I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings
heaped on ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of
people "know" that one cannot be safe riding a bike unless
they wear a very weird styrofoam hat; or garish, hi-viz
clothing; or run bright lights front and back, even in full
daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly
be safe.
Yet research comparisons between various activities almost
always show ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road
downhilling) to be quite safe. I came across another
relevant research paper today: "Active Living and Injury
Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports
Medicine.
http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/
Injury_2004_01.pdf
They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per
1000 hours of activity in dozens of activities. Here are
results for some common activities - with lower numbers
being better:
Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000
hours.
Walking; 0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
Gardening: 1.01
Home Repair: 0.54
Basketball: 9.1
Soccer: 7.8
Tennis: 4.7
Badminton: 4.6
Running: 3.6
Competitive cycling: 2.0
Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you
should be more afraid of gardening. (And this is not the
only study that found gardening to be riskier than cycling!)
Also, think twice before going dancing, let alone the scary
sport of badminton!
BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or
school it is
safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a
mistake. Since whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed
distance away, what matters is the risk per km or per mile,
not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk was found to be 2.2
times that of walking; but I think almost all bicyclists
ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile,
cycling is safer than walking, a fact that pops up
consistently in relative risk studies.
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races.
He should take comfort in the fact that they found racing to
be safer than badminton!
I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings heaped on
ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of people "know" that one
cannot be safe riding a bike unless they wear a very weird styrofoam
hat; or garish, hi-viz clothing; or run bright lights front and back,
even in full daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly be safe.
Yet research comparisons between various activities almost always show >ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road downhilling) to be quite safe.
I came across another relevant research paper today: "Active Living and >Injury Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. >http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01.pdf
They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per 1000 hours
of activity in dozens of activities. Here are results for some common >activities - with lower numbers being better:
Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000 hours.
Walking; 0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
Gardening: 1.01
Home Repair: 0.54
Basketball: 9.1
Soccer: 7.8
Tennis: 4.7
Badminton: 4.6
Running: 3.6
Competitive cycling: 2.0
Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you should be more >afraid of gardening. (And this is not the only study that found
gardening to be riskier than cycling!) Also, think twice before going >dancing, let alone the scary sport of badminton!
BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or school it is
safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a mistake. Since >whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed distance away, what matters
is the risk per km or per mile, not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk
was found to be 2.2 times that of walking; but I think almost all
bicyclists ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile, cycling is
safer than walking, a fact that pops up consistently in relative risk >studies.
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are sustained in badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes in the rain at 50 mph?
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton! >>
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are sustained in
badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes in the rain at 50 mph? >>
Very few racers will be regularly riding down mountain passes, and to be >honest while the speed clearly makes any crash potentially serious, in my >experience they aren�t particularly dangerous, relatively good sight lines, >so on.
Roger Merriman
I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings heaped on
ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of people "know" that one
cannot be safe riding a bike unless they wear a very weird styrofoam
hat; or garish, hi-viz clothing; or run bright lights front and back,
even in full daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly be safe.
Yet research comparisons between various activities almost always show ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road downhilling) to be quite safe.
I came across another relevant research paper today: "Active Living and Injury Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01.pdf
They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per 1000 hours
of activity in dozens of activities. Here are results for some common activities - with lower numbers being better:
Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000 hours.
Walking; 0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
Gardening: 1.01
Home Repair: 0.54
Basketball: 9.1
Soccer: 7.8
Tennis: 4.7
Badminton: 4.6
Running: 3.6
Competitive cycling: 2.0
Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you should be more afraid of gardening. (And this is not the only study that found
gardening to be riskier than cycling!) Also, think twice before going dancing, let alone the scary sport of badminton!
BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or school it is
safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a mistake. Since whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed distance away, what matters
is the risk per km or per mile, not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk
was found to be 2.2 times that of walking; but I think almost all
bicyclists ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile, cycling is
safer than walking, a fact that pops up consistently in relative risk studies.
