Why Do People Fall Down?

Prisoner at War said:

Bill Sornson said:

...except by many of those who've used it?

Bill "sentence finisher" S.

Otherwise known as a placebo effect??

POTM!

The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
completely!

Good stuff... BS

Tom Sherman said:

Prisoner at War said:

Bill Sornson said:

...except by many of those who've used it?

Bill "sentence finisher" S.

Otherwise known as a placebo effect??

The life saving properties of foam bicycle hats are a tenet of a
certain faith based community of cyclists.

Now you conveniently "forget" the context (which you deleted first) and your
own content (which wasn't JUST "life-saving"😉. Well done!

Prisoner at War said:

There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.

But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough.

And so are upright bikes.

- Frank Krygowski

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Prisoner at War said:

There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.

But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough.

And so are upright bikes.

Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Tom Sherman said:

Prisoner at War said:

There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.

Quoted message said:

But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
turns, I guess!)...so what?

Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
either get it, or you are a lost cause. 😉

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road) and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise. The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs. And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

- Frank Krygowski

Bill Sornson said:

The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
completely!

And in another thread, our Paris Hilton emulator wrote:

"Mike, could you PLEASE start identifying who the heck you're
addressing in
your posts? How is it that your newsreader deletes all the
attributions in
the first place? It really gets confusing and somewhat
frustrating..."

Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
by Usenet?

Sheesh! The guy needs training wheels to follow a thread!

- Frank Krygowski

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Tom Sherman said:

Prisoner at War said:

There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
turns, I guess!)...so what?

Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
either get it, or you are a lost cause. 😉

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

More details - what exactly is it?

Quoted message said:

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use.

Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
to make drivers give one more room when passing.

Quoted message said:

The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

I have never found this to be an issue.

Quoted message said:

and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise.

Proper technique is needed here - if you put your feet in the right
place it is easy, but the wrong place makes it difficult.

Getting on a DF upright is not easy for some people either.

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

Again, the "seems" risky. As for width, most trikes are no wider than
the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Tom Sherman said:

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Prisoner at War said:

There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough.

Quoted message said:

And so are upright bikes.

Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!

Hell, I just jump those! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Sherman said:

aka Frank Krygowski said:

On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
either get it, or you are a lost cause. 😉

Quoted message said:

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

More details - what exactly is it?

We don't know the make. It was apparently a low-production custom
from the mid or late 1980s. The original owner is now deceased.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

Quoted message said:

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

Quoted message said:

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use.

Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
to make drivers give one more room when passing.

Well, none of us was willing to ride it through town traffic. Getting
a bag of groceries was out of the question. And in general, the vast
majority of low-racer types don't seem to go for utility use.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

I have never found this to be an issue.

It was an issue for my wife. She rode it in our neighborhood, tried
to do a U-turn at a quiet intersection, ended up nosed into the curb
facing downhill, couldn't go forward, couldn't reverse (it has no
reverse gear), and had to struggle mightily to get out of the thing.
And she's quite slim and fit. She vowed never to use the thing again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

Again, the "seems" risky.

Well, it's not uncommon for riders of conventional bikes to prefer
upright, not drop bars, for city use. If they reject drop bars due to
the 3" drop in eye height, how would they feel with a 48" drop in eye
height?

Quoted message said:

As for width, most trikes are no wider than
the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?

I just measured. My road bike bars are about 16" wide. My mountain
bike bars are 20" wide. The trike's front track looks like 27". (I
didn't take it off the ceiling to get a precise measurement.) It's
significantly wider.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).

It's possible. I know a guy who carried his upright base fiddle in a
Civic. Can we agree that most cars would have trouble carrying this
machine?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

Quoted message said:

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.

:-) Sorry, dude. I'm describing what the original owner, plus
several of my friends, actually perceived.

I've seen the pro-recumbent preconceptions before - the disbelief that
anyone could try a recumbent and prefer an upright. But I've known
many people who bought them, rode them, then abandoned them. The
original owner of this machine was unique among my acquaintances only
because his was a trike - and the most expensive machine of the
abandoned recumbents.

That doesn't mean they're not fine machines in their own way, and it
doesn't mean that some people won't love them. Recumbent
proselytizers just need to recognize that the machines don't meet most
riders needs - and it's not merely for lack of people trying them!

