On 3/15/2024 5:45 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 15.03.2024 um 08:49 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:07:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>>
>>>> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
>>>> USA.
>>>>
>>>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>>>
>>>> sport noun (GAME)
>>>> A1
>>>> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
>>>> often competing against each other:
>>>>
>>>> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
>>>> A1
>>>> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
>>>> enjoyment:
>>>>
>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport
>>>
>>> Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
>> True, but in the USA, most who do that have other means to get to
>> work, so riding a bike to work in cold and snow is a choice they make.
>> If it's not the cost, it must be an enjoyment or health related
>> choice.
>
> It can also be an ecological choice, a convenience choice (when cycling
> is faster than driving due to traffic jams or a non-road shortcut), and
> then "most" is not "all": there are people who (for age reasons or for
> health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.
>
>> But back to the sports issue...
>>
>> I believe that an activity needn't be competitive to be a sport. Are
>> not hunting and fishing sports? How about a little non-competitive
>> target shooting?   Hang gliding?  Scuba diving?  non-competitive
>> skiing?
>
> Bicycling from A to B has the primary aim of transprotation unless it is
> followed more or less immediately by non-cycling trip (e.g. car or
> train) from B to A.
>
> Bicycling from A to A clearly does not have the primary aim of
> transportation and might be counted as non-competitive sports or as
> simple leasure activity.
>
> Similarly, it is up to discussion whether hiking or "having an afternoon
> stroll" from A to A is seen as non-competitive sport or as non-sport
> leasure activity (this classification might depend on secondary features
> like "does the user track the route", "is there a speed-measuring device
> present", "how many breaks for what purpose" (e.g. half an hour laying
> in the sun or taking pictures are pointers that this might be non-sport).
>
> Rolf

+1

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

If someone heading out for a walk/ride for their mental/physical health
doesn't consider the walk/ride to be a sporting activity, then it isn't
a sporting activity.

I know _many_ cyclists who regularly ride for their health. They don't
consider themselves to be athletic, nor do they consider their cycling
to be a 'sport'.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:31:47 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>
><chuckle>
>
>A dumbass who reads:
>"Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>roadway crashes annually in the United States."
>
>and concludes
>
>"Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
>figures, if true, substantiate it."
>
>claiming others are writing nonsense.

There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
than twice the number of bicycling accidents.

Furthermore, your previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
amount of time the activities are vulnerable to having an accident.

In other words, the total time all the pedestrians spend being
pedestrians compared to total time all the bicyclists are bicycling
is also exponentially greater, given that a bicyclists covers three,
four, five times more miles than a pedestrian in a given amount of
time. and yet, even then, Dummy, the number of pedestrian accidents is
less than twice the number of bicycling accidents.

<sigh> Some people (Junior Carrington and Krygowski ) are too simple
minded to look at data and evaluate what it really represents.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:46:30 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/15/2024 5:45 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2024 um 08:49 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:07:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>>>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>>>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
>>>>> USA.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>>>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>>>>
>>>>> sport noun (GAME)
>>>>> A1
>>>>> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
>>>>> often competing against each other:
>>>>>
>>>>> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
>>>>> A1
>>>>> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
>>>>> enjoyment:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport
>>>>
>>>> Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
>>> True, but in the USA, most who do that have other means to get to
>>> work, so riding a bike to work in cold and snow is a choice they make.
>>> If it's not the cost, it must be an enjoyment or health related
>>> choice.
>>
>> It can also be an ecological choice, a convenience choice (when cycling
>> is faster than driving due to traffic jams or a non-road shortcut), and
>> then "most" is not "all": there are people who (for age reasons or for
>> health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.
>>
>>> But back to the sports issue...
>>>
>>> I believe that an activity needn't be competitive to be a sport. Are
>>> not hunting and fishing sports? How about a little non-competitive
>>> target shooting?   Hang gliding?  Scuba diving?  non-competitive
>>> skiing?
>>
>> Bicycling from A to B has the primary aim of transprotation unless it is
>> followed more or less immediately by non-cycling trip (e.g. car or
>> train) from B to A.
>>
>> Bicycling from A to A clearly does not have the primary aim of
>> transportation and might be counted as non-competitive sports or as
>> simple leasure activity.
>>
>> Similarly, it is up to discussion whether hiking or "having an afternoon
>> stroll" from A to A is seen as non-competitive sport or as non-sport
>> leasure activity (this classification might depend on secondary features
>> like "does the user track the route", "is there a speed-measuring device
>> present", "how many breaks for what purpose" (e.g. half an hour laying
>> in the sun or taking pictures are pointers that this might be non-sport).
>>
>> Rolf
>
>+1
>
>"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>
>If someone heading out for a walk/ride for their mental/physical health
>doesn't consider the walk/ride to be a sporting activity, then it isn't
>a sporting activity.
>
>I know _many_ cyclists who regularly ride for their health. They don't
>consider themselves to be athletic, nor do they consider their cycling
>to be a 'sport'.

