Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
What was said was
IF they are over the back their then their head MIGHT be slammed like a watermelon. He didnt say 'would', he said 'might'. You then went to town and demanded proof based on his saying something might happen.
This is really just a goofy argument since the higher someone is from the ground, the further they have to fall which clearly means the more likely they are to be injured. And the less protected someone is from the ground, the more likely they will be injured when falling.
Again, I only responded to the fall comment and not other safety concerns between the two forms of transport since the fall comment was what you took issue with.
And yes, I have not seen a report that states either mode of transport is viewed as dangerous.
...I have seen a report that states one is safer than the other when the bike falls though.
Why you seem to need to do this inaccurate but nitpicky nonsense about my posts approximately every month or so, I don't know. Why you always put words in my mouth I didn't say I don't know. You ALWAYS get what I say wrong, and this is no exception. I literally criticized his post for getting all cringy about his uninformed speculation of what "might" happen and he stated in that post that he based it on nothing other than his imagination. How is quoting him saying "might" a refutation of that? You're just being goofy. The first thing I said to him was "
Sorry, but I don't think uninformed speculation on what might happen is really useful here."
I acknowledged the recommendation of one over the other and addressed it, all before you stepped in to correct me or whatever it is you think you're doing. Show me where I "demanded" anything of him.
TL/DR: Nice scenario you got there--too bad none of it happened the way you said it did.