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
On 5/31/2025 4:58 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings heaped onYour missing the point that if something feels risky, or isn’t wildly
ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of people "know" that one
cannot be safe riding a bike unless they wear a very weird styrofoam
hat; or garish, hi-viz clothing; or run bright lights front and back,
even in full daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly be safe.
Yet research comparisons between various activities almost always show
ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road downhilling) to be quite safe. >>> I came across another relevant research paper today: "Active Living and
Injury Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. >>> http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01.pdf
comfortable to do, your unlikely to persuade folks to do so particularly if >> it generally for leisure.
One way something can "feel" risky is if the person has been subject to
years of propaganda claiming it's risky. People tend to believe those
sorts of warnings, true or not. My point is that the warnings typically
given regarding bicycling are grossly exaggerated, and perhaps purposely dishonest.
If you read the paper, you'll see they surveyed about 3500 people
They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per 1000 hoursProbably differs on type of injury’s some folks MTB for example do jumps >> and so on, and so do ride with armour such as back protection/full face
of activity in dozens of activities. Here are results for some common
activities - with lower numbers being better:
Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000 hours.
Walking; 0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
Gardening: 1.01
Home Repair: 0.54
Basketball: 9.1
Soccer: 7.8
Tennis: 4.7
Badminton: 4.6
Running: 3.6
Competitive cycling: 2.0
Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you should be more
afraid of gardening. (And this is not the only study that found
gardening to be riskier than cycling!) Also, think twice before going
dancing, let alone the scary sport of badminton!
BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or school it is
safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a mistake. Since
whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed distance away, what matters
is the risk per km or per mile, not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk
was found to be 2.2 times that of walking; but I think almost all
bicyclists ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile, cycling is
safer than walking, a fact that pops up consistently in relative risk
studies.
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton! >>>
helmets, my new hydration pack is one of few that doesn’t have a back
protection built in from that brand.
repeatedly over a year. That should result in data that represents the
actual practices of participants during the time they participate in
each activity. So as with Tom's "descending mountains in the rain at 58
mph" I suspect the time doing jumps in full face helmets and body armor
is a small sliver of the total time spent riding bikes. Also note they
had a separate category for what I call "ordinary" cycling - they called
it cycling as a "commuting activity" or more accurately, cycling as transportation, to just get somewhere.
On 5/31/2025 3:56 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are sustained in badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes in the rain at 50 mph?
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton! >>
Well, Tom, the data I cited was injuries per 1000 hours activity for all
the hours spent doing that activity. The bicycling data was for all
hours riding bikes. What percentage of _your_ bicycling time is spent >descending mountain passes in the rain at 58 mph? For most riders, the
answer is zero - meaning your oh-so-scary fantasy is just a fantasy. IOW >you're one of those avid cyclists who revel in "Danger! Danger!"
warnings about your favorite sport. That's just weird.
And what kind of injuries in badminton? (Or "badmitten" [sic])
I think badminton is vaguely similar to pickleball, which the survey
doesn't mention. Many of my club mates have taken up pickleball. As club >safety chairman, I've noted we could use a separate pickleball safety >chairman, because it's producing FAR more injuries than bicycling,
despite club members accumulating much more time on bikes.
Pickleball injuries I've heard of are severe back injuries (one guy is
almost unable to walk weeks after that injury), double broken wrists,
twisted knees, sprained ankles, mild head injuries, various abrasions
and bruises and more. Most of those seem to be a result of falls, but
some are just due to the sudden motions of lunging for the ball. I
suppose it would be similar for badminton, but I'm not involved in
either sport.
BTW, Tom, if you disagree with the data, you should dig up better data. >Nobody here has respect for your WAGs.
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton! >>
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are sustained in
badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes in the rain at 50 mph? >>
Very few racers will be regularly riding down mountain passes, and to be honest while the speed clearly makes any crash potentially serious, in my experience they aren’t particularly dangerous, relatively good sight lines, so on.
