#161
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
Tom Kunich writes:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:09:46 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: Tom Kunich writes: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. " In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car..." What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that. http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale. But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say that's still true in the USA today. -- You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car. That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed. Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing. Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the early days, but drivers got tired of that. This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news. Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye? Andrew pointed out that a Model T has "band brakes" but that is nothing more than another form of drum brake. I also remember having to replace the bands on emergency brakes when most cars had EB's on the rear side of the transmission. Band brakes are inside-out compared to drum brakes. They're more similar to each other than either is to a disk brake, but they're not the same. |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:58:17 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: John B. wrote: On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:52:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:09:44 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: Tom Kunich writes: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. " In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car..." What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that. http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale. But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say that's still true in the USA today. -- You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car. That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed. Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing. Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the early days, but drivers got tired of that. This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news. Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye? Given that my parents were married in 1930, no there really wasn't. https://www.etymonline.com/word/racist racist (n.) 1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism is in continual use from 1936 (from French racisme, 1935) -- cheers, John B. While the word racism may not have existed before 1932, I?m pretty sure it was being practiced ever since Homo sapiens met the Neanderthals. How can it be "racism" if there wasn't even a word to identify it, and if it was the universally practice? One might well say it was simply the normal attitude toward "them". As you say, everybody was doing it. After all, it appears to be the normal practice for humans, or at least it is practiced in every country that I've lived in. In Japan it is so extreme that even a natural born Japanese who spends too long outside the country is viewed with disdain as he may have become "less Japanese" in some manner. And lets face it, it even exists right here. Have you read the remarks about "rednecks" and "pickup drivers"? The term "redneck" is described by the Wiki as "a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely associated with rural whites of the Southern United States". -- cheers, John B. Uranium was discovered and named in 1789, but it existed for a few billion years before somebody came up with a word for it. Likewise, the word racism may have only come into use in the 1930s, but as you confirm in your last two paragraphs, it’s been a common human trait since the dawn of time. You are confusing a material object with an emotion. And yes, the fear and loathing of "them", whoever they may be, although likely justified in some instances, has always been a factor in human life. In fact it is a factor in the life of nearly all creatures. A bird's beautiful song, for instance, is almost always a male warning others to stay out of "his" territory. -- cheers, John B. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 09:53:37 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote: Ralph Barone writes: John B. wrote: On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:52:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:09:44 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: Tom Kunich writes: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. " In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car..." What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that. http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale. But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say that's still true in the USA today. -- You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car. That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed. Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing. Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the early days, but drivers got tired of that. This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news. Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye? Given that my parents were married in 1930, no there really wasn't. https://www.etymonline.com/word/racist racist (n.) 1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism is in continual use from 1936 (from French racisme, 1935) -- cheers, John B. While the word racism may not have existed before 1932, I?m pretty sure it was being practiced ever since Homo sapiens met the Neanderthals. How can it be "racism" if there wasn't even a word to identify it, and if it was the universally practice? One might well say it was simply the normal attitude toward "them". As you say, everybody was doing it. After all, it appears to be the normal practice for humans, or at least it is practiced in every country that I've lived in. In Japan it is so extreme that even a natural born Japanese who spends too long outside the country is viewed with disdain as he may have become "less Japanese" in some manner. And lets face it, it even exists right here. Have you read the remarks about "rednecks" and "pickup drivers"? The term "redneck" is described by the Wiki as "a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely associated with rural whites of the Southern United States". -- cheers, John B. Uranium was discovered and named in 1789, but it existed for a few billion years before somebody came up with a word for it. Likewise, the word racism may have only come into use in the 1930s, but as you confirm in your last two paragraphs, it’s been a common human trait since the dawn of time. Not liking people who talk differnt, look different, or smell different is, as Mr. Slocomb says, typical human behavior. The modern idea of "race" is, however, a more recent European invention. Actually "race" can be, a biological term, can it not? -- cheers, John B. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 13:16:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2019 12:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:09:46 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: Tom Kunich writes: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. " In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car..." What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that. http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale. But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say that's still true in the USA today. -- You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car. That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed. Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing. Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the early days, but drivers got tired of that. This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news. Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye? Andrew pointed out that a Model T has "band brakes" but that is nothing more than another form of drum brake. I also remember having to replace the bands on emergency brakes when most cars had EB's on the rear side of the transmission. As I mentioned recently, and Frank agreed, you don't want a Ford T. The A is a much better vehicle in every respect. Here's what a noted expert had to say about that: Tulsa, Okla 10th April 1934 Mr. Henry Ford Detroit Mich. Dear Sir: -- While I still have got breath in my lungs I will tell you what a dandy car you make. I have drove Fords exclusively when I could get away with one. For sustained speed and freedom from trouble the Ford has got ever other car skinned and even if my business hasen't been strickly legal it don't hurt anything to tell you what a fine car you got in the V8 -- Yours truly Clyde Champion Barrow Given what was available at the time a "T" was not a bad choice in 1908 but as you say the"A" was a much better auto, and from memory a V-8 was almost a super car. Wow! 100 horses under the hood. -- cheers, John B. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
John B. wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:58:17 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:52:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:09:44 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: Tom Kunich writes: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. " In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car..." What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that. http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale. But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say that's still true in the USA today. -- You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car. That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed. Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing. Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the early days, but drivers got tired of that. This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news. Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye? Given that my parents were married in 1930, no there really wasn't. https://www.etymonline.com/word/racist racist (n.) 1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism is in continual use from 1936 (from French racisme, 1935) -- cheers, John B. While the word racism may not have existed before 1932, I?m pretty sure it was being practiced ever since Homo sapiens met the Neanderthals. How can it be "racism" if there wasn't even a word to identify it, and if it was the universally practice? One might well say it was simply the normal attitude toward "them". As you say, everybody was doing it. After all, it appears to be the normal practice for humans, or at least it is practiced in every country that I've lived in. In Japan it is so extreme that even a natural born Japanese who spends too long outside the country is viewed with disdain as he may have become "less Japanese" in some manner. And lets face it, it even exists right here. Have you read the remarks about "rednecks" and "pickup drivers"? The term "redneck" is described by the Wiki as "a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely associated with rural whites of the Southern United States". -- cheers, John B. Uranium was discovered and named in 1789, but it existed for a few billion years before somebody came up with a word for it. Likewise, the word racism may have only come into use in the 1930s, but as you confirm in your last two paragraphs, it’s been a common human trait since the dawn of time. You are confusing a material object with an emotion. And yes, the fear and loathing of "them", whoever they may be, although likely justified in some instances, has always been a factor in human life. In fact it is a factor in the life of nearly all creatures. A bird's beautiful song, for instance, is almost always a male warning others to stay out of "his" territory. -- cheers, John B. No, you are confusing a human trait with a word that was invented to describe it, and I was trying to illuminate that error with an analogy. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
Probably depends in part on where you live- is it a "bike friendly"
place? I see a lot of folks in their 20s-30s riding around here, although more in their 40s-60s. I started riding in ~1964 when I was five... For about a decade we had "Nice Ride" rental bikes all over the Twin Cities. Saw a lot of people riding them. About 4 years ago another company- Lime, I think- came in with freestanding bikes, no docking stations like the "Nice Rides." Pick 'em up wherever you see one, drop it off wherever. Now I see just about zero of those, the "Nice Rides" are still around but hardly anyone uses them- now they use electric scooters. Lots and lots of electric scooters. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/8/2019 11:43 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Probably depends in part on where you live- is it a "bike friendly" place? I see a lot of folks in their 20s-30s riding around here, although more in their 40s-60s. I started riding in ~1964 when I was five... For about a decade we had "Nice Ride" rental bikes all over the Twin Cities. Saw a lot of people riding them. About 4 years ago another company- Lime, I think- came in with freestanding bikes, no docking stations like the "Nice Rides." Pick 'em up wherever you see one, drop it off wherever. Now I see just about zero of those, the "Nice Rides" are still around but hardly anyone uses them- now they use electric scooters. Lots and lots of electric scooters. Well, electric scooters have so many advantages compared to bikes! There is no seat, so you have to stand up. The wheels are much smaller, so they're more bothered by pavement irregularities. The steering is much quicker, so they're very hard to control unless you have two hands on the handlebars at all times. They have zero luggage capacity, so you can't carry anything unless you wear a backpack. Oh, and they're trendy. (Fashion is weird and powerful.