Bicyclists Unite Against Tyranny - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

08-06-2003, 02:07 PM

The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get hurt
on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
are some suggestions:

1. We will remain constantly aware, and think clearly about our
vulnerability in traffic.

2. We will ride in a way that motorists can understand and expect, which
generally means following the law.

1. We will wear our helmets.

2. We won't ride our bikes when we are drunk, on drugs, or less than fully
alert.

3. We will frequently tell kids, in a way that they can understand, about
bicycle safety.

4. We'll wear bright clothing when riding in traffic.

5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get caught
out after dark.

7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve cars,
and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.

From [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] - enjoy!

08-06-2003, 02:48 PM

Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:07:03 GMT, <X5eYa.54974$cF.19211@rwcrnsc53>,
"Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get caught
>out after dark.

.. . ."in case we get caught out after dark." WTF? People who ride
their bikes to real world destinations frequently leave home in the
dark and return in the dark. Bicycles don't turn into pumpkins just
because the sun goes down.

You're treating bicycles as toys with those kinds of statements.
--
zk

08-06-2003, 03:09 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>,
Zoot Katz <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:07:03 GMT, <X5eYa.54974$cF.19211@rwcrnsc53>,
> "Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get caught
>>out after dark.
>
> . . ."in case we get caught out after dark." WTF? People who ride
> their bikes to real world destinations frequently leave home in the
> dark and return in the dark.

.... with dependable lighting systems that don't run out of
juice and leave ya high & dry.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

08-06-2003, 03:14 PM

"Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:X5eYa.54974$cF.19211@rwcrnsc53...
> 4. We'll wear bright clothing when riding in traffic.
>
> 5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get
caught
> out after dark.
>
> 7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve
cars,
> and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.

We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)....

And we will carry lighting with us at all times because real bicyclists
expect to ride in the dark and are prepared to do so often.

Preston

08-06-2003, 03:16 PM

In article <X5eYa.54974$cF.19211@rwcrnsc53>,
"Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
> are some suggestions:

....

> 1. We will wear our helmets.

That's pretty much what the CPSC wants. They want ppl
to /buy/ helmets, anyways. Methinks that's the reasoning
behind their touting bicycles as "dangerous" products.

That said, I opt to wear a helmet, myself. But it's no
skin off my teeth whether other folks decide to or not.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

08-06-2003, 03:47 PM

We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll bet he's an accountant.

Steve McDonald

08-06-2003, 03:58 PM

"Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:X5eYa.54974$cF.19211@rwcrnsc53...
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get
hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back! How are we going to do that? Here
> are some suggestions:

The entire thing reads like something drawn up by someone who never really
rode.

Although I'm always partial to:
> 2. We will ride in a way that motorists can understand and expect, which
> generally means following the law.

and
> 5. We will use good lighting and reflective equipment in case we get
caught
> out after dark.

and I don't know the stats but
> 7. We will remember than 70% of serious bike accidents do not involve
cars,
> and so we will also ride sensibly off-road.

sounds like an underestimate.

Doug
Toronto

08-06-2003, 05:16 PM

Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT),
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Steve McDonald) wrote:

>
> We will learn to count to 7 (or did you mean 6)...
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll bet he's an accountant.

For Enron, maybe. There are eight items.
--
zk

08-06-2003, 06:48 PM

"Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>
> The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates bicycles as among the most
> dangerous products in the home. They seem to think that people can get hurt
> on bikes. So, what are we going to do about it? We're going to fight.
> That's right. We're going to fight back!

Still can't get anybody to subscribe to your web site, eh?

CC

08-06-2003, 08:29 PM

"Jeff Napier" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:X5eYa.54974$cF.19211@rwcrnsc53...
> Here are some suggestions:
>
> 1. ...
>
> 2. ...
>
> 1. !!!!
>
> 2. ...
>
> 3. ...
>
> 4. ...
>
> 5....
>
> 7. !!!!

Let me guess.
You wrote the original document in Microsoft Word, and used the
autonumbering there.

It's happened to me, too.