...and there are probably other people who believe playing solitare is
a sport. Simply believing something to be true doesn't make it true.

On 3/15/2024 2:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:07:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>>
>>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>
>>> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
>>> USA.
>>>
>>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>>
>>> sport noun (GAME)
>>> A1
>>> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
>>> often competing against each other:
>>>
>>> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
>>> A1
>>> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
>>> enjoyment:
>>>
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport
>>
>> Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
>
> True, but in the USA, most who do that have other means to get to
> work, so riding a bike to work in cold and snow is a choice they make.
> If it's not the cost, it must be an enjoyment or health related
> choice.
>
> But back to the sports issue...
>
> I believe that an activity needn't be competitive to be a sport. Are
> not hunting and fishing sports? How about a little non-competitive
> target shooting? Hang gliding? Scuba diving? non-competitive
> skiing?

I agree that competition is not required for 'sport'.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/15/2024 9:16 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> I agree that competition is not required for 'sport'.

It's not absolutely required, but I believe that most people assume
"sport" usually involves an element of competition. Just now, scanning
several online dictionaries and one (gasp!) hardcopy dictionary made
that point. From this printed dictionary, the first definition is "An
athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a
competitive nature."

I'd say for almost all bicycling and bicyclists, that doesn't apply,
unless the standard is so low that simply balancing meets the "skill"
threshold. Most American bicyclists ride just to move around a little
and look at scenery, and a few use bikes just to get somewhere practical.

As Zen said, we still might say it's in the eye of the beholder. But
there is some societal relevance to the question of whether bicycling is
a sport. As I've mentioned before, some sources disparage bicycling as
dangerous, saying it causes more injuries than any other sport. Why
would that be true? Because the hours of bicycling done per year totally
eclipses the hours of (say) basketball, or football, or golf - which,
BTW, many claim is a mere "game."

Also, the quasi-"sport" of bicycling produces less injuries and
fatalities than the "sport" of walking. Certainly, far fewer fatalities
than the "sport" of driving cars. Note that all three of those
activities do have competitions - but they involve only a microscopic
portion of the total participants.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/15/2024 7:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:31:47 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>>
>> A dumbass who reads:
>> "Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>> roadway crashes annually in the United States."
>>
>> and concludes
>>
>> "Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
>> figures, if true, substantiate it."
>>
>> claiming others are writing nonsense.
>
> There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
> bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
> than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
>
> Furthermore, your previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
> ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
> amount of time the activities are vulnerable to having an accident.
>
> In other words, the total time all the pedestrians spend being
> pedestrians compared to total time all the bicyclists are bicycling
> is also exponentially greater, given that a bicyclists covers three,
> four, five times more miles than a pedestrian in a given amount of
> time. and yet, even then, Dummy, the number of pedestrian accidents is
> less than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
>
> <sigh> Some people (Junior Carrington and Krygowski ) are too simple
> minded to look at data and evaluate what it really represents.

I'll repeat:

===============================================================
Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.

The results:
Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
Walking for exercise: 1.4%
Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%

And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
three times as bad!

Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
ride over ten million miles between fatalities.

British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
===============================================================

Perhaps the concept of "per mile" is too complicated for some readers?

BTW, I've often wondered why avid cyclists are so prone to declare
bicycling dangerous. I don't see the same tendency in dedicated runners,
tennis players, swimmers, etc.

But it occurs to me, if a person is timid enough and afraid enough, that
person might argue to inflate danger estimates so as to make himself
look a little less foolish.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:45:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

> there are people who (for age reasons or for
> health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.

For quite a long time after I injured my shoulder, I could ride my
bike much farther than I could drive a car.

My Fuji, that is. Riding the flatfoot aggravated the injury.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:01:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Perhaps the concept of "per mile" is too complicated for some readers?