Roger Merriman
On 5/31/2025 4:58 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings heaped onYour missing the point that if something feels risky, or isn�t wildly
ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of people "know" that one
cannot be safe riding a bike unless they wear a very weird styrofoam
hat; or garish, hi-viz clothing; or run bright lights front and back,
even in full daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly be safe.
Yet research comparisons between various activities almost always show
ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road downhilling) to be quite safe. >>> I came across another relevant research paper today: "Active Living and
Injury Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. >>> http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01.pdf
comfortable to do, your unlikely to persuade folks to do so particularly if >> it generally for leisure.
One way something can "feel" risky is if the person has been subject to
years of propaganda claiming it's risky. People tend to believe those
sorts of warnings, true or not. My point is that the warnings typically
given regarding bicycling are grossly exaggerated, and perhaps purposely >dishonest.
If you read the paper, you'll see they surveyed about 3500 people
They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per 1000 hoursProbably differs on type of injury�s some folks MTB for example do jumps
of activity in dozens of activities. Here are results for some common
activities - with lower numbers being better:
Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000 hours.
Walking; 0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
Gardening: 1.01
Home Repair: 0.54
Basketball: 9.1
Soccer: 7.8
Tennis: 4.7
Badminton: 4.6
Running: 3.6
Competitive cycling: 2.0
Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you should be more
afraid of gardening. (And this is not the only study that found
gardening to be riskier than cycling!) Also, think twice before going
dancing, let alone the scary sport of badminton!
BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or school it is
safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a mistake. Since
whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed distance away, what matters
is the risk per km or per mile, not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk
was found to be 2.2 times that of walking; but I think almost all
bicyclists ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile, cycling is
safer than walking, a fact that pops up consistently in relative risk
studies.
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton! >>>
and so on, and so do ride with armour such as back protection/full face
helmets, my new hydration pack is one of few that doesn�t have a back
protection built in from that brand.
repeatedly over a year. That should result in data that represents the
actual practices of participants during the time they participate in
each activity. So as with Tom's "descending mountains in the rain at 58
mph" I suspect the time doing jumps in full face helmets and body armor
is a small sliver of the total time spent riding bikes. Also note they
had a separate category for what I call "ordinary" cycling - they called
it cycling as a "commuting activity" or more accurately, cycling as >transportation, to just get somewhere.
Part of my motivation is to reduce the likelihood that some naive reader
will actually believe you. On 1 Jun 2025 10:01:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/2025 4:58 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Admittedly we don�t have quite the same level of sensational journalism
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings heaped onYour missing the point that if something feels risky, or isn�t wildly
ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of people "know" that one
cannot be safe riding a bike unless they wear a very weird styrofoam
hat; or garish, hi-viz clothing; or run bright lights front and back,
even in full daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly be safe.
Yet research comparisons between various activities almost always show >>>> ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road downhilling) to be quite safe. >>>> I came across another relevant research paper today: "Active Living and >>>> Injury Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. >>>> http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01.pdf
comfortable to do, your unlikely to persuade folks to do so particularly if >>> it generally for leisure.
One way something can "feel" risky is if the person has been subject to
years of propaganda claiming it's risky. People tend to believe those
sorts of warnings, true or not. My point is that the warnings typically
given regarding bicycling are grossly exaggerated, and perhaps purposely
dishonest.
that you do, but I think that�s a bit of red herring, I can see it putting >off people trying a bike, but unlikely to alter their perception of which >roads feel safe/pleasant or not.
As ever roads designed for highspeed motorists are unlikely to be >particularly pleasant places for cycling or any other modes such as walking >and so on.
Roger MerrimanIf you read the paper, you'll see they surveyed about 3500 people
They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per 1000 hours >>>> of activity in dozens of activities. Here are results for some commonProbably differs on type of injury�s some folks MTB for example do jumps >>> and so on, and so do ride with armour such as back protection/full face
activities - with lower numbers being better:
Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000 hours.
