Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Excuses, excuses
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:54:08 +0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <11dc1j9537qkn7jore2doi9vo1hsi4136o@4ax.com>
References: <uv26u9$3re6n$1@dont-email.me> <7qbc1jthm6sn30im98i53ieboarh8e7stm@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:54:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="31c6a781008c19829cfa350dcbb11ba5";
	logging-data="860270"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mE851CI90ktJEFbHa6PsMBbZBddB6IQg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RaUf5/94fLaOojPVGKlVvnCA9ko=
Bytes: 1792

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Last I checked, there were 
>>still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling 
>>was much safer per mile than walking.
>
>
><LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic.  I'll wager
>that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>
But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.  

But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
After all a cyclist roaring down the road at 15 MPH can hardly be
compared with an auto traveling, sat, 70-80 MPH or an old lady
waddling along at 4 MPH. 

Just as aircraft accidents are measured at hour of use not MPH

-- 
Cheers,

John B.