<EYEROLL> I will repeat for those who are too simple minded to
understand it the first time...

There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
Case in point:
There are more people hurt or killed by way of bicycle accidents than
there are for mountain climbers, so by Krygowski's standards,
bicycling is more dangerous than mountain climbing.

Furthermore, the previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
amount of time the personas engaged in the activities are vulnerable
to having an accident.
In other words, the total time all the pedestrians spend being
pedestrians compared to total time all the bicyclists are bicycling
is also exponentially greater, given that a bicyclists covers three,
four, five times more miles than a pedestrian in a given amount of
time. and yet, even then, the number of pedestrian accidents is less
than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
<sigh> Some people (Junior Carrington and Krygowski ) are too simple
minded to look at data and evaluate what it really represents.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'd say for almost all bicycling and bicyclists, that doesn't apply,
>unless the standard is so low that simply balancing meets the "skill"
>threshold.

Bicycling is not a complicated thing except, perhaps, for people who
need to brag and have nothing more challenging than riding their bike.
to brag about. Balancing the bike is really the only skill required
and the vast majority of bicyclists acquire that skill before they're
out of grade school.

On 3/16/2024 1:13 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:45:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> there are people who (for age reasons or for
>> health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.
>
> For quite a long time after I injured my shoulder, I could ride my
> bike much farther than I could drive a car.

I've met two different men whose vision limitations prevented them from
driving a car, and who got around largely by bicycle. One of them was
repeatedly hassled by police for riding on a street with heavy traffic,
until he won a court case confirming his legal right to do so.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/16/2024 3:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:01:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the concept of "per mile" is too complicated for some readers?
>
> <EYEROLL> I will repeat for those who are too simple minded to
> understand it the first time...
>
> There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
> bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
> than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
>
> Case in point:
> There are more people hurt or killed by way of bicycle accidents than
> there are for mountain climbers, so by Krygowski's standards,
> bicycling is more dangerous than mountain climbing.
>
> Furthermore, the previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
> ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
> amount of time the personas engaged in the activities are vulnerable
> to having an accident.

Ah! The Florida bike path denizen seems to be dimly realizing that
different metrics are possible! That is, one can measure relative
"danger" per participant, per hour, per mile, per trip, etc. And perhaps
he may someday realize the fundamental metric might be measurement of
benefit vs. detriment - for example, does an activity confer more or
less health, more or fewer years of life, etc.

Rational intelligent people could discuss the merits of these metrics.
But the Florida bike path denizen wouldn't qualify.

Still, I always wonder what makes an avid cyclist argue so strongly that
riding a bicycle is terribly dangerous?

I think it's fear. More specifically, if a man "proves" that riding
anywhere but on a bike path (and while carrying a gun "for protection"!)
is so, so dangerous, he feels a bit better about his own timidity.

Likewise, saying that bicycling requires no knowledge or skill beyond
balancing makes him feel a bit better about his near-total ignorance.

It's a variation of a common theme: "Nobody needs to know math! I been a
successful garbage man for years and I ain't never passed a math class!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/16/2024 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 1:13 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:45:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> there are people who (for age reasons or for
>>> health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.
>>
>> For quite a long time after I injured my shoulder, I could
>> ride my
>> bike much farther than I could drive a car.
>
> I've met two different men whose vision limitations
> prevented them from driving a car, and who got around
> largely by bicycle. One of them was repeatedly hassled by
> police for riding on a street with heavy traffic, until he
> won a court case confirming his legal right to do so.
>

A long time customer was legally blind*, could never manage
an auto let alone a driver's test, and yet rode his bicycles
everywhere in all weather to his various jobs as a musician,
tutor and classical music DJ. He did suffer numerous
crashes including more than one straight into parked car,
but that didn't slow his cycling much.

* He could read with a strong loupe in good light with his
face four inches off the text
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>
> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>
> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.

Hugely dependent on area though, or at least some cities even london
central and mid, yes there are leisure or sporty cyclists, Regent’s Park is
one example folks go there to do laps early morning.

But on the whole bikes are being used for utility, the ratio does reverse
back to weekend warriors by outer london and into the Home Counties.

This said some weekday warriors are despite appearing to be weekends
warriors ie roadie in lycra will be one of the many who ride in from outer
london particularly from SW/S London who will be for most folks
indistinguishable from folks lapping Richmond Park for example.

