#131
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:51:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 6/5/2019 12:16 PM, sms wrote: On 6/5/2019 5:31 AM, Duane wrote: snip I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users die!"... or,* equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop". -- cheers, John B. Jeez I've been telling you this for some time.* Comparing numbers with no participation makes cycling more dangerous than a lot of things. Skydiving, Hockey, defusing land mines ... g Well your harping on this has apparently worked, at least in this case. Now get Frank to understand this and you'll get a medal. Or at least a proclamation. I've given relevant data and discussed injuries and fatalities per million miles traveled, per hour exposure, per participant, etc. Scharf ("sms") and Duane have refused to acknowledge that data. I wonder why. One possibility - at least for Scharf - is that he doesn't want to acknowledge any data that shows cycling to be relatively safe. The other possibility, I suppose, is failure to understand the meaning of the word "per." "Per"?" That what a cat does? Isn't it? -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
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 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
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. -- |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:46:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
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 Wow! That photo dates back a bit, doesn't it? -- cheers, John B. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 9:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:46:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote: 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 Wow! That photo dates back a bit, doesn't it? seems like yesterday... -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 9:05 PM, 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. The color which really matters is green. People like Madam C J Walker had plenty of it: https://blackthen.com/wp-content/upl.../cj-walker.jpg Conversely, while reading the obituary of the younger (102) of the two founding brothers of Friendly Ice Cream last Saturday (the elder, at 104, still going strong) I recall that selling 5c home made ice cream cones in the depths of the Depression enabled him to buy his first car, a used Ford T for $2.50. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 22:05:02 -0400, 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. From what I read the first use of "jay" in reference to traffic was "jay driver", the first published use seems to have been in the Junction City Union (Junction City, Kansas) on June 28th, 1905 begins "Nearly every day someone calls our attention to articles that have been appearing in The Kansas City Star concerning "The Jay Driver"" and originally applied to those who did not keep to the right hand side of the road. The term "jay" was said to mean "a greenhorn, or rube". https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...led-jaywalking or perhaps ""fourth-rate, worthless" (as in a jay town), 1888, American English, earlier as a noun, "hick, rube, dupe" (1884); apparently from some disparaging sense of jay (n.). Perhaps via a decaying or ironical use of jay in the old slang sense "flashy dresser." Century Dictionary (1890s) notes it as actors' slang for "an amateur or poor actor" and as an adjective a general term of contempt for audiences." https://www.etymonline.com/word/jay?...crossreference Or maybe from the term "jayhawker" meaning "freebooter, guerrilla," American English, 1858, originally "irregular or marauder during the 'Bleeding Kansas' troubles" (especially one who came from the North). It seems to have come into widespread use only during the Civil War. There was said to have been a bird of this name, but evidence for it is wanting. Perhaps a disparaging use from jay (n.). Hence back-formed verb jayhawk "harass" (1866). https://www.etymonline.com/word/jayh...crossreference Or, as the Wiki has it The word jaywalk is not historically neutral.[5] It is a compound word derived from the word jay, an inexperienced person and a curse word that originated in the early 1900s, and walk.[6] No historical evidence supports an alternative folk etymology by which the word is traced to the letter "J" (characterizing the route a jaywalker might follow)... While jaywalking is associated with pedestrians today, the earliest references to "jay" behavior in the street were about horse-drawn carriages and automobiles in 1905 Kansas: "jay drivers" who did not drive on the right side of the street. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking -- cheers, John B. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
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. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
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. Data is reported to insurers (like ICD codes), certain information is reported to state and federal regulators, and every provider must keep a patient chart. The question I have is where do the statistics come from? In many cases, they are culled from hospital discharge reports or mandatory reports made for discharge reports. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/final_report.pdf Those seem to be the popular data source in most states. Researchers also seem to go after ER reports as well or the records of a particular facility. Getting access is probably a nightmare with HIPAA. -- Jay Beattie. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 5:46:20 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
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 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Nice '58 Chevy though I hope he had that door fixed. |
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 |