|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/7/2021 7:13 PM, sms wrote:
MHLs for children are widespread but ironically these tend to promote more cycling ... That's absolute bull****, totally illogical and as usual, totally free of evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong. An example of proof would be a step increase in bicycling immediately after the imposition of a mandatory helmet law. For reference: As noted among the many links I posted in the past day or two, Australian states experienced step _decreases_ in cycling after imposition of mandatory helmet laws. This is why so many who hope to increase cycling are against such laws - for example the European Cycling Federation, British Cycling, Cycling UK (formerly the CTC), Copenhagenize and many more. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/7/2021 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing this out offends you. It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation. Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe? And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous... You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least "not safe enough." And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while wearing a helmet? and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe. The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your bicycling hackles. Yes, I rode in old cars and didn't wear seatbelts, etc., and I was in a unique position starting at an early age to see the benefits of modern -- gasp -- safety improvements. The metal dashes and non-collapsing steering columns, and absence of passenger restraints in old vehicles tended to mangle the occupant and allowed them to be ejected from the car. Anyone with a brain would chose the safer option. Why not? Why is that a bad thing? You've avoided addressing the issue. Expectations regarding safety have been inflating for many, many years. What was once acceptably safe is now often demonized as dangerous. You seem to be OK with that continuing forever. I'm not. I believe that at a certain point there are downsides. But as to "Anyone with a brain would choose the safer option" in cars: For a wedding in our family, I was able to borrow from a friend (and fellow cyclist) a classy looking 1950s or 1960s Buick from his collection. It was used by the couple to drive from the church to the reception, then toward the honeymoon. It was a tremendous hit with the couple and with the attendees. It might amaze you that nobody said "BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE A PADDED DASH OR SEATBELTS OR A COLLAPSIBLE STEERING COLUMN! CHOOSE A SAFER OPTION!" Another example: One of my best friends owns a 1930 Model A. We've driven to music gigs in it, and he's taken it on trips of a thousand miles or more. I assure you, he has plenty of brain power. Would you mock those people to their faces for their choices, telling them they must not have a brain? Really? The problem I have is that there certainly ARE people who would mock them, and mock others who make "safety" choices of which they disapprove. Here, we've had Scharf saying that the tech geniuses riding bikes in Silicon Valley all use DRLs, and implying that "people with brains" all do likewise. Bicyclists who choose to ride with normal hats, or none at all, absolutely get mocked ("no brain to protect") and shouted at ("Where's your helmet???"). And that's for devices with questionable, if any, safety benefit. "Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only _one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you. It's certainly neurotic for you. You're like Cassandra on a bike. I don't particularly care what personal choices people make so long as they do not make riding more dangerous for me. Sorry, the evidence you've given here is that you DO care. If you didn't, your postings on the topic would have been far, far briefer. You wouldn't have made the "anyone with a brain" remark. BTW, there are books about everything, and your arguments simply beg the question of what is safe enough. 1952 safe? 1992 safe? Should we go back to smoking and getting our feet X-rayed in shoe stores? Where do you draw the line... That is precisely the question. My general answer would be that we should at least acknowledge that Safety Inflation has negative consequences. One negative is the "dangerization" of bicycling. Given its benefit-to-risk ratio, for which I can give many citations, dissuading people produces public health detriments - and claiming absolute necessity of helmets, DRLs, bike lanes, day-glo clothing etc. does dissuade people. Why would you need those for a safe activity? Another negative is the restriction of childhood experiences. It's a proven fact that kids have far less freedom than in decades past because of inflated parental fears, and it's widely thought that this bodes ill for society. Look up the Free Range Children movement for details. Or ask me for citations. Another negative is the fleecing of customers. "Of _course_ you'll want this extra-cost safety feature! Just think if, God forbid, something bad happened..." or worse, "It shall be illegal to do what has always been done, and mandatory to buy what was never before needed." (Our local news told people they should NEVER buy a used child seat for a car. Why? Because it may have been damaged in a crash. What the heck??) But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans ("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a lawyer... We played a gig recently that included the Irish tune "Lonesome Road to Dingle." I mentioned to the audience that my wife and I actually bicycled that road during our bike tour of Ireland. The audible comment from a woman in the crowd: "Weren't you afraid?" Are there some people who are too scared? Yes, but they're not the ones with DRLs and fluorescent jerseys because I see those guys and gals out riding all the time. Nobody gives me a hard time because I don't have a DRL or (usually) a fluorescent jersey. I have to admit that my Gabba jersey is safety green. The ones who are too scared are NOT riding, because they don't have a DRL or fluorescent jersey, they're told they really need them, and they don't want to do an activity that's so DANGEROUS that such stuff is necessary. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/7/2021 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing this out offends you. It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation. Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe? And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous... You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least "not safe enough." And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while wearing a helmet? and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe. The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your bicycling hackles. Yes, I rode in old cars and didn't wear seatbelts, etc., and I was in a unique position starting at an early age to see the benefits of modern -- gasp -- safety improvements. The metal dashes and non-collapsing steering columns, and absence of passenger restraints in old vehicles tended to mangle the occupant and allowed them to be ejected from the car. Anyone with a brain would chose the safer option. Why not? Why is that a bad thing? You've avoided addressing the issue. Expectations regarding safety have been inflating for many, many years. What was once acceptably safe is now often demonized as dangerous. You seem to be OK with that continuing forever. I'm not. I believe that at a certain point there are downsides. But as to "Anyone with a brain would choose the safer option" in cars: For a wedding in our family, I was able to borrow from a friend (and fellow cyclist) a classy looking 1950s or 1960s Buick from his collection. It was used by the couple to drive from the church to the reception, then toward the honeymoon. It was a tremendous hit with the couple and with the attendees. It might amaze you that nobody said "BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE A PADDED DASH OR SEATBELTS OR A COLLAPSIBLE STEERING COLUMN! CHOOSE A SAFER OPTION!" Another example: One of my best friends owns a 1930 Model A. We've driven to music gigs in it, and he's taken it on trips of a thousand miles or more. I assure you, he has plenty of brain power. Would you mock those people to their faces for their choices, telling them they must not have a brain? Really? Yes, really. Wait until you encounter a person who has been in an accident in one of those cars, which, BTW, had more conventional glass. They were more dangerous for me working ambulance. Accident victims looked like they were put through a blender, assuming the car didn't burst into flames and bake them -- burning flesh is one of the worst imaginable smells. I think those cars are fine for parades, but I wouldn't want one for daily driving -- for a lot of reasons. People can collect and drive whatever they want, but I think it is a poor choice for actual, every day driving in traffic -- but my perspective may be unique. The problem I have is that there certainly ARE people who would mock them, and mock others who make "safety" choices of which they disapprove. Here, we've had Scharf saying that the tech geniuses riding bikes in Silicon Valley all use DRLs, and implying that "people with brains" all do likewise. Bicyclists who choose to ride with normal hats, or none at all, absolutely get mocked ("no brain to protect") and shouted at ("Where's your helmet???"). And that's for devices with questionable, if any, safety benefit. "Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only _one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you. It's certainly neurotic for you. You're like Cassandra on a bike. I don't particularly care what personal choices people make so long as they do not make riding more dangerous for me. Sorry, the evidence you've given here is that you DO care. If you didn't, your postings on the topic would have been far, far briefer. You wouldn't have made the "anyone with a brain" remark. BTW, there are books about everything, and your arguments simply beg the question of what is safe enough. 