- Frank Krygowski

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Tom Sherman said:

aka Frank Krygowski said:

On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
> either get it, or you are a lost cause. 😉
Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

More details - what exactly is it?

We don't know the make. It was apparently a low-production custom
from the mid or late 1980s. The original owner is now deceased.

Hard to make a judgment on whether this trike is generally
representative of other trikes from that information.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.
The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.
The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use.

Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
to make drivers give one more room when passing.

Well, none of us was willing to ride it through town traffic. Getting
a bag of groceries was out of the question. And in general, the vast
majority of low-racer types don't seem to go for utility use.

My lowracers and trike come with built-in racks that will carry two (2)
standard panniers and a "trunk" bag. They are also capable of pulling a
trailer. I am aware of at least one person that uses a lowracer as a
"market" bike.

That being said, the more performance oriented lowracers are not
practical, but neither are CFRP uprights that lack the clearances for
fenders and rack mounting points.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

I have never found this to be an issue.

It was an issue for my wife. She rode it in our neighborhood, tried
to do a U-turn at a quiet intersection, ended up nosed into the curb
facing downhill, couldn't go forward, couldn't reverse (it has no
reverse gear), and had to struggle mightily to get out of the thing.
And she's quite slim and fit. She vowed never to use the thing again.

Reverse can be had by grabbing the front wheels and rotating backwards,
or pushing on the ground with one's feet in a normal tadpole trike. I
have no idea about Frank's mystery trike, however.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

Again, the "seems" risky.

Well, it's not uncommon for riders of conventional bikes to prefer
upright, not drop bars, for city use. If they reject drop bars due to
the 3" drop in eye height, how would they feel with a 48" drop in eye
height?

I thought it was the inclination of the head that was the issue, not the
minor decrease in head height - this is the first time I have ever heard
the latter being a reason for upright bars on a city bike. One of the
benefits of a recumbent is being able to combine an aerodynamic position
without having one face turned towards the ground.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for width, most trikes are no wider than
the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?

I just measured. My road bike bars are about 16" wide. My mountain
bike bars are 20" wide. The trike's front track looks like 27". (I
didn't take it off the ceiling to get a precise measurement.) It's
significantly wider.

Those are rather narrow ATB bars - my Trek 6000 handlebars are about 25
inches wide.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).

It's possible. I know a guy who carried his upright base fiddle in a
Civic. Can we agree that most cars would have trouble carrying this
machine?

No. A roof rack with the proper channels would work on most vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.
So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.

:-) Sorry, dude. I'm describing what the original owner, plus
several of my friends, actually perceived.

Again, with a "mystery" trike that has exactly what resemblance to
typical 21st Century trikes?

Quoted message said:

I've seen the pro-recumbent preconceptions before - the disbelief that
anyone could try a recumbent and prefer an upright. But I've known
many people who bought them, rode them, then abandoned them. The
original owner of this machine was unique among my acquaintances only
because his was a trike - and the most expensive machine of the
abandoned recumbents.

Almost all recumbent riders started out on uprights. The reverse case
would be rare indeed. Which group is more likely to suffer from
misconceptions?

Quoted message said:

That doesn't mean they're not fine machines in their own way, and it
doesn't mean that some people won't love them. Recumbent
proselytizers just need to recognize that the machines don't meet most
riders needs - and it's not merely for lack of people trying them!

And upright riders would be best if they left their case as not having
any interest in recumbents, rather that promulgating misconceptions.

In the real world [1], do not comment on the bicycles of others, unless
invited, then everyone can be happy. How hard is that?

[1] As opposed to Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Frank Krygowski said:

Perhaps the [tadpole trike] hanging in my garage isn't
well designed... but the original owner rode it on only
a few occasions before giving it up for his normal bike.
The next owner took only a couple test rides... The guy
he gave it to passed it on to me. My wife, a couple
friends, and I each took our turns at test rides. For all
of us, it failed the test.

I was reminded of a similar incident about 25 years ago,
when someone I knew bent the stays on a Schwinn Varsity to
allow mounting of a BMX cruiser tire, then added a cheap
cruiser fork, wider rims and KMart tires. In short order,
he noted that compared to his road bike the whole concept
of mountain bikes (MTBs) was a hopelessly flawed design,
a dead end side trip in cycle development, a short-lived
passing fad. The rest is history...

The moral of this short tale may be something like: you
get what you pay for, or quality of design and construction
are fairly critical elements for any type of cycle.

