|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#931
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so? To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill. Two cyclists died. His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them. He was acquitted. https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next? A ten dollar fine for murder? I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I didn't see him." :-/ -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#932
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Hernando's Plea
Hernando's Plea
Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim? Your posts would look much nicer slim! Searching, searching is so grim! Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim, Please Trim! It's so ease-y don't you know highlight, delete, away they go! and leave your page as white as snow! Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim, Please Trim! Being buried in garbage is so grim, My odds of finding your message slim while I drown in quotes from her and him, Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim, Please Trim! When fin'ly found, it makes no sense Unless I guess to which sen-tence You refer six paragraphs hence -- Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim, Please Trim! -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#933
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so? To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill. Two cyclists died. His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them. He was acquitted. https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next? A ten dollar fine for murder? I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I didn't see him." :-/ I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its place. "Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention." -- Cheers, John B. |
#934
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so? To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill. Two cyclists died. His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them. He was acquitted. https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next? A ten dollar fine for murder? I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I didn't see him." :-/ I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its place. "Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention." I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God. They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#935
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so? To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill. Two cyclists died. His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them. He was acquitted. https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next? A ten dollar fine for murder? I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I didn't see him." :-/ I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its place. "Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention." I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God. They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible. Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost control, shot across the road and hit the pole. After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's girlfriend an killed her. The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that there was no case to answer. The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime. Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at worst. Is this progress? By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00 -- Cheers, John B. |
#936
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On 2/4/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so? To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill. Two cyclists died. His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them. He was acquitted. https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next? A ten dollar fine for murder? I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I didn't see him." :-/ I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its place. "Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention." I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God. They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible. Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost control, shot across the road and hit the pole. After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's girlfriend an killed her. The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that there was no case to answer. The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime. Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at worst. Is this progress? By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00 I think I'd rather he started work at, oh, 11:15 and quit for the day at 11:16. And if he'd set the same schedule for his staff. It might minimize the damage. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#937
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:03:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/4/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so? To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill. Two cyclists died. His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them. He was acquitted. https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next? A ten dollar fine for murder? I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I didn't see him." :-/ I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its place. "Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention." I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God. They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible. Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost control, shot across the road and hit the pole. After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's girlfriend an killed her. The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that there was no case to answer. The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime. Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at worst. Is this progress? By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00 I think I'd rather he started work at, oh, 11:15 and quit for the day at 11:16. And if he'd set the same schedule for his staff. It might minimize the damage. The news said that he spends a lot of time reading the newspaper, watching TV and "tweeting". Apparently "The White House" is incensed that this information was revealed :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#938
|
|||
|
|||
AG: E oil
When I paused to get the crock pot out of the fridge and turn it on, I had been dressing for forty-nine minutes, I hadn't combed my hair, and still had a pair of sweat pants, oversocks, and three shirts to go. Not to mention the hats and gloves. I'd better wear my mittens for the first two legs of the ride. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Only the first leg, which was a great relief. I have split mittens -- nowadays they call them "lobster-claw gloves" -- that make operating the bike perfectly easy, but feeling around in my pocket for a handkerchief is a pain. I shed my windbreaker at the end of the second leg, and as I began the return trip, I reflected that my outer pair of sweatpants weren't strictly necessary (I had three pairs of tights and another pair of sweatpants on under them), but that was the precise time predicted for the high temperature, they were not too warm, and shucking out of a pair of pants beside the road isn't easy -- particularly since I would have had to pin and tie the other pair of sweat pants and that isn't honestly possible to do without sitting down -- the knee has to be bent when the garter is tied. That was much more clothing than I wore in New York, where it was a warm winter day if I came back with icicles hanging from my fenders, but all I put on my face today was Vitamin-E oil. In New York, I coated it with petroleum jelly. And once I saw a perfect snowflake stuck into the grease on my nose. Alas, I will never see that close again. The surgeon who takes off my cancers is very big on coating a healing wound with Vitamin-E oil every day for months. Since he leaves beautiful scars -- I walk up to people and say "Look at my new scar" and they say "what scar?" even while it's still red -- I tend to take him seriously. There was quite a lot left in the bottle when I was done oiling my latest cancer -- an incision a quarter inch long doesn't take much oil -- so I started putting it on all my old scars, such as the two from flying over the handlebars when I was just learning how to brake. (Oops, I forgot about the one on my back, where the pin holding the clavicle was supposed to stick out, but the clavicle turned out to be too thin for a pin, so I've still got a wire in it.) One morning as I was putting oil on my nose before a ride, I reflected that E-oil dries into a sort of varnish before it vanishes, and put it over my whole face. Seems to be adequate, but there wasn't any wind today, and it really wasn't all that cold; the water in my bottles never threatened to freeze. I believe the high was 27F. Though the ride was only ten miles or so, I came back quite tired. I suppose most of it was doing without my nap, but traipsing around in Meijer for two and a half hours didn't rest me any. Hmm . . . at night, sciatica feels exactly like sore muscles, only more so. I wonder whether my Gabapentin will get confused and take out that pain too? Typed under the influence of bedtime. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#939
|
|||
|
|||
AG: E-oil again
I'm afraid to read what I wrote just before bedtime last Saturday, but I don't think that I mentioned that one day I realized that the square patches on the backs of my hands are also scars, and started rubbing E-oil on them too. Unlike the other scars, I do believe that I have seen improvement. But that could just be because it's *oil*. The skin of an elderly lady is always short on that. Calendula cream is pretty good too. A few days ago, my pot-holder slipped and it was several seconds before I could put the skillet down. I put calendula cream on it, and the burn was gone by bedtime. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#940
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Not nohow, not no way
Last time I checked, our highest gust of wind was 44 mph, about six minutes before I started walking home from church. Wasn't snowing much, but it hit my face pretty hard. I didn't get chilled (I do know how to dress!) but DH could detect a difference between my upwind ear and the other one when I asked him to feel them. Weather Underground says that the wind will drop off in a fairly straight line from Real Soon Now until midnight tomorrow, but I'm not going anywhere by bike or by car. I might venture as far as the compost heap on foot. On the way to church, I saw a house under repair or renovation with a strip of trim swinging and one edge of the housewrap fluttering. Also a wire was down, but a person who lives on the lane said it had been dangling for some time. Didn't seem to be connected to anything, but I was careful not to step near it. No limbs down that I could see, but the UPSs have been chirping and the lights went out for a few seconds. The NIPSCO map is speckled, thickest around Chicago. Mostly green and multiple-report, but there are a couple of oranges. Green is 1-49 customers with no power and orange is 500 - 4999. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger | Mrcheerful | UK | 10 | February 13th 14 10:43 PM |
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 13 09:15 PM |
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement | John Benn | UK | 25 | August 19th 12 09:33 AM |
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 5 | June 13th 10 07:37 PM |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton | [email protected] | UK | 167 | February 1st 09 10:44 AM |