View Single Post
  #3  
Old May 25th 05, 04:28 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bicyclist logic is so weird. Bicyclists think picking out particular
>> differences in two scenarios somehow proves something, when they
>> haven't accounted for all the OTHER differences. For instance, all
>> the inanimate metal available to ABSORB the energy of the collision.

>
>
>Talk about weird logic. From the stats presented in this thread, it
>seems that cars would need a heck of a lot more absorbant metal to be
>able to approach the safety record of bicycles. All that and riding in
>a hostile environment. Your attitude must spring from envy.


I can ride a bicycle any time I like. Today it's 50 degrees and
raining; I choose not to. All I'm pointing out is that a simple
energy comparison shows nothing; I don't know why you find that so
objectionable.



--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Ads