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration [of a tadpole trike?] seems
good only for "toy" use... you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme
yoga exercise... its low visibility seems risky for the
roads, and the extra width makes it inconvenient on MUPs
[mysterious unexplained phenonema? Mission to Unreached
Peoples? Multiple-Use Paths?] And of course, you'd better
have a pickup truck to take it anywhere. It's interesting
as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue, from
what I can tell. So I suppose the whole crew of us are
lost causes!

Most modern trikes will U-turn within a width of 15' or
less. Mounting and dismounting aren't real challenging
for anyone who has mastered a patio or poolside lounge.
Low visibility is only a valid concern for cross traffic
when surrounded by high profile auto traffic; most autos
overtaking a trike on narrow roads allow a much wider
clearance than they would for bicycles. Extra width is
only an issue for ground tracks - e.g., where a single-
track bike might skim the pavement edge, allowing it to
move an extra foot or so out of the path of an overtaking
vehicle than a typical trike. Two tadpoles travel quite
nicely inside a modern minivan or station wagon, sitting
simply and politely on their wheels, rather than being
piled in on their sides with pedals and chains ruining
carpets, or bars, levers and cables tangling during
loading and unloading. Trikes ride nicely on their own
wheels on top of autos with standard roof racks, or on
special purpose hitch mounted racks.

Among the virtues of a tadpole trike I'd list: optimal
low-speed stability, outstanding comfort, incomparable
braking performance, hill climbing capability for less
athletic riders, lack of susceptibility to headwinds,
and its amazing adaptability for carrying heavy loads
or pulling a trailer. It is almost surely the best
choice for a serious cyclist looking for relief from
back, neck, wrist or 'seat' discomfort, or for those
folks struggling with balance issues. Clicking out of
pedals when stopping on a trike is a casual non-traumatic
event, requiring no sense of timing or coordination. You
can park one anywhere you can ride it, with nothing to
lean on and no klugey kickstands.

However, the outstanding virtue of a tadpole, based on
feedback I've heard from the few hundred folks I've seen
try them, whether they bought one or not, is: sheer,
simple FUN! Basically, I guess I'd have to agree that
anyone who has ridden a quality, modern tadpole but
doesn't get that is - well, pretty much a lost cause.

Tadpoles are obviously and clearly not the ideal choice
for every cyclist. Road bikes are likely to be the
vehicle of choice for folks who like to ride very fast
in tight groups, or to whom sheer speed is the primary
criterion for a ride. MTBs work much better for rough dirt
trails. Probably most importantly, this year at least
still, moderate quality road and mountain bikes are much
less expensive than roughly equivalent tadpole trikes.

Finally... as Tom noted:

Quoted message said:

Almost all recumbent riders started out on uprights. The
reverse case would be rare indeed.

At times I sometimes idly speculate on this interesting
what-if: If things had evolved so that most four-year-olds
graduated directly to modern adult recumbent sports
touring tadpoles rather than two-wheelers, what would be
the typical reaction of someone initially introduced to a
contemporary road bike design when he was forty years old?
Would most enjoy - maybe even survive - their first panic
experience with hard braking?

Regards,
Wayne Leggett
3-2-GO
The Trike Store
Ventura CA

Quoted message said:

And in another thread, our Paris Hilton emulator wrote:

"Mike, could you PLEASE start identifying who the heck you're
addressing in
your posts? How is it that your newsreader deletes all the
attributions in
the first place? It really gets confusing and somewhat
frustrating..."

Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
by Usenet?

Sheesh! The guy needs training wheels to follow a thread!

- Frank Krygowski

LOL!

I suspect he may only be nit-picking here because no one's made a
typo, so he can't nit-pick that to distract attention from his
untenable tenets involving magic bike helmets.

Bill Sornson said:

POTM!

The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
completely!

Good stuff... BS

What??

We're talking about helmets, irregardless of rider experience. Do you
mean to say that inexperienced riders benefit differently somehow?
That's another, though related, conversation.

There's no over-snipping; just pay attention. Don't you have your
newsreader set to a "tree" view?

gotbent said:

I think it is something you just have to experience. The fun quotient is
enormous.

You mean there's a different kind of 'bent-smile with trikes???

