Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On Aug 23, 7:30 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

snip

And BTW, if the penalty for non-documentation is simply "I...
do not believe you," that's fine by me.


Penalty schmenalty. The penalty is your "got data" credibilty.

On 8/23/2011 8:49 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[...]
: In most states, a bicycle is [...]

If the bicycle is turned into a liquid, gas, or plasma, is it still a
bicycle?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Aug 23, 8:03 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:53 pm, Frank wrote:
On Aug 22, 3:59 pm, Michael wrote:

In ,
Frank wrote:

SMS wrote:

A bicycle is not the same as a vehicle, despite what John Forester would
like people to believe.

Bull****. In most states, a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle.

Will you provide evidence for that? Otherwise, I do not believe you.

Michael, I've spent a pretty fair amount of time looking for evidence
for you, without finding it. As I said, my recollection is that I saw
it in a table years ago in a print magazine. I checked online and in
my hardcopy files without finding the data. I suppose I could
individually check every state's traffic codes online, but I'm not
going to do that. It takes too much time.

Maybe my memory is faulty. If so, I'm sorry. Maybe my memory is
correct and I just can't find the evidence. If so, perhaps you should
be sorry. But in any case, IIRC the states that don't define a bike
as a vehicle say that a bike rider has the rights and duties of
vehicle operators. (And I admit, I have no citation for that
either.) In the context of the discussion, the difference is pretty
minor.

The distinction (one that Forester approves, despite claims of Scharf
and others) allows for things like drafting, racing your buddy to the
next telephone pole, time trials on public roads, etc. that would be
forbidden to motorists. I think the same objective can be met in
"vehicle" states, by simply writing laws that carefully specify
"vehicle" or "motor vehicle," as appropriate. But I have no citation
for that, either.

Well, whatever; but please remember this the next time you start to
take someone to task ("got data?") for assumptions based on their
impression.

I can try to remember not to say "You're wrong, so give your data source
or retract - but I don't have any data either." Obviously, that's
internally inconsistent. And that's not been my habit, as you probably
know.


What I know is that if someone says, "I doubt your assertion. Can you
provide a basis for it?", Do you just admit that the basis was your
own impression (usually blown out of proportion and distorted by your
biases and then meticulously but kind of wildy spun into hyperbole for
effect anyway)? No, instead you lash out with, "There's this thing
called 'Google'", and "If you can't be bothered to learn anything...
", etc. - which is mind-bogglingly ridiculous that you expect someone
else to know where to look for whatever led *you* to believe something
that they question a basis for in fact anyway.

In the cases where I have data that contradicts someone's assertion,
I'll certainly post it. That's something I generally try to do.


Yeah, yeah, yeah - except that your data is almost always inapplicable
to that which you endeavor to dispute. Then you puff up and bluster
and get all supercilious and demeaning (I guess this is the
authoritarian complex from a life of "teaching"), but a lot of the
time, the King has no clothes, and resprts to intellectual bullying.

I've told you again and again there is much to admire about you, but
in default mode, you tend to very exasperating (and sorry to be the
one to tell you this, but not so bright as you seem to regard
yourself).

On Aug 23, 10:50 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 8:03 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

snip


In the cases where I have data that contradicts someone's assertion,
I'll certainly post it. That's something I generally try to do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - except that your data is almost always inapplicable
to that which you endeavor to dispute.

There is no data model even in the ballpark of describing (or
predicting) what happens when I Ride Bike. you know it. It's far too
complex, and perceptions, impressions, and *feelings* are far, far
more relevant. It's true. Get over it.

snip

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
Frank wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:59 pm, Michael wrote:
In ,
Frank wrote:

SMS wrote:

A bicycle is not the same as a vehicle, despite what John Forester would
like people to believe.

Bull****. In most states, a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle.

Will you provide evidence for that? Otherwise, I do not believe you.

Michael, I've spent a pretty fair amount of time looking for evidence
for you, without finding it. As I said, my recollection is that I saw
it in a table years ago in a print magazine. I checked online and in
my hardcopy files without finding the data. I suppose I could
individually check every state's traffic codes online, but I'm not
going to do that. It takes too much time.

