Fat kids - Page 15 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-14-2004, 01:20 PM

On 14 Jan 2004 02:23:20 GMT, David Reuteler <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>uh-oh. looks like Guy forget to pay his registrar and the esteemed (not)
>Domain Deluxe of Hong Kong hijacked his domain name.

Worse. I asked my new ISP to effect the transfer, they botched it
(set up .co.uk instead of transferring .com although my instructions
were unambiguous) and by the time I found out it was too late.

chapmancentral.demon.co.uk finds me, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] will do
soon (I finally agreed to accept that domain as part of a package of
compensation for the ****up and faxed instructions to the hostmaster
yesterday) and I am going to see if I can get the old domain back.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

01-14-2004, 05:55 PM

Rick Onanian wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:39:54 -0500, "frkrygow"
> <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>
>>For review - so you don't have to repeat the class - the cushy,
>>protective inside of the American car causes roughly 50% of the head
>>injury fatalities in the USA. And bike crashes cause less than 1%.
>
>
> Strange, I thought it was the hard glass from side collisions that
> causes head injuries, not the cushy protective parts. That's what I
> remember from the last class.

The side window is part of it, of course, but it's certainly not all of
it. If you get a chance to see a slow motion replay of a test-dummy
crash, you may see (as I did) the dummy's head hitting the inside of the
roof, the A pillar, the B pillar, the steering wheel...

True, these objects aren't what I'd describe as "cushy." That was just
a parody of the many folks who have posted here, "But in a car, you're
protected by the car's body..."

> However, by your formula for
> statistics, we're significantly safer if we commit suicide by the
> "cut/pierce" method, which results in much less than 1% of ALL
> fatalities, than we are riding a bike. So, if you're looking for a
> safe way to while away the time and insist that total percentages
> are a good way to gauge safety, you might try stabbing yourself in
> the head with an icepick driven by a hammer (without a helmet),
> rather than risk riding a bike.

Obviously, we can all demonstrate reductions to the absurd. But
hopefully, we can get people at least thinking a _little_ critically.
That's better than the too-common parroting of "danger, danger!" that
the "safety" folks produce.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]