Roger Merriman

On 3/16/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>
>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>
>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>
> Hugely dependent on area though, or at least some cities even london
> central and mid, yes there are leisure or sporty cyclists, Regent’s Park is
> one example folks go there to do laps early morning.
>
> But on the whole bikes are being used for utility, the ratio does reverse
> back to weekend warriors by outer london and into the Home Counties.
>
> This said some weekday warriors are despite appearing to be weekends
> warriors ie roadie in lycra will be one of the many who ride in from outer
> london particularly from SW/S London who will be for most folks
> indistinguishable from folks lapping Richmond Park for example.

I'm not clear on whether you consider those doing laps as engaging in
"sport" or not. I wouldn't count that activity as a sport, unless they
were racing each other. ISTM it's parallel to someone walking on a
treadmill in their basement. Yes, they are exerting themselves. They are
probably hoping to increase their endurance, strength, etc. But if those
are sufficient criteria for a "sport" label, an elderly man sitting in
his recliner and doing leg extensions might qualify as well.

I'm just back from a grocery run on the bike. I'm sweaty, in part
because I was trying to push a bit while on the uphills, but I'd never
call that a "sport" ride.

Incidentally, on that ride I came quite close to getting hit by a car! A
woman came driving _fast_ out of her driveway and apparently looked only
to her right, not her left, where I was. I yelled and we both hit the
brakes. She stopped about two feet from me. I stood there shaking my
head and glaring at her as she looked properly abashed.

But if she had hit me, it shouldn't count as a bicycling "sport" crash
or injury.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/16/2024 2:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>
>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>
>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>
>> Hugely dependent on area though, or at least some cities
>> even london
>> central and mid, yes there are leisure or sporty cyclists,
>> Regent’s Park is
>> one example folks go there to do laps early morning.
>>
>> But on the whole bikes are being used for utility, the
>> ratio does reverse
>> back to weekend warriors by outer london and into the Home
>> Counties.
>>
>> This said some weekday warriors are despite appearing to
>> be weekends
>> warriors ie roadie in lycra will be one of the many who
>> ride in from outer
>> london particularly from SW/S London who will be for most
>> folks
>> indistinguishable from folks lapping Richmond Park for
>> example.
>
> I'm not clear on whether you consider those doing laps as
> engaging in "sport" or not. I wouldn't count that activity
> as a sport, unless they were racing each other. ISTM it's
> parallel to someone walking on a treadmill in their
> basement. Yes, they are exerting themselves. They are
> probably hoping to increase their endurance, strength, etc.
> But if those are sufficient criteria for a "sport" label, an
> elderly man sitting in his recliner and doing leg extensions
> might qualify as well.
>
> I'm just back from a grocery run on the bike. I'm sweaty, in
> part because I was trying to push a bit while on the
> uphills, but I'd never call that a "sport" ride.
>
> Incidentally, on that ride I came quite close to getting hit
> by a car! A woman came driving _fast_ out of her driveway
> and apparently looked only to her right, not her left, where
> I was. I yelled and we both hit the brakes. She stopped
> about two feet from me. I stood there shaking my head and
> glaring at her as she looked properly abashed.
>
> But if she had hit me, it shouldn't count as a bicycling
> "sport" crash or injury.
>

'Sport' seems an arbitrary demarcation at some point.

But cyclists on the short end of traffic errors is a serious
and pervasive matter, sport or no.

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/03/pedicab-driver-struck-stolen-hyundai-north-center-chicago-police-report.html
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/16/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>
>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>
>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>
>> Hugely dependent on area though, or at least some cities even london
>> central and mid, yes there are leisure or sporty cyclists, Regent’s Park is
>> one example folks go there to do laps early morning.
>>
>> But on the whole bikes are being used for utility, the ratio does reverse
>> back to weekend warriors by outer london and into the Home Counties.
>>
>> This said some weekday warriors are despite appearing to be weekends
>> warriors ie roadie in lycra will be one of the many who ride in from outer
>> london particularly from SW/S London who will be for most folks
>> indistinguishable from folks lapping Richmond Park for example.
>
>I'm not clear on whether you consider those doing laps as engaging in
>"sport" or not. I wouldn't count that activity as a sport, unless they
>were racing each other. ISTM it's parallel to someone walking on a
>treadmill in their basement. Yes, they are exerting themselves. They are
>probably hoping to increase their endurance, strength, etc. But if those
>are sufficient criteria for a "sport" label, an elderly man sitting in
>his recliner and doing leg extensions might qualify as well.
>
>I'm just back from a grocery run on the bike. I'm sweaty, in part
>because I was trying to push a bit while on the uphills, but I'd never
>call that a "sport" ride.
>
>Incidentally, on that ride I came quite close to getting hit by a car! A
>woman came driving _fast_ out of her driveway and apparently looked only
>to her right, not her left, where I was. I yelled and we both hit the
>brakes. She stopped about two feet from me. I stood there shaking my
>head and glaring at her as she looked properly abashed.
>
>But if she had hit me, it shouldn't count as a bicycling "sport" crash
>or injury.