1952 safe? 1992 safe? Should we go back to smoking and getting our feet X-rayed in shoe stores? Where do you draw the line... That is precisely the question. My general answer would be that we should at least acknowledge that Safety Inflation has negative consequences. One negative is the "dangerization" of bicycling. Given its benefit-to-risk ratio, for which I can give many citations, dissuading people produces public health detriments - and claiming absolute necessity of helmets, DRLs, bike lanes, day-glo clothing etc. does dissuade people. Why would you need those for a safe activity? Another negative is the restriction of childhood experiences. It's a proven fact that kids have far less freedom than in decades past because of inflated parental fears, and it's widely thought that this bodes ill for society. Look up the Free Range Children movement for details. Or ask me for citations. Another negative is the fleecing of customers. "Of _course_ you'll want this extra-cost safety feature! Just think if, God forbid, something bad happened..." or worse, "It shall be illegal to do what has always been done, and mandatory to buy what was never before needed." (Our local news told people they should NEVER buy a used child seat for a car. Why? Because it may have been damaged in a crash. What the heck??) But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans ("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a lawyer... What is that supposed to mean? If you have an issue, then go sponsor legislation. I don't know what it would be: "The Frank Krygowski the world is too safe law." We can call it "Frank's law." I have no idea what it would do other than complain about safety inflation. We played a gig recently that included the Irish tune "Lonesome Road to Dingle." I mentioned to the audience that my wife and I actually bicycled that road during our bike tour of Ireland. The audible comment from a woman in the crowd: "Weren't you afraid?" Are there some people who are too scared? Yes, but they're not the ones with DRLs and fluorescent jerseys because I see those guys and gals out riding all the time. Nobody gives me a hard time because I don't have a DRL or (usually) a fluorescent jersey. I have to admit that my Gabba jersey is safety green. The ones who are too scared are NOT riding, because they don't have a DRL or fluorescent jersey, they're told they really need them, and they don't want to do an activity that's so DANGEROUS that such stuff is necessary. I've met those people in the elevator -- eating doughnuts and drinking sodas at 8:00 AM. I'm absolutely sure they would ride if not unreasonably terrified of riding. Meanwhile, in the real world, people are out riding their bikes. https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-...e-boom-is-real Specialized is out of stock. Safety inflation is killing cycling. -- Jay Beattie. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 09:43:38 +0700, John B.
wrote: I'm not any sort of Civil Engineer but I worked for a while with a guy that built roads for a living and according to him the underlying foundation is the most important part of a road, particularly allowing for water drainage. He also said that these design criteria have been know since the days when the Romans were building roads :-) I read somewhere that the underlying foundation *was* the road, and the concrete or asphalt on top was just a raincoat. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 10:27:58 p.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans ("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a lawyer... Snipped - Frank Krygowski Most of those warnings and many others are placed on objects or in instructions in order to avoid litigation if the person using them manages to injure themselves. That's because so many people have managed to win ridiculous lawsuits because of some slight injury that resulted from a stupid use of the item. If people weren't so quick to launch a lawsuit, or were willing to accept that the injury was THEIR fault, there wouldn't be such a need for those ridiculous warnings. Cheers |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/7/2021 8:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:
snip I've met those people in the elevator -- eating doughnuts and drinking sodas at 8:00 AM. I'm absolutely sure they would ride if not unreasonably terrified of riding. Meanwhile, in the real world, people are out riding their bikes. https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-...e-boom-is-real Specialized is out of stock. Safety inflation is killing cycling. Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California. Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack a fluorescent jersey. The vast majority of transportational cyclists are not wearing spandex or lycra. As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or online. Some people are intent on having everyone use the same stuff that they use, whether it's cars, bicycles, smart phones, computers, etc.. it's a personal affront to them when others don't follow what they do. A better approach is to explain to people, if they ask, why you chose what you did, including the pros and cons. If they then make what you consider to be a poor choice just keep quiet, you tried. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ βIt's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.β β Mark Crispin, inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/7/2021 11:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/7/2021 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing this out offends you. It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation. Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe? And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous... You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least "not safe enough." And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while wearing a helmet? and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe. The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your bicycling hackles. Yes, I rode in old cars and didn't wear seatbelts, etc., and I was in a unique position starting at an early age to see the benefits of modern -- gasp -- safety improvements. The metal dashes and non-collapsing steering columns, and absence of passenger restraints in old vehicles tended to mangle the occupant and allowed them to be ejected from the car. Anyone with a brain would chose the safer option. Why not? Why is that a bad thing? You've avoided addressing the issue. Expectations regarding safety have been inflating for many, many years. What was once acceptably safe is now often demonized as dangerous. You seem to be OK with that continuing forever. I'm not. I believe that at a certain point there are downsides. But as to "Anyone with a brain would choose the safer option" in cars: For a wedding in our family, I was able to borrow from a friend (and fellow cyclist) a classy looking 1950s or 1960s Buick from his collection. It was used by the couple to drive from the church to the reception, then toward the honeymoon. It was a tremendous hit with the couple and with the attendees. It might amaze you that nobody said "BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE A PADDED DASH OR SEATBELTS OR A COLLAPSIBLE STEERING COLUMN! CHOOSE A SAFER OPTION!" Another example: One of my best friends owns a 1930 Model A. We've driven to music gigs in it, and he's taken it on trips of a thousand miles or more. I assure you, he has plenty of brain power. Would you mock those people to their faces for their choices, telling them they must not have a brain? Really? Yes, really. Wait until you encounter a person who has been in an accident in one of those cars, which, BTW, had more conventional glass. They were more dangerous for me working ambulance. Accident victims looked like they were put through a blender, assuming the car didn't burst into flames and bake them -- burning flesh is one of the worst imaginable smells. I think those cars are fine for parades, but I wouldn't want one for daily driving -- for a lot of reasons. People can collect and drive whatever they want, but I think it is a poor choice for actual, every day driving in traffic -- but my perspective may be unique. The problem I have is that there certainly ARE people who would mock them, and mock others who make "safety" choices of which they disapprove. Here, we've had Scharf saying that the tech geniuses riding bikes in Silicon Valley all use DRLs, and implying that "people with brains" all do likewise. Bicyclists who choose to ride with normal hats, or none at all, absolutely get mocked ("no brain to protect") and shouted at ("Where's your helmet???"). And that's for devices with questionable, if any, safety benefit. "Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only _one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you. It's certainly neurotic for you. You're like Cassandra on a bike. I don't particularly care what personal choices people make so long as they do not make riding more dangerous for me. Sorry, the evidence you've given here is that you DO care. If you didn't, your postings on the topic would have been far, far briefer. You wouldn't have made the "anyone with a brain" remark. BTW, there are books about everything, and your arguments simply beg the question of what is safe enough. 1952 safe? 1992 safe? Should we go back to smoking and getting our feet X-rayed in shoe stores? Where do you draw the line... That is precisely the question. My general answer would be that we should at least acknowledge that Safety Inflation has negative consequences. One negative is the "dangerization" of bicycling. Given its benefit-to-risk ratio, for which I can give many citations, dissuading people produces public health detriments - and claiming absolute necessity of helmets, DRLs, bike lanes, day-glo clothing etc. does dissuade people. Why would you need those for a safe activity? Another negative is the restriction of childhood experiences. It's a proven fact that kids have far less freedom than in decades past because of inflated parental fears, and it's widely thought that this bodes ill for society. Look up the Free Range Children movement for details. Or ask me for citations. Another negative is the fleecing of customers. "Of _course_ you'll want this extra-cost safety feature! Just think if, God forbid, something bad happened..." or worse, "It shall be illegal to do what has always been done, and mandatory to buy what was never before needed." (Our local news told people they should NEVER buy a used child seat for a car. Why? Because it may have been damaged in a crash. What the heck??) But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans ("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a lawyer... What is that supposed to mean? If you have an issue, then go sponsor legislation. I don't know what it would be: "The Frank Krygowski the world is too safe law." We can call it "Frank's law." I have no idea what it would do other than complain about safety inflation. Alternately, if you don't like me discussing our society's ever increasing paranoia, sponsor legislation. You're probably better at that than I am. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/8/2021 10:21 AM, sms wrote:
Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California. Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack a fluorescent jersey. But I'm betting the "safety" people are telling them they should be wearing fluorescent clothing. And if things progress as they did with helmets, states will begin considering, then passing Mandatory Fluorescent Laws. Please note, that happened in France. Cyclists are legally required to wear safety vests on rural roads at least under certain conditions. As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or online. AFAIK, most of that paragraph is still false. But we know one of your objectives is to make it true. Because one can never be too safe, right? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/8/2021 10:21 AM, sms wrote: Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California. Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack a fluorescent jersey. But I'm betting the "safety" people are telling them they should be wearing fluorescent clothing. And if things progress as they did with helmets, states will begin considering, then passing Mandatory Fluorescent Laws. Please note, that happened in France. Cyclists are legally required to wear safety vests on rural roads at least under certain conditions. As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or online. AFAIK, most of that paragraph is still false. But we know one of your objectives is to make it true. Because one can never be too safe, right? Were you beaten by a school crossing guard or something? What is the genesis of this recent anti-safety jihad? I ride most every day, and nobody bugs me about not having a DRL or wearing a fluorescent jersey or really anything. I haven't seen a bicycle safety message in years, although I'm not looking and don't go to shops. Who are these "safety" people? Is this about helmets? Did somebody criticize you for not wearing a helmet? When I go skiing, the liftys are neurotic about masks -- and I was mask shamed while out on a walk early in the pandemic, but that's about it for safety scolding. My neighbor panics and scolds me when I climb my 22' extension ladder because I'm an old dude and in the demographic for falls. Ah, I have fallen prey to the walking safety thing, but not because of warnings or messages from regulators. My wife and I got reflective vests for walking at night because the Ninja walkers scare the snot out of us when we're driving at night -- and we have a ton of walkers in our neighborhood. Their are nights when it feels like a street fair with everyone standing in the street yaking or walking their dogs. I really like the lighted dog vests. I don't like the 30 foot reel leashes. No French Nazi collaborators making us wear vests. About DRLs, I'd say less than half the commuters pre-pandemic were using DRLs in real daylight. There were lots of them in drear or dusk, including me. I see club riders and even racers using them when I'm weekend riding -- again, probably 50% or less. I'll try to keep an accurate count next time.. I don't think they're helpful in full sunlight, although a rear flasher is helpful in dappled sun-through-trees, at least according to the one panicked motorist who said he couldn't see me under the trees on Larch Mountain. He was a nice guy, and he was right because I was losing other cyclists in the hard shadows. I still don't take a flasher up there, however -- and one of the typical dying Tinkerbell flashers wouldn't work in any event, and a lot of DRLs do fall into that category. You ride up on someone and look down at the fender or seat post and see this light once you get there. I do wonder why people bother with those. -- Jay Beattie. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 05:24:15 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: Most of those warnings and many others are placed on objects or in instruc= tions in order to avoid litigation if the person using them manages to inju= re themselves. That's because so many people have managed to win ridiculous= lawsuits because of some slight injury that resulted from a stupid use of = the item. If people weren't so quick to launch a lawsuit, or were willing t= o accept that the injury was THEIR fault, there wouldn't be such a need fo= r those ridiculous warnings. And this leads to safety deflation. I regularly wrap the power cord around appliances with instructions that clearly state that the power cords should not be wrapped around them. I know that they mean "do not wrap cord around hot appliance", but they dare not say that because some suester would say "the appliance had been unplugged for five whole seconds!". Sooner or later I'll disregard a warning that means what it says. Most precautions are obvious to anyone who can be trusted to tie his shoes without supervision, but once in a while a warning reveals concealed information. Other safety inflation: our local politicians are sure that if a yield sign is required, a stop sign is even safer. As a result yield signs are found only in roundabouts, where the politicians had enough sense to let road designers choose the signs. So every stop sign is presumed to be a yield sign if the driver can't see evidence to the contrary, and we are left on our own to evaluate each intersection with no help from the signs. Thank goodness most of my car driving is on city streets. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The last headlight you will ever need | somebody[_2_] | Techniques | 115 | April 28th 14 02:12 AM |
Headlight | Tom $herman (-_-) | Techniques | 16 | August 17th 12 03:43 AM |
LED Headlight | HughMann | Australia | 12 | August 30th 06 11:51 AM |
LED headlight problem solved | Ron Hardin | General | 8 | April 3rd 06 10:42 AM |
Headlight | Bruni | Techniques | 8 | August 31st 03 06:27 PM |