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 13:45:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 6/8/2019 11:43 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: Probably depends in part on where you live- is it a "bike friendly" place? I see a lot of folks in their 20s-30s riding around here, although more in their 40s-60s. I started riding in ~1964 when I was five... For about a decade we had "Nice Ride" rental bikes all over the Twin Cities. Saw a lot of people riding them. About 4 years ago another company- Lime, I think- came in with freestanding bikes, no docking stations like the "Nice Rides." Pick 'em up wherever you see one, drop it off wherever. Now I see just about zero of those, the "Nice Rides" are still around but hardly anyone uses them- now they use electric scooters. Lots and lots of electric scooters. Well, electric scooters have so many advantages compared to bikes! There is no seat, so you have to stand up. The wheels are much smaller, so they're more bothered by pavement irregularities. The steering is much quicker, so they're very hard to control unless you have two hands on the handlebars at all times. They have zero luggage capacity, so you can't carry anything unless you wear a backpack. Oh, and they're trendy. (Fashion is weird and powerful.) There was a period that they were popular in Singapore, before e-bikes become popular. In fact they were so popular, zipping about on sidewalks (and running into people) that the government made some special laws to control them :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 7:17:05 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
you don't want a Ford T. The A is a much better vehicle in every respect. Here's what a noted expert had to say about that: Tulsa, Okla 10th April 1934 Mr. Henry Ford Detroit Mich. Dear Sir: -- While I still have got breath in my lungs I will tell you what a dandy car you make. I have drove Fords exclusively when I could get away with one. For sustained speed and freedom from trouble the Ford has got ever other car skinned and even if my business hasen't been strickly legal it don't hurt anything to tell you what a fine car you got in the V8 -- Yours truly Clyde Champion Barrow -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 "The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day, 1898." Ralph Stein, Vintage and Classic Cars, p34 of the Bantam edition of 1977 Andre Jute Car-free since 1990 |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10:23 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:53:13 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:00:25 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:32:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: I have two close friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of them) while walking. The other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter went to the ER but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any "walking injury" database. -- - Frank Krygowski Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere. Most non-life threatening injuries are not reported unless they appear I an ER. The medical industry in the USA receives billions upon billions or maybe trillions of dollars every year from the private insurance companies, federal government, and state government. All of these entities paying money want to know WHY they are paying. I am positive every single person who goes into a medical facility that receives money appears in some statistics that the medical facility provides to the money payors. Or do you think the medical clinic or hospital or doctor office just calls up the state/federal government or private insurance company and says "We treated one of your patients last week. You send us $1000. NOW!!!" I don't think it works that way. Do you? I bet a dozen forms are filled out for every patient. And all these people are compiled somewhere and sent a dozen different places. Some individual statistics have been maintained by insurance companies for their own uses. But it hasn't been until quite recently that the government decided that you do not need your Constitutional right to privacy.. The Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy. The closest it comes is the 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But, it allows a magistrate to issue a warrant to allow such searches and seizures. Tom also needs to read HIPAA: https://searchhealthit.techtarget.com/definition/HIPAA HIPAA covered entities are subject to large penalties for disclosing patient information without consent. Access to medical records is tighter now than ever. If Big Brother is stealing your medical information, you can sue Big Brother. -- Jay Beattie. Exactly what do you think has been occurring at most large companies that keep your personal information? Where are these cases of the Social Security system which was hacked and 15 million people's personal information stolen? You cannot sue Big Brother unless you can prove that they willfully sold your data. It is perfectly fine for them to take "normal" precautions and exactly the same data being stolen. Hacking private data bases is not the Government violating your claimed Constitutional right to privacy. Keep in mind that the claimed right to privacy was created in part by the reviled decision in Roe v. Wade. Say thank you to those heathen, baby-hating Justices! Also, the GBLA protects data held by financial institutions. It's the banking version of HIPAA. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...ach-bliley-act Trump is gutting the FTC, so act fast! The GBLA could use some work, but there are also state laws protecting your personally identifiable financial information. https://epic.org/privacy/glba/ Thank god for the heathen liberals in California -- looking out for your right to privacy. -- Jay Beattie. Although privacy is implied in many parts of the bill of rights none is so specific as the 5th Amendment which would be impossible to enforce without an actual right to privacy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
accident statistics: car vs motorcycle vs bicycle per mile travelled? | [email protected] | General | 15 | June 11th 08 03:27 AM |
Bridge Statistics | _[_2_] | UK | 7 | September 10th 07 02:47 PM |
Bridge Statistics | _[_2_] | UK | 4 | September 4th 07 11:01 PM |
Where are those statistics? | bob | UK | 15 | August 30th 07 12:31 PM |
Bicycle Injury Statistics | [email protected] | General | 8 | August 1st 06 07:33 AM |