Maybe my memory is faulty. If so, I'm sorry. Maybe my memory is
correct and I just can't find the evidence. If so, perhaps you should
be sorry. But in any case, IIRC the states that don't define a bike
as a vehicle say that a bike rider has the rights and duties of
vehicle operators. (And I admit, I have no citation for that
either.) In the context of the discussion, the difference is pretty
minor.

The distinction (one that Forester approves, despite claims of Scharf
and others) allows for things like drafting, racing your buddy to the
next telephone pole, time trials on public roads, etc. that would be
forbidden to motorists. I think the same objective can be met in
"vehicle" states, by simply writing laws that carefully specify
"vehicle" or "motor vehicle," as appropriate. But I have no citation
for that, either.

Do you retract the claim

: In most states, a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle.

I'll retract it if and when it's shown to be wrong. So far, that's not
happened.

The point is that you are on record making a claim
that you do not back up with evidence and do not retract.
Not scientific.

From what I remember, a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle in most
states. So are you saying I'm wrong, or are you still just saying nobody
should make _any_ statement here without proper citations?

As I said several times: support your claims when asked.
I asked---you demurred.

If you're claiming the latter, you're on extremely shaky ground, having
made undocumented claims of your own in this very thread.

If you're claiming I'm simply wrong,

I said what I mean several times.
Your premise here is entirely groundless.

why not just point to the evidence

You made the claim. You provide the evidence.

that says so, instead of nagging?

Because it is your job to support your claims when asked.
Yes, I am nagging; and am good at it.

I'd think some unbiased source that
lists which states do and which states don't define "bike = vehicle"
would be sufficient to settle this tempest in a teapot, but I couldn't
find one.

Alternately, a direct quote of the pertinent laws of each of the 50
states would suffice.

Yes, it would. You have some research to do.
Or else you can retract your claim.

Admittedly, I'm not interested in digging those
out.

Then retract your claim.

If you've done that, please post them and we'll all learn
something, anyway.

You did not learn anything from what I wrote,
nor from all the answers I gave to your questions.
Why start now?

And BTW, if the penalty for non-documentation is simply "I (Michael
Press) do not believe you," that's fine by me.

That is the least of your worries, as you correctly point out.
What you miss is the matters that you would be well advised to
worry about.

--
Michael Press

On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:

Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.

What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.

Are you asking for a citation? :-)

Nope. A review.


Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "

Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:

Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.

What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.


Are you asking for a citation? :-)

Nope. A review.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.

Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "

Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?

On Aug 24, 8:41 am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 8/24/2011 10:37 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:38 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:29 pm, Frank
wrote:
Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule so when I
was told how sad it was that we hapless Quebecers had to deal with this
when the majority of North America has guaranteed rights to the road, it
was the usual poorly researched innuendo an hyperbole.
What was said, exactly? A review might make things more clear.
Are you asking for a citation? :-)
Nope. A review.

Okay, then let me tell you, OTTOMH, what was *not* said: "You're
wrong... "

Hey Dan, you don't need to feed the troll on my account. I could not
care less what
this guy thinks.


It wasn't that so much. (Search rbt in GG for "Casartelli Dan O" and
see repeated requests to "please cite or retract", if you're
interested.)

If we're going to be constantly off topic here on r.b.T, why not make it
talking about great bike rides instead of stupid **** like pedestrian
helmets and such?

I am very guilty of swamping this ng w/ ~OT. I can't help it (but
I'll try). I came here to learn as much as possible about working on
bikes, and to that end make it a point to read every post (an approach
that worked great for the same purpose at comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware).
That's one reason that remarks like "You can stop reading any time"
miss the mark for me. Anyway, I'm sorry for my S/N ratio, wish I had
more and better tech to contribute (maybe someday), am very glad that
the group is as robust as it is and the quality maintained by a number
of gurus. It's a 21st century "place" to hang out, you guys are my
"friends", and discussion happens.

T°m Sherm@n wrote:
On 8/23/2011 12:52 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
Well I see that 41 states have some form of "far right" rule [...]

I only count 29:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors.


Ought to be 49 (California being hopeless)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971