https://www.yes-but.net/cycling_is_dangerous.html
Is this guy nuts or what?

The only thing that surprises me here is that there are still people that haven't seen this site yet.

Yes, it's a kooky site. Other than that I wouldn't waste any more brain cells over it. No-one else that matters does, and it's certainly not going to become government policy.

Have a laugh at how foolish some people can be and move on. That's my advice for whatever it's worth.

I just skimmed thru some of that nonsense. I'm not gonna waste time readin' what this idiot is talkin' about! Lordy!!!!!!!! What a freakin' moron...:sleep:

I can't believe its still there. I really thought he would have got himself a life by now. I actually take pity on Arek, the guy seems to have some massive problems.

Chris

this guy say's that the human body is much less efficient than a cumbustion engine. He goes on to say that in a few more years that the new engines will be so efficient that cyclist will have to start paying carbon taxes. I'm far from an expert but thought that the carbon that humans breath out The trees use to make oxygen. What the hell is he talking about here?

how'd you come across this guy?

I do believe that, to a point, he is correct in saying that the human body is not as efficient as a combustion engine. If you look at joules of energy put in vs. joules output, an engine is at best 35% effiicient, whereas the human body is a good bit less. However, what he didn't figure in was the amount of energy which goes to powering cognitive ability, sight, hearing, and all the other things which were running, anyways. Come to think of it, a combustion engine needs a human to operate it (unless you are using it as a pump, generator, or some other industrial usage), so that lowers the efficiency of the operating system considerably!
Of course, this nut never seems to realise that the waste products of a combustion engine are much worse than those of any animal.

What the guy doesn't understand is the concept of inputs with relation to efficiency. The frank truth is that cars are wasting a very valuable resource (in petroleum) at a much faster rate than it can ever hope to be replaced. What resource are cyclists wasting again?

Chris

Internal combustion engines are by all means "old school".There is no way fossil fuels burned in an internal combustion engine will produce less polution than a human being.
This guy reminds me of political radio talk show hosts.

I don`t care what he said, i love bicycling !!! :thumbup:

The guys areguments are so inconsistant that they hardly bear comment, but here goes anyway.
He claims that
1 cyclists are innefficient and use up to much energy to go places.
2. That cyclists dont get enough excise, so should spend time and money in a gym burning energy to go nowhere.

I could try figuring that one out, but I have to go into town to do some shopping. Town is 2 miles away. Do I
1. Hop on my bike and get there in 10 mins.
2. Drive my car the long way around, through the Saturday congestion, and pay £2:00 for parking.
3. Wait 20mins for a bus, Pay £2.50 for a ticket.

Im outta here....

Badly written for sure. But, it isn't totally wrong. We are just as obsessed by next years line of bikes are we are with next years line of cars. As long as we buy up the latest technologies like this they will continue to produce them. It costs environmental degradation to produce technologically advanced cycling equipment. It is just a fact.

I'm not saying that it's bad. I just think there is a lot of polution involved in making bicycles these days.

I understand you're playing devil's advocate here, and your point about buying new products has merit.

But let's get some perspective on this claim that producing bicycles damages the environment.

When you compare the pollution produced to manufacture a bicycle to the pollution produced to make a car, there is no comparison. Next, when you consider that your bike will need less costly maintenance than your car, and the fact (which Jean Beetham Smith mentioned elsewhere) that one oil change for your car will produce more toxic, used oil than your bike will need in its lifetime, the bike looks even better. Add to that the fact that you may buy as many as 4 new cars during the life of a good
bicycle, and the bike wins by an infinite margin.

Throw in the environmental destruction caused by paving/repaving/maintaining highways and parking areas, exhaust gasses, oil drilling, freon contamination, etc. and I begin to wonder if we have really advanced ourselves at all, inventing the motorcar.

:confused:

I am not against progress. But as someone else said, do we need a two-ton metal and glass cage with 100 horses to pull ourselves around in? I say, let's use cars and trucks only when necessary. Use bikes and walking whenever possible.

:thumbup:

I didn't mean to give the impression I agreed with the guy. I'd like to see how he arived at all those numbers he threw around. There is no way car production and bicycle production could have close to the same effect. And, the efficiency can't be compared either. It is just silly to even try.

But, Bike production is obviously a huge and modern industry. With huge modern industry comes industrial waste. The more bikes you replace early and the more of next years components you have to have, the more impact on the environment we cause.

Chris L argues that food production is also a huge and modern industry, as is production of basic clothing and production of many other things. Chris L also feels that it is impossible and stupid to ever aim for zero pollution, as this will just never happen. It is about reducing pollution wherever possible. Chris L cannot see how using cars rather than bikes will achieve this.

Chris L generally poses two questions when he sees these sort of statistics and articles, those being "who says" and "so what". So far, the only place Chris L has seen these statistics is on this guy's website, and he feels the question must be asked:

"who the f*ck is Arek anyway?"

:confused:

Chris

"who the f*ck is Arek anyway?"

Thanks Chris L

Way to cut through my bs. Good call.

Bvelo,

Sorry!

I think this Arek guy really gets under our skin! :irritated

I am looking forward to more of your posts!

Chris L is wondering if Arek has any purpose in life beyond the above.

This is a prime example of how statistics can be manipulated to support the agenda of anyone with enough time on their hands to do so.

Is anyone familiar with the old baseball player's addage about statistics?

If you were to spend one minute each debunking each clueless kook out there on the Internet, you'll die of old age without exhausting all of the kooks. Meanwhile, the obituary would read, "This person was devoted to kooks."

On the other hand, when a business or a government is adapting policies based on kookiness, then is the time to stand up and counter the kookiness.

And remember: 96.32357% of all statistics are made up.

(...getting under our skin...)

In newsgroups, "rec.bicycles.misc". Just subscribed-all kinds of wierd s**t, "christian cycling", "gay cycling", "carryung a gun while cycling", "bicycle militia", "hidden history of 2nd Amendment", etc. Check it out.

It's a hoot ain't it?

What's your moniker on the group? I've been there a while now posting under my own name, as has Denver Fox. Any others?

They're a pretty ruthless bunch, so take care out there

Allister

desperately trying to retain my ruth.

I used to visit rec.bicycles.tech , but everybody there seemed to be selling high-end Campagnolo parts. I got tired of the spam, and left. The iBob list is more like usenet used to be (man, do I sound like an old f@rt!).