<Sigh> another silly Krygowski anecdote that he apparently believes to
be significant. I think it's just another childish and narcissist
quest for recognition.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:55:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/16/2024 3:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:01:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the concept of "per mile" is too complicated for some readers?
>>
>> <EYEROLL> I will repeat for those who are too simple minded to
>> understand it the first time...
>>
>> There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
>> bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
>> than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
>>
>> Case in point:
>> There are more people hurt or killed by way of bicycle accidents than
>> there are for mountain climbers, so by Krygowski's standards,
>> bicycling is more dangerous than mountain climbing.
>>
>> Furthermore, the previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
>> ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
>> amount of time the personas engaged in the activities are vulnerable
>> to having an accident.
>
>Ah! The Florida bike path denizen seems to be dimly realizing that
>different metrics are possible! That is, one can measure relative
>"danger" per participant, per hour, per mile, per trip, etc.

However, as I explained comparing distance traveled on a bicycle vs
ditanced traved on foot is ridiculous.

And perhaps
>he may someday realize the fundamental metric might be measurement of
>benefit vs. detriment - for example, does an activity confer more or
>less health, more or fewer years of life, etc.
>
>Rational intelligent people could discuss the merits of these metrics.
>But the Florida bike path denizen wouldn't qualify.

Most people here understand that when Krygowski says discuss, he means
attempted denigration.

>Still, I always wonder what makes an avid cyclist argue so strongly that
>riding a bicycle is terribly dangerous?

I don't know of anyone arguing that. Arguing implies an attempt to
change another's opinions and you're the only one doing that here.

>I think it's fear. More specifically, if a man "proves" that riding
>anywhere but on a bike path (and while carrying a gun "for protection"!)
>is so, so dangerous, he feels a bit better about his own timidity.

Actually, I consider riding without a gun is considerably less
dangerous than riding without a spare tube, but I prefer to carry both
since it's so easy to do.

....and not riding on streets and roads is simply because I have no
need to do it any more than I do.

>Likewise, saying that bicycling requires no knowledge or skill beyond
>balancing makes him feel a bit better about his near-total ignorance.

Claiming that bicycling requires skills beyond be able to keep the
bicyle upright works only for those who foolishly claim that knowing
how best to mount a bicycle is a skill.

>It's a variation of a common theme: "Nobody needs to know math! I been a
>successful garbage man for years and I ain't never passed a math class!"

Strawman.....

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:06:27 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/16/2024 2:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/16/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>>
>>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>>
>>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>>
>>> Hugely dependent on area though, or at least some cities
>>> even london
>>> central and mid, yes there are leisure or sporty cyclists,
>>> Regent’s Park is
>>> one example folks go there to do laps early morning.
>>>
>>> But on the whole bikes are being used for utility, the
>>> ratio does reverse
>>> back to weekend warriors by outer london and into the Home
>>> Counties.
>>>
>>> This said some weekday warriors are despite appearing to
>>> be weekends
>>> warriors ie roadie in lycra will be one of the many who
>>> ride in from outer
>>> london particularly from SW/S London who will be for most
>>> folks
>>> indistinguishable from folks lapping Richmond Park for
>>> example.
>>
>> I'm not clear on whether you consider those doing laps as
>> engaging in "sport" or not. I wouldn't count that activity
>> as a sport, unless they were racing each other. ISTM it's
>> parallel to someone walking on a treadmill in their
>> basement. Yes, they are exerting themselves. They are
>> probably hoping to increase their endurance, strength, etc.
>> But if those are sufficient criteria for a "sport" label, an
>> elderly man sitting in his recliner and doing leg extensions
>> might qualify as well.
>>
>> I'm just back from a grocery run on the bike. I'm sweaty, in
>> part because I was trying to push a bit while on the
>> uphills, but I'd never call that a "sport" ride.
>>
>> Incidentally, on that ride I came quite close to getting hit
>> by a car! A woman came driving _fast_ out of her driveway
>> and apparently looked only to her right, not her left, where
>> I was. I yelled and we both hit the brakes. She stopped
>> about two feet from me. I stood there shaking my head and
>> glaring at her as she looked properly abashed.
>>
>> But if she had hit me, it shouldn't count as a bicycling
>> "sport" crash or injury.
>>
>
>'Sport' seems an arbitrary demarcation at some point.
>
>But cyclists on the short end of traffic errors is a serious
>and pervasive matter, sport or no.
>
>https://cwbchicago.com/2024/03/pedicab-driver-struck-stolen-hyundai-north-center-chicago-police-report.html

