Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:31:50 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 11/13/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:57:24 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 11/13/2024 3:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk.  I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch.  Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.

>
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)

>
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.

>
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?

>
No, I did not argue that.
>
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
>
Quit emulating Tom.

>
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm

>
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
>
spelling corrected and context clarified.
>
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again

I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
positions are convincing anybody.

>
>
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
>
Here it is again....
>
>
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
    https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm

>
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."

>
No baffling involved. I simply quoted the incorrect, nonsense that you
wrote.

>
and conflated "all are" with "can be" in the process.
If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
>
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?
>

>

And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
>
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail:                181, 91, 88.
>
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.

>
Didn't you admit that you used them?
>

BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.

>
Another undocumented anecdote.....
>

That's very rare on the road. If you ride where car tires pass, the
pavement stays quite clean.

>
Those studies don't mention what types of cyclists were involved.
>
Given that a far higher percentage of cyclists on MUPs would likely be
inexperienced, elderly, and/or children, the results of studies are
worthless.

>
Not nearly as worthless as you opinion.
>

>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

 
Truth is, Junior, I never mentioned the words, "all are." I simply
quoted Krygowski's nonsense.

>
The truth is, dumbass, you copy pasted Franks message from your "Frank
File"* in support of Johns claim that Frank said "All", conflating "all
are" with "can be" in the process.

I did no such thing. I simply posted something related to it.

If you know you did it, you're a liar.
If you didn't know you did it, you're ignorant.
>
So, are you ignorant? or a liar?

Wow, Junior. What are you so angry about?

* You still don't get how revealing of your (lack of) character and
hypocrisy it is to keep a "frank file" with all his messages for easy
access.

Those Krygowski quotes above came directly from the website he and his
friends made. 
https://bicyclinglife.com/

--
C'est bon
Soloman