Walking; 0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
Gardening: 1.01
Home Repair: 0.54
Basketball: 9.1
Soccer: 7.8
Tennis: 4.7
Badminton: 4.6
Running: 3.6
Competitive cycling: 2.0
Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you should be more >>>> afraid of gardening. (And this is not the only study that found
gardening to be riskier than cycling!) Also, think twice before going
dancing, let alone the scary sport of badminton!
BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or school it is
safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a mistake. Since >>>> whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed distance away, what matters >>>> is the risk per km or per mile, not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk >>>> was found to be 2.2 times that of walking; but I think almost all
bicyclists ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile, cycling is
safer than walking, a fact that pops up consistently in relative risk
studies.
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should >>>> take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
helmets, my new hydration pack is one of few that doesn�t have a back
protection built in from that brand.
repeatedly over a year. That should result in data that represents the
actual practices of participants during the time they participate in
each activity. So as with Tom's "descending mountains in the rain at 58
mph" I suspect the time doing jumps in full face helmets and body armor
is a small sliver of the total time spent riding bikes. Also note they
had a separate category for what I call "ordinary" cycling - they called
it cycling as a "commuting activity" or more accurately, cycling as
transportation, to just get somewhere.
On 5/31/2025 11:40 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat May 31 20:26:51 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2025 3:56 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should >>>>> take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are sustained in badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes in the rain at 50 mph?
Well, Tom, the data I cited was injuries per 1000 hours activity for all >>> the hours spent doing that activity. The bicycling data was for all
hours riding bikes. What percentage of _your_ bicycling time is spent
descending mountain passes in the rain at 58 mph? For most riders, the
answer is zero - meaning your oh-so-scary fantasy is just a fantasy. IOW >>> you're one of those avid cyclists who revel in "Danger! Danger!"
warnings about your favorite sport. That's just weird.
And what kind of injuries in badminton? (Or "badmitten" [sic])
I think badminton is vaguely similar to pickleball, which the survey
doesn't mention. Many of my club mates have taken up pickleball. As club >>> safety chairman, I've noted we could use a separate pickleball safety
chairman, because it's producing FAR more injuries than bicycling,
despite club members accumulating much more time on bikes.
Pickleball injuries I've heard of are severe back injuries (one guy is
almost unable to walk weeks after that injury), double broken wrists,
twisted knees, sprained ankles, mild head injuries, various abrasions
and bruises and more. Most of those seem to be a result of falls, but
some are just due to the sudden motions of lunging for the ball. I
suppose it would be similar for badminton, but I'm not involved in
either sport.
BTW, Tom, if you disagree with the data, you should dig up better data.
Nobody here has respect for your WAGs.
I understand that you being a teacher and all makes you believe that you have access to all of the world's data. But exactly what makes you think that?
Not all the world's data. But I think I have better than average skill
at locating data regarding my areas of interest. I've certainly done
better than you! Maybe if you ever returned to those libraries you
claimed to have "read out" you could improve!
Let's note that I frequently post links or citations for my data
sources. You almost never do. Really, your so-called "memory" is not a
valid source.
What is and injury and how does it become reported as such?
injury /?n?j?-r?/ noun
Damage or harm done to or suffered by a person or thing.
"escaped from the accident without injury; a scandal that did
considerable injury to the campaign."
A particular form of hurt, damage, or loss.
"a leg injury."...
The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
See? That wasn't hard! ;-)
One of the necessities of being a teacher is the ability to totally turn
off that part of your mind that has the least skepticism.
Bullshit. I'm terrifically skeptical of anything you ever post! As a
matter of fact, if you post something, I assume it's wrong.
On 6/1/2025 12:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:31:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski:-) And when I post something, I assume our feeble tricyclist will soon >snark about it. I'm right roughly nine times out of ten.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/2025 11:40 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat May 31 20:26:51 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2025 3:56 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should >>>>>>> take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are sustained in badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes in the rain at 50 mph?