Just a few days ago when I stopped take a rest and reapply sunblock, a
guy rode past and hollered, "Hey sport, everything OK?"

...actually, I made that anecdote up like someone else on USENET does.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:55:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Likewise, saying that bicycling requires no knowledge or skill beyond
>balancing makes him feel a bit better about his near-total ignorance.

<GRIN> On the Catrike, I don't even need to know how to balance it,
but what other skills do you imaghine that I need?

Remember that doing something because it's simply common sence to do
so isn't really a skill except for those lacking common sense.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>
>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>
>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>
>> Hugely dependent on area though, or at least some cities even london
>> central and mid, yes there are leisure or sporty cyclists, Regent’s Park is
>> one example folks go there to do laps early morning.
>>
>> But on the whole bikes are being used for utility, the ratio does reverse
>> back to weekend warriors by outer london and into the Home Counties.
>>
>> This said some weekday warriors are despite appearing to be weekends
>> warriors ie roadie in lycra will be one of the many who ride in from outer
>> london particularly from SW/S London who will be for most folks
>> indistinguishable from folks lapping Richmond Park for example.
>
> I'm not clear on whether you consider those doing laps as engaging in
> "sport" or not. I wouldn't count that activity as a sport, unless they
> were racing each other. ISTM it's parallel to someone walking on a
> treadmill in their basement. Yes, they are exerting themselves. They are
> probably hoping to increase their endurance, strength, etc. But if those
> are sufficient criteria for a "sport" label, an elderly man sitting in
> his recliner and doing leg extensions might qualify as well.

I suspect they’d consider it a leisure pursuit, even if it was part of the
commute ie they don’t need to lap Richmond Park on the way in.

The line between what is leisure and what is sport is somewhat arbitrary,
indeed some of those will be performance minded individuals, and will have
goal to get a PR or to train for X event and so on.

My comment was more that in some areas that bikes main use will be utility.
While I absolutely agree that much like America the uk cycling is sport or
leisure focused though is becoming less so, see the growth of Cargo bikes
as one example.

And number of cycling organisations are much less sport focused now.
>
> I'm just back from a grocery run on the bike. I'm sweaty, in part
> because I was trying to push a bit while on the uphills, but I'd never
> call that a "sport" ride.
>
> Incidentally, on that ride I came quite close to getting hit by a car! A
> woman came driving _fast_ out of her driveway and apparently looked only
> to her right, not her left, where I was. I yelled and we both hit the
> brakes. She stopped about two feet from me. I stood there shaking my
> head and glaring at her as she looked properly abashed.
>
> But if she had hit me, it shouldn't count as a bicycling "sport" crash
> or injury.
>
I’d not classify that as that either personally.

Roger Merriman

On 3/16/2024 4:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> 'Sport' seems an arbitrary demarcation at some point.
>
> But cyclists on the short end of traffic errors is a serious and
> pervasive matter, sport or no.
>
> https://cwbchicago.com/2024/03/pedicab-driver-struck-stolen-hyundai-north-center-chicago-police-report.html

