Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:45:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 05:04:44 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 21:49:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/21/2024 4:11 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:16:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

ISTM that I'm betting I'll not need a gun. Over thousands and thousands
of trips, I've always been proven right.
>
Our Florida tricycle rider is, in effect, betting that he's going to
someday need a gun.

 
<sigh> ...Strawman.  A bet involves an ante or a stake. Something that
you lose if you lose the bet.

>
You've already lost. You spent money to buy the gun you were afraid you
needed for "protection." That was the main part of your "stake," and
that money is gone.

>
Krygowski doesn't understand economics. The money I spent on guns may
be gone, but was replaced by the value of the guns.
>

You also spent time building your special Quick Draw
McGraw holster down by your crotch. That time is gone.

>
Doing things I enjoy doing also has value, Dummy. I enjoy making
things.
>

At least, since
your riding is limited to almost perfectly flat bike paths, you don't
lose much due to the weight of the gun.
>

 

Sounds like in at least hundreds of trips, he's been
consistently proven wrong.

 
Does the fact that we've never needed the window break tools we carry
in both vehicles prove that it's wrong to carry them?

>
Seriously?? You bought tools to break your car's windows if you're
trapped inside?  Gawd! How paranoid!

>
Actually, they were gifts. One of my kids thought they were a good
thing for people to have in an area where there are streets and roads
winding around the many small lakes and ponds in this area. But to be
clear, are you saying they have no value and that I should discard
them?
>
Those devices, like guns, are highly recommended by the local police,
and other initial responders.
>

But still, he's afraid.

 
That's from the guy that insists that my riding on bidirectional
sidepaths is dangerous and that my having a gun in my home (I have
four) puts me in danger of being shot.

>
And I've provided clear documentation of the data showing that those
with guns in the home are more likely to be shot (although in your case,
data shows your wife is more at risk);

>

The first time that Frankie came up with those statistics - actually
someone "came up" with the statistics and Frankie simply repeated it,
I did some research on the matter, coming from several generations of
people who had/have guns in the house and no family members shot
another member,  and as much as I could determine from the data
available on the Internet the problem really turns out to be that if
someone in the household decides to murder another member of the
household and there is a gun in the house they will likely use the
gun.
>
As has been said before, "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot
people".

I'm willing to bet that there is a much higher percentage of people
who have guns in their homes and do not get shot than people who have
guns in their homes and get shot.

That doesn't matter to Krygowski. He needs to convince himself that
his fear of guns is justified.  Of course he only needs to justify
that to himself and he cannot understand why he gets laughed for
posting that fearful nonsense.

<Chuckle> Dimwitted Krygowski insists that correlation indicates
causation, a stupid fallacious mistake made by people who don't
understand simple logic.
>
https://www.statology.org/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-examples/
>
Fact is that a correlation between people who are shot and people who
have guns in their home is more likely to show that the small
percentage of people who get shot might also have guns in their home,
since the vast number of people who have guns in their home do not get
shot.
>
Simple minded fools like Krygowski regularly suck up misinformation if
it helps them to justify their own fears, in this case, his fear of
guns.
>

and data showing that
bidirectional bike paths are much more dangerous for the wrong-way
cyclists entering intersections.

>
Such paranoid fear, Krygowski, but don't worry, little fella, you
don't have to ride those "dangerous" bidirectional bike paths like I
do, and like the children I see doing it around the grade schools near
me.

Krygowski has a right to be afraid of riding where I see little
children riding.

But I suppose a person has to have actual education in science to
understand such data...
>

...And he says that I'm fearful.

>
You obviously are. Nobody else here has shared your fears.

>
I saw a guy in a big black diesel pickup truck yesterday. He smiled
and gave me a thumbs up.