Well, Tom, the data I cited was injuries per 1000 hours activity for all >>>>> the hours spent doing that activity. The bicycling data was for all
hours riding bikes. What percentage of _your_ bicycling time is spent >>>>> descending mountain passes in the rain at 58 mph? For most riders, the >>>>> answer is zero - meaning your oh-so-scary fantasy is just a fantasy. IOW >>>>> you're one of those avid cyclists who revel in "Danger! Danger!"
warnings about your favorite sport. That's just weird.
And what kind of injuries in badminton? (Or "badmitten" [sic])
I think badminton is vaguely similar to pickleball, which the survey >>>>> doesn't mention. Many of my club mates have taken up pickleball. As club >>>>> safety chairman, I've noted we could use a separate pickleball safety >>>>> chairman, because it's producing FAR more injuries than bicycling,
despite club members accumulating much more time on bikes.
Pickleball injuries I've heard of are severe back injuries (one guy is >>>>> almost unable to walk weeks after that injury), double broken wrists, >>>>> twisted knees, sprained ankles, mild head injuries, various abrasions >>>>> and bruises and more. Most of those seem to be a result of falls, but >>>>> some are just due to the sudden motions of lunging for the ball. I
suppose it would be similar for badminton, but I'm not involved in
either sport.
BTW, Tom, if you disagree with the data, you should dig up better data. >>>>> Nobody here has respect for your WAGs.
I understand that you being a teacher and all makes you believe that you have access to all of the world's data. But exactly what makes you think that?
Not all the world's data. But I think I have better than average skill
at locating data regarding my areas of interest. I've certainly done
better than you! Maybe if you ever returned to those libraries you
claimed to have "read out" you could improve!
Let's note that I frequently post links or citations for my data
sources. You almost never do. Really, your so-called "memory" is not a
valid source.
What is and injury and how does it become reported as such?
injury /?n?j?-r?/ noun
Damage or harm done to or suffered by a person or thing.
"escaped from the accident without injury; a scandal that did
considerable injury to the campaign."
A particular form of hurt, damage, or loss.
"a leg injury."...
The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
See? That wasn't hard! ;-)
One of the necessities of being a teacher is the ability to totally turn >>> off that part of your mind that has the least skepticism.
Bullshit. I'm terrifically skeptical of anything you ever post! As a
matter of fact, if you post something, I assume it's wrong.
As a matter of fact, if krygowski posts something, I assume it's
either a lie, or useless.
It gives his boring life some meaning! ;-)
On 6/1/2025 12:06 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:31:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/2025 11:40 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat May 31 20:26:51 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2025 3:56 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He
should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than >>>>>>> badminton!
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are
sustained in badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes
in the rain at 50 mph?
Well, Tom, the data I cited was injuries per 1000 hours activity
for all
the hours spent doing that activity. The bicycling data was for all
hours riding bikes. What percentage of _your_ bicycling time is spent >>>>> descending mountain passes in the rain at 58 mph? For most riders, the >>>>> answer is zero - meaning your oh-so-scary fantasy is just a
fantasy. IOW
you're one of those avid cyclists who revel in "Danger! Danger!"
warnings about your favorite sport. That's just weird.
And what kind of injuries in badminton? (Or "badmitten" [sic])
I think badminton is vaguely similar to pickleball, which the survey >>>>> doesn't mention. Many of my club mates have taken up pickleball. As
club
safety chairman, I've noted we could use a separate pickleball safety >>>>> chairman, because it's producing FAR more injuries than bicycling,
despite club members accumulating much more time on bikes.
Pickleball injuries I've heard of are severe back injuries (one guy is >>>>> almost unable to walk weeks after that injury), double broken wrists, >>>>> twisted knees, sprained ankles, mild head injuries, various abrasions >>>>> and bruises and more. Most of those seem to be a result of falls, but >>>>> some are just due to the sudden motions of lunging for the ball. I
suppose it would be similar for badminton, but I'm not involved in
either sport.
BTW, Tom, if you disagree with the data, you should dig up better
data.
Nobody here has respect for your WAGs.
I understand that you being a teacher and all makes you believe that
you have access to all of the world's data. But exactly what makes
you think that?