Yep. Pedestrians too!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/16/2024 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 3:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:01:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the concept of "per mile" is too complicated for some readers?
>>
>> <EYEROLL> I will repeat for those who are too simple minded to
>> understand it the first time...
>>
>> There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
>> bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
>> than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
>> Case in point:
>> There are more people hurt or killed by way of bicycle accidents than
>> there are for mountain climbers, so by Krygowski's standards,
>> bicycling is more dangerous than mountain climbing.
>>
>> Furthermore, the previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
>> ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
>> amount of time the personas engaged in the activities are vulnerable
>> to having an accident.
>
> Ah! The Florida bike path denizen seems to be dimly realizing that
> different metrics are possible! That is, one can measure relative
> "danger" per participant, per hour, per mile, per trip, etc. And perhaps
> he may someday realize the fundamental metric might be measurement of
> benefit vs. detriment - for example, does an activity confer more or
> less health, more or fewer years of life, etc.
>
> Rational intelligent people could discuss the merits of these metrics.
> But the Florida bike path denizen wouldn't qualify.
>
> Still, I always wonder what makes an avid cyclist argue so strongly that
> riding a bicycle is terribly dangerous?
>
> I think it's fear. More specifically, if a man "proves" that riding
> anywhere but on a bike path (and while carrying a gun "for protection"!)
> is so, so dangerous, he feels a bit better about his own timidity.
>
> Likewise, saying that bicycling requires no knowledge or skill beyond
> balancing makes him feel a bit better about his near-total ignorance.
>
> It's a variation of a common theme: "Nobody needs to know math! I been a
> successful garbage man for years and I ain't never passed a math class!"
>

much like kunich, the floriduh dumbass reads what he he _wants_ the data
to say, rather than what it actually does say.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:07:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>The line between what is leisure and what is sport is somewhat arbitrary,

Fishing is both leisure and a sport. So is throwing darts and
billards. Why not bicycling?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:35:09 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/16/2024 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/16/2024 3:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:01:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the concept of "per mile" is too complicated for some readers?
>>>
>>> <EYEROLL> I will repeat for those who are too simple minded to
>>> understand it the first time...
>>>
>>> There many, many more than twice the number of pedestrians than
>>> bicyclists, Dummy, and yet the number of pedestrian accidents is less
>>> than twice the number of bicycling accidents.
>>> Case in point:
>>> There are more people hurt or killed by way of bicycle accidents than
>>> there are for mountain climbers, so by Krygowski's standards,
>>> bicycling is more dangerous than mountain climbing.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the previous claim of comparing the mileage is also a
>>> ridiculously stupid way to evaluate the statistics given the total
>>> amount of time the personas engaged in the activities are vulnerable
>>> to having an accident.
>>
>> Ah! The Florida bike path denizen seems to be dimly realizing that
>> different metrics are possible! That is, one can measure relative
>> "danger" per participant, per hour, per mile, per trip, etc. And perhaps
>> he may someday realize the fundamental metric might be measurement of
>> benefit vs. detriment - for example, does an activity confer more or
>> less health, more or fewer years of life, etc.
>>
>> Rational intelligent people could discuss the merits of these metrics.
>> But the Florida bike path denizen wouldn't qualify.
>>
>> Still, I always wonder what makes an avid cyclist argue so strongly that
>> riding a bicycle is terribly dangerous?
>>
>> I think it's fear. More specifically, if a man "proves" that riding
>> anywhere but on a bike path (and while carrying a gun "for protection"!)
>> is so, so dangerous, he feels a bit better about his own timidity.
>>
>> Likewise, saying that bicycling requires no knowledge or skill beyond
>> balancing makes him feel a bit better about his near-total ignorance.
>>
>> It's a variation of a common theme: "Nobody needs to know math! I been a
>> successful garbage man for years and I ain't never passed a math class!"
>>
>
>much like kunich, the floriduh dumbass reads what he he _wants_ the data
>to say, rather than what it actually does say.

There are more people hurt or killed by way of bicycle accidents than
there are for mountain climbers, so by Junior Carrington and
Krygowski's standards, bicycling is more dangerous than mountain
climbing.

<GRIN> Like I said, some people (Junior Carrington and Krygowski) are
too simple minded to look into the data and evaluate what it says.

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:07:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The line between what is leisure and what is sport is somewhat arbitrary,
>
> Fishing is both leisure and a sport. So is throwing darts and
> billards. Why not bicycling?
>

Clearly it is both, not convinced most folks would see either darts or
fishing as a sport, clearly has competitive appeal for some though
certainly for fishing in my experience it’s mainly a sitting with your mate
or on your own.

And equally darts down the pub is much like pool or pub quizzes. Ie the act
of winning or losing isn’t particularly important.

Roger Merriman