Cycling without stabilizers?

cardshark202 · 27-10-2006 5:29pm #1

This has been worrying me a lot lately. I see a lot of reckless cyclists not using stabilizers. 99% of all bicycle crashes occur on bikes without stabilizers(There is a 1% margin for error). I find it absolutely appalling that cyclists don't think to use stabilizers. They keep you balanced and make sure you don't fall over. Have you ever seen a bicycle crash involving a bike with stabilizers? I think not. Just something for all you guys to ponder over next time you decide to take you life into your own hands.

kinaldo · 27-10-2006 8:08pm

sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit

pokypoky · 28-10-2006 5:50am

I think there are some cyclists who do need stabilisers. I see so many wobbly old people cycling about the place causing traffic chaos that maybe you have a point there. Not Kiddy ones or maybe even some kind of tricycle for old people because theres certainly many out there that need it.

Trojan · 28-10-2006 7:46pm

kinaldo wrote:

sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit

Now hang on a minute... it really annoys me how people are always ragging on sarcasm. The lowest form of wit is the pun which cause people to groan on hearing almost all of the time. Sarcasm can actually be very funny. It's one of the more complex forms of humour and requires a well tuned frontal lobe to be understood.

In any case, this point is completely irrelevant. The original post was satire, not sarcasm.

The Bitter Cup wrote:

Sarcasm's chief weapon is irony - as is satire's. Sarcasm isn't always witty - and neither is satire. However, sarcasm's intent is to ridicule - whereas satire isn't always intended to be mean-spirited.

Well said that man. Now, where can I get these stabilizers?