Not all the world's data. But I think I have better than average skill
at locating data regarding my areas of interest. I've certainly done
better than you! Maybe if you ever returned to those libraries you
claimed to have "read out" you could improve!
Let's note that I frequently post links or citations for my data
sources. You almost never do. Really, your so-called "memory" is not a
valid source.
What is and injury and how does it become reported as such?
injury /?n?j?-r?/ noun
Damage or harm done to or suffered by a person or thing.
"escaped from the accident without injury; a scandal that did
considerable injury to the campaign."
A particular form of hurt, damage, or loss.
"a leg injury."...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
See? That wasn't hard! ;-)
One of the necessities of being a teacher is the ability to totally turn >>> off that part of your mind that has the least skepticism.
Bullshit. I'm terrifically skeptical of anything you ever post! As a
matter of fact, if you post something, I assume it's wrong.
As a matter of fact, if krygowski posts something, I assume it's
either a lie, or useless.
On 6/1/2025 12:06 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:31:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/2025 11:40 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat May 31 20:26:51 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:
On 5/31/2025 3:56 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri May 30 20:43:02 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:
Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He >>>>>>>> should
take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than >>>>>>>> badminton!
And you don't find those numbers peculiar? What injuries are
sustained in badmitten as opposed to riding down mountain passes >>>>>>> in the rain at 50 mph?
Well, Tom, the data I cited was injuries per 1000 hours activity
for all
the hours spent doing that activity. The bicycling data was for all >>>>>> hours riding bikes. What percentage of _your_ bicycling time is spent >>>>>> descending mountain passes in the rain at 58 mph? For most riders, the >>>>>> answer is zero - meaning your oh-so-scary fantasy is just a
fantasy. IOW
you're one of those avid cyclists who revel in "Danger! Danger!"
warnings about your favorite sport. That's just weird.
And what kind of injuries in badminton? (Or "badmitten" [sic])
I think badminton is vaguely similar to pickleball, which the survey >>>>>> doesn't mention. Many of my club mates have taken up pickleball. As >>>>>> club
safety chairman, I've noted we could use a separate pickleball safety >>>>>> chairman, because it's producing FAR more injuries than bicycling, >>>>>> despite club members accumulating much more time on bikes.
Pickleball injuries I've heard of are severe back injuries (one guy is >>>>>> almost unable to walk weeks after that injury), double broken wrists, >>>>>> twisted knees, sprained ankles, mild head injuries, various abrasions >>>>>> and bruises and more. Most of those seem to be a result of falls, but >>>>>> some are just due to the sudden motions of lunging for the ball. I >>>>>> suppose it would be similar for badminton, but I'm not involved in >>>>>> either sport.
BTW, Tom, if you disagree with the data, you should dig up better
data.
Nobody here has respect for your WAGs.
I understand that you being a teacher and all makes you believe that >>>>> you have access to all of the world's data. But exactly what makes
you think that?
Not all the world's data. But I think I have better than average skill >>>> at locating data regarding my areas of interest. I've certainly done
better than you! Maybe if you ever returned to those libraries you
claimed to have "read out" you could improve!
Let's note that I frequently post links or citations for my data
sources. You almost never do. Really, your so-called "memory" is not a >>>> valid source.
What is and injury and how does it become reported as such?
injury /?n?j?-r?/ noun
���� Damage or harm done to or suffered by a person or thing.
���� "escaped from the accident without injury; a scandal that did
considerable injury to the campaign."
���� A particular form of hurt, damage, or loss.
���� "a leg injury."...
The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition >>>>
See? That wasn't hard!�� ;-)
One of the necessities of being a teacher is the ability to totally turn >>>> off that part of your mind that has the least skepticism.
Bullshit. I'm terrifically skeptical of anything you ever post! As a
matter of fact, if you post something, I assume it's wrong.
As a matter of fact, if krygowski posts something, I assume it's
either a lie, or useless.
That's becasue you're a willfully ignorant dumbass who's unwilling to
look up anything that isn't spoon fed to you by your magatard echo chamber.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:09:22 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,358 |