"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.

That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data. Gut reactions
are almost always wrong. Look at how many people get all worked up over
West Nile Virus, when only a handful of people die from it each year. In
contrast, the flu kills around 40,000 people every year. I'm an avid
kayaker and when I discuss it with people many express concern about it
being dangerous. The average number of deaths in all forms of kayaking
in the US is 12 per year. Millions of people are afraid of flying, which
is the safest mode of transport in existence. When it comes to risk, the
perception of the average person isn't even close to the reality.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things we
do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.

About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to spew:
Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things we
do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to spew:
Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?


Are you guys talking about bicycles or motorcycles or both?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are
~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you.
:-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not
because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?


Are you guys talking about bicycles or motorcycles or both?

Look backward in the thread to the earlier messages. If your students were
lazy, you'd bitch slap them, right?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

How risky is paddling the waterways and being exposed later this year
when the wild birds fly south, to the bird flu? HYY

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...




I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.


Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

Of course, but if you're one of those already exposed, which group would
you rather belong to? As an avid cyclist and a driver, I can honestly
say I've had far more close brushes with disaster in my car than on my
bike. At least riding a bike has heath benefits that allow one to enjoy
their life more and live longer. That far outweighs any risk of injury
or death.

Like I said, believe whatever you want.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:C4xUf.5686$8G2.504@trndny01...

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be
less likely to be affected by the risks?

Of course, but if you're one of those already exposed, which group would
you rather belong to? As an avid cyclist and a driver, I can honestly say
I've had far more close brushes with disaster in my car than on my bike.

Brian - think for a moment. You're mixing two different ideas. You're
correct - the odds of BEING in an accident are higher in your car. The odds
of being HURT in an accident, assuming you're on shared roadways, or far
higher on your bike. This is analogous to the nonsensical airlines' theory.
"Less accidents per miles travelled in planes, compared to cars". Yes,
that's true. But when your plane crashes, your chances of survival are, for
all intents and purposes, zero.



At least riding a bike has heath benefits that allow one to enjoy their
life more and live longer. That far outweighs any risk of injury or death.

Yes, there are health benefits. I ride on dedicated trails, where nobody's
driving anything that weighs more than my vehicle. My biggest risk is being
crushed by a very fat person on a bike, or a collision with a bee.