Originally Posted by
Maelochs
No sir, I say again ... you claimed "a viable alternative" and I explained why a trike, for me, is not a "viable alternative." It is too risky. I ride with no pain and get hit by a car? Not a net gain.
Then you go off an a pro-bent rant. Well, WTF?? I didn't come out against bents. In this thread I actually suggest them. Why are you using me as a platform from which to preach?
Fact is ... for those who like facts, I know such folks are few and far between ... you said a bent was a "viable alternative" and I said for me it was not and explained why.
Instead of accepting that, you see some need to tell me I am wrong.
Look ... I am sorry you are one of those zealots who has to constantly tell people "Bents are Better!" just because they are better for you. Please, try to gain some perspective.
You say Well, Stop being overzealous and listen to what other riders say. Maybe bent riders would get more respect if they gave more.
I wrote: "Anybody who is willing to endure various pain, some severe or debilitating, while cycling but who refuse to consider a viable alternative bike that could end or alleviate that pain based upon their prejudices is simply mentally challenged."
The subject is clearly pain caused by riding, not safety. The "viable alternative" according to what I wrote is a bike that could end or alleviate that pain.
You are free to make up all you like about what I wrote, but there it is. Some many here seem to enjoy getting into these little pissing contests but I'm not one of them. So I'll just put you on my "ignore" list and I'm done, with you because clearly you have no desire to "get alone".