Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On 11/14/2024 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:18:19 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 11/14/2024 7:38 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:15:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 5:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

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.

>
Unlike you, we have reading comprehension beyond the 4th grade. Your
intention was to conflate it 'all are' with 'can be'.
>

>

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?

>
Got it, you're both.
>

>

* 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/

>
gee, that's not obsessive at all.

>
It's not unlike you going back to retrieve old posts.

>
I don't have them in a ready file, sonny boy.
>

>

You really ought to seek help for your daddy issues.
>

>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
You really ought to relax and be happy, Junior.

>
sorry, ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate daily.
>

Be like Joe Biden
joking around with Trump yesterday.

>
You have no idea what was going on behind the photo op. There was a two
hour meeting after the 5 minute photo op where no press was allowed.
>

Like I tell my Democrat friends
and relatives, (yes I have them)

>
Not buying that they speak to you.

 
My friends and relatives are above that silliness.
 

you'll get a chance to rearrange the
Congress in two years;

>
We'll see if that chance is still afforded.
>

and come on, you didn't *really* believe all
that nonsense about Trump being a dictator like Hitler did you?

>
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/

 
As if all newly elected presidents don't do that.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Defense_appointments_by_Joe_Biden

>
No, no US president has created a review board to purge the officer corp
based on political affiliation. Your link is appointments, not firings.
>

 
 

Step one to a fascist take over - purge the military of those who are
not loyal to the political agenda.
>
It's happening, and you'll blissfully chuckle and tip back a cognac
while the executions for treason are scheduled.

 
In spite of all our name calling nonsense, I really believe you're too
intelligent to believe that. The election is over. The campaign
garbage is over. Life goes on.
 
Go for a bike ride. That's what I'm going to do.

>
I do believe you're willfully ignorant to assume nothing of any
substance is going to change.
>

 

Clearly, even Joe Biden didn't buy on to it.

>
Not clear at all, it was a photo op, walking the talk of following the
constitution mandate of a peaceful transition of power, unlike the
asshole about to pollute the white house again who had a temper tantrum
that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol police officers when he lost.
>

He just said what he was
told to say.

>
For the photo op.

 
No, in the speeches he read from the teleprompters written by his
campaign staff.
 
As to the photo op, why would he indicate to the whole world that he
was comfortable turning power over to Trump if he really believed
Trump was like Hitler. Wouldn't someone who really believed that US
Democracy was over announce it to the world?

>
walking the talk of following the constitution mandate of a peaceful
transition of power, unlike the asshole about to pollute the white house
again who had a temper tantrum that lead to the deaths of 5 capitol
police officers when he lost.
>

 
The Hitler and the dictator stuff was dishonest, last resort, campaign
rhetoric. Most voters knew it and ignored it.

>
Most voters don't want to believe it. That's very different.
>

 

C'est bon
Soloman

 
Get serious, Junior. Just like the 2020 and 2022 election when the
Democrats won, nothing significant did or is going to change in your
life or in mine. You may, as I did, see or hear things that you don't
approve of, but very little is going to change, even though there is
considerable voter support for change. Changes take time.

>
At this point I'm of the opinion the democrats in congress should stand
aside and let the maga plan go wild. Sure, vote and argue against it,
but don't bother with any of the procedural games that delay or torpedo
their agenda. This is what america voted for, let them have it.
>
IF everything turns up rosey, great, it worked out. If however - as
every reasonably intelligent economist and non-maga legal expert
predicts - it turns out to be a disaster, we got what we deserved. It's
the only way people are going to see how they've been bamboozled.
>

 
--
C'est bon
Soloman