They're so low on the ground, I dunno...definitely not for urban
environs, which my SMGTe handles quite well 99% of the time.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road) and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise. The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs. And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

- Frank Krygowski

Yes, it seems that all the problems someone would have with a 'bent
are much more pronounced with a trike!

Prisoner at War said:

On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
by Usenet?

Frank KNOWS I've plonked him, yet keeps trying to address me. Who's
confused?!? LOL

Prisoner at War said:

Bill Sornson said:

POTM!

The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is
quite funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced
riders falling over suddenly and without warning; then you take away
the /content/ completely!

Good stuff... BS

What??

I'm not surprised you've lost the meaning -- YOU DELETED IT YET AGAIN! LOL

Quoted message said:

We're talking about helmets, irregardless

Bzzt. No such word, brainiac. LOL

Quoted message said:

... of rider experience. Do you
mean to say that inexperienced riders benefit differently somehow?
That's another, though related, conversation.

There's no over-snipping; just pay attention. Don't you have your
newsreader set to a "tree" view?

Moron, you trimmed away the content to make your vital contribution of
"placebo effect" -- which didn't even make sense, but that's another sad
little story. LOL

Buh-bye.

Tom Sherman said:

More details - what exactly is it?

Well, maybe since we're talking "general characteristics" here, make
and model isn't so critical....

Quoted message said:

Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
to make drivers give one more room when passing.

That's if they see them! On my 'bent, I deliberately take up another
foot of space in order to try to better ensure that people have more
of a chance of noticing me. I won't even imagine what strategies
might be involved with a trike!

Quoted message said:

I have never found this to be an issue.

They certainly have different "road physics" and likely require more
"finessing."

Quoted message said:

Proper technique is needed here - if you put your feet in the right
place it is easy, but the wrong place makes it difficult.

Getting on a DF upright is not easy for some people either.

With bikes, getting on means balance more than anything else. With a
trike, I think it's having to stoop so low at that angle, and allow
yourself to fall back. I don't think it would be a big deal for me,
though I can imagine it being a bit more of a fuss for others.

Quoted message said:

Again, the "seems" risky. As for width, most trikes are no wider than
the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?

MUP?

Quoted message said:

Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).

Sucks when a car is a necessary accessory to the trike, though!

Quoted message said:

Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.

I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
given what very little I think I might know about them.

Quoted message said:

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

"Prisoner at War" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

gotbent said:

I think it is something you just have to experience. The fun quotient is
enormous.

You mean there's a different kind of 'bent-smile with trikes???

They're so low on the ground, I dunno...definitely not for urban
environs, which my SMGTe handles quite well 99% of the time.

Too low to the ground? I've had people in gigantic landbarges stopped next
to me at a traffic light and shout out of their window at me that I was too
low to see. I ask them who they're talking to. "You", they answer. I tell
them that either they're crazy for talking to something invisible, or I'm
not invisible after all. I don't think most of them get it.

I know a fellow that used to ride a NoCom in Chicago, on the streets! I know
a another fellow that rode a Bacchetta Strada in Chicago, too. He got hit by
a car, as high and visible as he was.

I own your bike's cousin, the Speedmachine. She can be a trecherous [censored] at
times. Mostly a quick and comfortable ride, but let your attention waver for
a moment and you'll find yourself dumped, unceremoniuosly, out on your ass.
I admit to being a member of the clan klutz and I don't chew gum and walk
simultaneously and remaining in control on two wheels is not totally
intuitive for me. I admit to hammering through turns more consertvatively
than excellent bike handlers, but still, I go through the twisties a lot
faster than the average schmo I pass on the bike trail.

The trike takes the balance thing right out of the equation. On the trike I
pedal like mad and all I need to do is pay attention to what's around me. I
ride with a friend on Wednesday nights, usually a few blocks away from his
house in the land of garage-mahals and green lawns and smooth low traffic
streets. We do five mile circuitous loops. The first time, a few weeks ago,
when we did the ride with lights I noticed that my cheeks hurt. The ride was
so much fun that I was unconsciously grinning in the dark.

I'm not a bent newbe either. I bought my first bent in '99. I still have a
SM and an Earthcycles Sunset and I bought a Trice in February and I ride
about 2000-3000 miles a year.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Prisoner at War said:

how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?

They are shills for the auto/oil complex... they are attempting to
create the impression that bicycling is inherently dangerous. It's a
capitalist plot designed to hide the morbidly dangerous nature of
their products through misdirection and out and out lies.