
Oct 1, 2023, 6:28:57 PM10/1/23
to
>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages