Verizon wireless - Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones

Author

Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones

Yarper

2006-12-01, 3:33 pm

Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
working for a personal-injury law firm.

[url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]

What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

nash

2006-12-01, 3:33 pm

Doesn't Sweden also have miles of highway set aside for cyclists?

Karen Newton

2006-12-01, 3:33 pm

Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.

"nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote in message
news:101ch.403162$5R2.165149@pd7urf3no...
> Doesn't Sweden also have miles of highway set aside for cyclists?
>
>

damyth

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Yarper wrote:
> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
> to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
> working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
> [url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]
>
> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
> they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

I don't know if I agree with your sentiment regarding separate bicycle
lanes. (Seperate) If by bicycle "lanes" you mean "paths" I'd strongly
disagree with you. Bicycle paths in the US are severely neglected.
1. Bike paths don't benefit from regular "street cleaning"
2. Bike paths generally do not present good visibility (narrow, blind
corners, etc.)
3. Bike paths are not maintained as well/often as motor roadways.
(Repaving/re-surfacing)
4. Bike paths (or bicycle riders) become ghetto-ized. "Why don't you
use the bike path!"
5. The likelihood of injuries and accidents increases because bike
paths get used by joggers, baby strollers, roller-bladers, etc., all of
which have a present a a multitude of large speed differentials
compared to bicyclists, making accidents more likely.

If anything, this case demonstrates that we need more stringent laws
and penalties regarding reckless driving. I don't know the details of
this case, but in my mind, use of a cell phone while driving in any
fashion constitutes reckless driving. I know the person wasn't charged
with reckless driving in this case, but she certainly should have been.

Karen Newton

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.

"damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1165010371.758011.152660@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yarper wrote:
>
> I don't know if I agree with your sentiment regarding separate bicycle
> lanes. (Seperate) If by bicycle "lanes" you mean "paths" I'd strongly
> disagree with you. Bicycle paths in the US are severely neglected.
> 1. Bike paths don't benefit from regular "street cleaning"
> 2. Bike paths generally do not present good visibility (narrow, blind
> corners, etc.)
> 3. Bike paths are not maintained as well/often as motor roadways.
> (Repaving/re-surfacing)
> 4. Bike paths (or bicycle riders) become ghetto-ized. "Why don't you
> use the bike path!"
> 5. The likelihood of injuries and accidents increases because bike
> paths get used by joggers, baby strollers, roller-bladers, etc., all of
> which have a present a a multitude of large speed differentials
> compared to bicyclists, making accidents more likely.
>
> If anything, this case demonstrates that we need more stringent laws
> and penalties regarding reckless driving. I don't know the details of
> this case, but in my mind, use of a cell phone while driving in any
> fashion constitutes reckless driving. I know the person wasn't charged
> with reckless driving in this case, but she certainly should have been.
>

Butch Haynes

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Karen Newton

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.

"Butch Haynes" <butch@huntsville.prz> wrote in message
news:QM-dnVzunbxdO- 3YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@c
omcast.com...
>
> "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes, yes-- and have the bike lanes lead directly to places like
> Amsterdam's legal brothels and famous red light district with girls in the
> windows ;-)
>
> Butch
>

Yarper

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Karen Newton wrote:
> Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.

You're right, riding a bicycle has nothing to do
with frugality. Frugal people drive SUVs.

richard

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

"Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
> to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
> working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
> [url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]
>
> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
> they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

<quotes>
Stark was so far off the road that she hit Mr. Wilhelm from behind with the
driver's side of her car. He was wearing a helmet.

Stark, who had three prior convictions since May 2005 one for disregarding a
traffic light and two for speeding. The last speeding conviction came about
five weeks before she hit Mr. Wilhelm.
<end quotes>

The man on the bicycle was doing nothing wrong. if Ms Stark had not hit him,
she would have been easily off the road entirely. There is no alarm for
improving bike paths. As one of these cases even rarely happens, even rarer
with a death of the biker.

But I do not feel that an improper lane usage charge is not adequate as
there was a human life involved, which is a test for reckless operation, and
that test was met with flying colors.
I have a sneaking hunch this will not be the last time we will hear about
Ms. Stark and her cell phone.

Bellsouth Ijit 2.0

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

"Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165011538.293994.60370@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Karen Newton wrote:
>
> You're right, riding a bicycle has nothing to do
> with frugality. Frugal people drive SUVs.
>

And download ringtones on Verizon cellphones.

Zoot Katz

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
>to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
>working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
>[url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]
>
>What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
>they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

What we need is to bring back the guillotine for careless,
inattentive driving causing death.

I hope this four-time loser does the right thing and commits suicide.

BTW, shove your attempt at a political troll. Every DA's hands are
tied by the systemic bias that continues to perceive driving as a god
given right and victims as expendable.
--
zk

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Karen I do not see frugal living in the addresses

"Karen Newton" <karen.newton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jE1ch.3053$Ka4.710@newsfe14.lga...
> Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.
>
>
> "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:1165010371.758011.152660@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>

james g. keegan jr.

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

In article <QM-dnVzunbxdO- 3YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@c
omcast.com>,
"Butch Haynes" <butch@huntsville.prz> wrote:

> "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

>
> Yes, yes-- and have the bike lanes lead directly to places like Amsterdam's
> legal brothels and famous red light district with girls in the windows ;-)

nice thought.

Robert Coe

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:45:01 -0800, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
: On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: >Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
: >to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
: >working for a personal-injury law firm.
: >
: >[url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]
: >
: >What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
: >they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.
:
: What we need is to bring back the guillotine for careless,
: inattentive driving causing death.
:
: I hope this four-time loser does the right thing and commits suicide.
:
: BTW, shove your attempt at a political troll. Every DA's hands are
: tied by the systemic bias that continues to perceive driving as a god
: given right and victims as expendable.

Driving *is* a god given right, but those who do it so dangerously should be
dealt with harshly. So I both agree with you and think you're full of sh*t.

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Driving *is* a god given right, but those who do it so dangerously should
be
> dealt with harshly. So I both agree with you and think you're full of
> sh*t.<<

No, You are wrong, it is a privilege. Ask any auto insurance agent or
police person. Rules are there to protect the innocent and everyones
safety. They were not made for hotshot drivers who think they know better.
They are for everyone with generally accepted driving skill.

Zoot Katz

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:58:23 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>
>:
>: BTW, shove your attempt at a political troll. Every DA's hands are
>: tied by the systemic bias that continues to perceive driving as a god
>: given right and victims as expendable.
>
>Driving *is* a god given right, but those who do it so dangerously should be
>dealt with harshly. So I both agree with you and think you're full of sh*t.

Driving is a "privilege". Were it a "right" a driver's license
couldn't be suspended or revoked.

Unfortunately, that option isn't exercised nearly enough when dealing
with repeat offenders who's cars should be shredded with them in it.
--
zk

Tim McNamara

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

In article <1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
"Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly to
> Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
> working for a personal-injury law firm.

Is her political affiliation somehow relevant?

> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like they have
> throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

What Denmark and Holland have is a population that uses bikes in large
numbers. That's what makes the difference. Separate bikes lanes are
frequently more dangerous than riding on the roads.

Robert Coe

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:29:30 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
: Driving *is* a god given right, but those who do it so dangerously should
: be
: > dealt with harshly. So I both agree with you and think you're full of
: > sh*t.<<
:
: No, You are wrong, it is a privilege. Ask any auto insurance agent or
: police person. Rules are there to protect the innocent and everyones
: safety. They were not made for hotshot drivers who think they know better.
: They are for everyone with generally accepted driving skill.

The US constitution and the laws implementing it were not written by auto
insurance agents and police persons.

Governments restrict rights. (One hopes they do it only when, and to the
degree, necessary.) They have no "privileges" to grant.

val189

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

bdbafh

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

val189 wrote:
> Yarper wrote:
>
> What we REALLY need are some heavy duty sentences for this type of
> happening. I can't wait for the day they outlaw cell phone usage of
> any kind while driving and some stiff penalties for noncompliance.
> Almost got creamed today in a parking lot by two drivers screwin around
> with their cellphones. Two hands on the wheel is becoming a rarity.

"Two hands on the wheel is becoming a rarity."

ever hear of driving a car with a standard (non-automatic)
transmission?

-bdbafh

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

>>>The US constitution and the laws implementing it were not written by auto
insurance agents and police persons.
<<<

The US constitution does not say you have a right to drive either.

Zoot Katz

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On 1 Dec 2006 17:15:29 -0800, "val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>What we REALLY need are some heavy duty sentences for this type of
>happening. I can't wait for the day they outlaw cell phone usage of
>any kind while driving and some stiff penalties for noncompliance.
>Almost got creamed today in a parking lot by two drivers screwin around
>with their cellphones. Two hands on the wheel is becoming a rarity.

What we need are more phone booths so all these poor people aren't
forced into their cars to make a call.
--
zk

Robert Coe

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:35:36 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
: >>>The US constitution and the laws implementing it were not written by auto
: insurance agents and police persons.
: <<<

"nash" did not write that. I did.

: The US constitution does not say you have a right to drive either.

The Constitution does not enumerate the rights you have. It enumerates the
rights you *don't* have.

Dave Reckoning

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-E892C9.19035301122006@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is her political affiliation somehow relevant?
>
>
> What Denmark and Holland have is a population that uses bikes in large
> numbers. That's what makes the difference. Separate bikes lanes are
> frequently more dangerous than riding on the roads.

This is definatly the case. Bike lanes are the MOST dangerous. They make the
drivers think that they don't have to worry about the bikes because they are
off in their seperate lanes. The problem is that the drivers have to cross
those lanes to make turns and enter the street. Alas, sometimes the drivers
don't stay in their own lanes and drive over the bikes anyway. The worst of
them are the ones that are seperate sidewalk affairs. Also this gives the
car drivers the illusion that the street belongs to them alone. Then theye
make the bikes cross all of the streets at the worst possible place and put
the bikes in the position of having to enter the private domain of the cars
with every crossing of a side street.

The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the traffic
signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!! Street
markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that they can
drive over anything that gets in their way.

Dave Reckoning

Noblesville, Indiana

bdbafh

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> What we need is to bring back the guillotine for careless,
> inattentive driving causing death.
>
> I hope this four-time loser does the right thing and commits suicide.
>
> BTW, shove your attempt at a political troll. Every DA's hands are
> tied by the systemic bias that continues to perceive driving as a god
> given right and victims as expendable.
> --
> zk

That apparently doesn't apply to running over motorcyclists:

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06334/742434-54.stm

"John Cartwright, 54, is charged with vehicular homicide, three counts
of aggravated assault, three counts of recklessly endangering another
person and traffic violations."

How could the driver not be charged with at least aggravated assault?
IANAL, but IMHO she most certainly should have been charged with
vehiclar homicide.

-bdbafh

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

"Dave Reckoning" < Dave_Reckoning@notma
il.com> wrote in message
news:qJqdnVlWYJWBQO3
YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@in
sightbb.com...
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-E892C9.19035301122006@news.iphouse.com...
>
> This is definatly the case. Bike lanes are the MOST dangerous. They make
> the drivers think that they don't have to worry about the bikes because
> they are off in their seperate lanes. The problem is that the drivers have
> to cross those lanes to make turns and enter the street. Alas, sometimes
> the drivers don't stay in their own lanes and drive over the bikes anyway.
> The worst of them are the ones that are seperate sidewalk affairs. Also
> this gives the car drivers the illusion that the street belongs to them
> alone. Then theye make the bikes cross all of the streets at the worst
> possible place and put the bikes in the position of having to enter the
> private domain of the cars with every crossing of a side street.
>
> The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
> traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!!
> Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that
> they can drive over anything that gets in their way.
>
> Dave Reckoning
>
> Noblesville, Indiana
Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
knowledge. Anyone?

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Sorry Karen forgot

"Dave Reckoning" < Dave_Reckoning@notma
il.com> wrote in message
news:qJqdnVlWYJWBQO3
YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@in
sightbb.com...
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-E892C9.19035301122006@news.iphouse.com...
>
> This is definatly the case. Bike lanes are the MOST dangerous. They make
> the drivers think that they don't have to worry about the bikes because
> they are off in their seperate lanes. The problem is that the drivers have
> to cross those lanes to make turns and enter the street. Alas, sometimes
> the drivers don't stay in their own lanes and drive over the bikes anyway.
> The worst of them are the ones that are seperate sidewalk affairs. Also
> this gives the car drivers the illusion that the street belongs to them
> alone. Then theye make the bikes cross all of the streets at the worst
> possible place and put the bikes in the position of having to enter the
> private domain of the cars with every crossing of a side street.
>
> The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
> traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!!
> Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that
> they can drive over anything that gets in their way.
>
> Dave Reckoning
>
> Noblesville, Indiana
>

carlfogel@comcast.net

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:32:46 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>
>"Dave Reckoning" < Dave_Reckoning@notma
il.com> wrote in message
> news:qJqdnVlWYJWBQO3
YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@in
sightbb.com...
>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
>knowledge. Anyone?

Dear Nash,

No citation needed--the back of an envelope will do to check the claim
that "any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head injuries everyday of
the year."

Since "100's" is plural, it must mean 200 or more head injuries.

A rate of 200 cyclist head injuries every day would mean 73,000
injuries per year in "any Chinese city."

So in ten years every bicyclist in "any Chinese city" with 730,000
riders would suffer a head injury.

"Common knowledge" suggests that there is no such carnage.

As Frank Krygowski keeps pointing out, bicycling is a remarkably safe
activity for the general population.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Sorry that was suppose to 100/ day.
no need to go postal now

peace

nash

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

>>>>>As Frank Krygowski keeps pointing out, bicycling is a remarkably safe
activity for the general population.

Carl,
I was talking about Dave's Reckoning and comparing it to China which I still
think is true. no laws or signs just common sense

carlfogel@comcast.net

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:07:36 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>Sorry that was suppose to 100/ day.
>no need to go postal now
>
>peace

Dear Nash,

Nothing postal, just basic arithmetic.

There are not 100 bicyclists with head injuries every day in "any
Chinese city."

365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries per year in "any Chinese city."

It's unlikely that there is any such carnage.

I suppose that a citation would prove otherwise.

:)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Robert Coe

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:55:40 -0500, "Dave Reckoning"
< Dave_Reckoning@notma
il.com> wrote:
: The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the traffic
: signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!! Street
: markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that they can
: drive over anything that gets in their way.

If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better optometrist.

Tim McNamara

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

In article < qkr1n21jel4mqdhu3fq8
n1tl1f4blo1p5m@4ax.com>,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:07:36 GMT, "nash"
> < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Nash,
>
> Nothing postal, just basic arithmetic.
>
> There are not 100 bicyclists with head injuries every day in "any
> Chinese city."
>
> 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries per year in "any Chinese city."

Not to mention that there are hundreds of Chinese cities, if not
thousands (depending on how one defines "city"). Goiing with "hundred"
and "thousand" we get a national incidence of:

36,500 x 100 = 3,650,000 per year.

36,500 x 1,000 = 36,500,000 per year.

If this was the case, then the Chinese population would be decimated
annually by bicycling-related head injuries. I would think that such
injury rates would provoke some sort of governmental or societal
response to reduce the risk.

(misc.consumers.frugal-living snipped per Karen's request, whomever she
may be. And since when do you need a newsgroup to talk about not buying
crap you don't need? Frugality is hardly a difficult concept.)

Tim McNamara

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

In article <1165022129.626158.129780@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
"val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Yarper wrote:
>
> What we REALLY need are some heavy duty sentences for this type of
> happening. I can't wait for the day they outlaw cell phone usage of
> any kind while driving and some stiff penalties for noncompliance.
> Almost got creamed today in a parking lot by two drivers screwin
> around with their cellphones. Two hands on the wheel is becoming a
> rarity.

Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
(Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.

Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.

carlfogel@comcast.net

2006-12-02, 4:33 am

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:11:14 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>activity for the general population.
>
>Carl,
>I was talking about Dave's Reckoning and comparing it to China which I still
>think is true. no laws or signs just common sense

Dear Nash,

To jog your memory, here's your entire post:

"Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
knowledge. Anyone?"

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Zoot Katz

2006-12-02, 4:33 am

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:22:51 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> replied
>"Dave Reckoning" wrote:
>
>: The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the traffic
>: signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!! Street
>: markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that they can
>: drive over anything that gets in their way.
>
>If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better optometrist.

It's called "second generation" traffic calming, a combination of
traffic engineering and urban design that also draws heavily on the
fields of behavioural psychology and evolutionary biology.

One of the characteristics of a shared environment is that it appears
chaotic and demands a strong level of having your wits about you.

It is anarchy without malice.

It challenges one of the fundamental tenets of American urban
planning: that to create safe communities, you have to control them.

For the past 50 years, the American approach to traffic safety has
been dominated by the "triple E" paradigm: engineering, enforcement
and education. The history of traffic engineering is the effort to
rationalise what appeared to be chaos.

Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
and Austria, 31%.

Do some research
--
zk

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com

2006-12-02, 7:33 am

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:32:46 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
>knowledge. Anyone?
>

a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
pro-helmet zealots; and

b) "common knowledge" isn't either.

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 7:33 am

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:43:24 -0800, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:22:51 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> replied
: >"Dave Reckoning" wrote:
: >
: >: The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the traffic
: >: signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!! Street
: >: markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that they can
: >: drive over anything that gets in their way.
: >
: >If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better optometrist.
:
: It's called "second generation" traffic calming, a combination of
: traffic engineering and urban design that also draws heavily on the
: fields of behavioural psychology and evolutionary biology.
:
: One of the characteristics of a shared environment is that it appears
: chaotic and demands a strong level of having your wits about you.
:
: It is anarchy without malice.
:
: It challenges one of the fundamental tenets of American urban
: planning: that to create safe communities, you have to control them.

Ah! I think I get it. This is the system that's now being tested in Baghdad,
right?

: For the past 50 years, the American approach to traffic safety has
: been dominated by the "triple E" paradigm: engineering, enforcement
: and education. The history of traffic engineering is the effort to
: rationalise what appeared to be chaos.
:
: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
: and Austria, 31%.
:
: Do some research

Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.

What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)

Jasper Janssen

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

\On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
>to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
>working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
>[url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]
>
>What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
>they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

All of the Netherlands, and no you don't.

Jasper

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:40:01 -0600, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
: In article < qkr1n21jel4mqdhu3fq8
n1tl1f4blo1p5m@4ax.com>,
: carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
:
: > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:07:36 GMT, "nash"
: > < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
: >
: > >Sorry that was suppose to 100/ day. no need to go postal now
: > >
: > >peace
: >
: > Dear Nash,
: >
: > Nothing postal, just basic arithmetic.
: >
: > There are not 100 bicyclists with head injuries every day in "any
: > Chinese city."
: >
: > 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries per year in "any Chinese city."
:
: Not to mention that there are hundreds of Chinese cities, if not
: thousands (depending on how one defines "city"). Goiing with "hundred"
: and "thousand" we get a national incidence of:
:
: 36,500 x 100 = 3,650,000 per year.
:
: 36,500 x 1,000 = 36,500,000 per year.
:
: If this was the case, then the Chinese population would be decimated
: annually by bicycling-related head injuries. I would think that such
: injury rates would provoke some sort of governmental or societal
: response to reduce the risk.

Well, "decimated" may be a bit too strong a term. It means "reduced by 90%".
The carnage you describe, even using the more lurid of your calculations,
amounts to approximately .03%. The Chinese population is pretty large.

: (misc.consumers.frugal-living snipped per Karen's request, whomever she
: may be. And since when do you need a newsgroup to talk about not buying
: crap you don't need? Frugality is hardly a difficult concept.)

Who cares? Nobody says you have to read it. Hasn't this thread wandered far
enough off-topic already?

Jasper Janssen

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:57:04 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>Karen I do not see frugal living in the addresses

She cut it from her response, it's there in the post she replied to.

Jasper

Qui si parla Campagnolo

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> \On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> All of the Netherlands, and no you don't.
>
> Jasper

The solution-

http://www.speedbandits.dk/

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:03:53 -0600, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
: In article <1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
: "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: > Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly to
: > Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
: > working for a personal-injury law firm.
:
: Is her political affiliation somehow relevant?

It depends on your point of view. Is Jack Abramoff's political affiliation
relevant?

Mark Hickey

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>
>Not to mention that there are hundreds of Chinese cities, if not
>thousands (depending on how one defines "city"). Goiing with "hundred"
>and "thousand" we get a national incidence of:
>
>36,500 x 100 = 3,650,000 per year.
>
>36,500 x 1,000 = 36,500,000 per year.
>
>If this was the case, then the Chinese population would be decimated
>annually by bicycling-related head injuries. I would think that such
>injury rates would provoke some sort of governmental or societal
>response to reduce the risk.

FWIW, Chinese maps tend not to include any "city" with a population of
less than 1,000,000. If a map of China was produced with the same
rules as a map of the US, the eastern seaboard would be solid ink.

Having ridden in Beijing while I lived there, I can say with absolute
certainty that there ARE a fair number of cyclists injured, but the
vast majority are injured by motor vehicles (just because you're in
the separated northbound bicycle lane doesn't mean there's not a
southbound bus coming at you). The cycling speed of commuters in
China is not much above a slow jogging speed - a necessity due to the
fact that a) they don't want to arrive at work sweaty, b) the density
of the bike traffic makes it difficult to ride a lot faster than the
"typical rider" and c) a very large percentage of the bikes don't have
working brakes of any type (other than the Fred Flinstone version).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Tim McNamara

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

In article < 5d43n216jpgtk227lohi
9omn8kj094dufq@4ax.com>,
Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:03:53 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> : In article <1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> : "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :
> : > Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due
> : > directly to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically
> : > is listed as working for a personal-injury law firm.
> :
> : Is her political affiliation somehow relevant?
>
> It depends on your point of view. Is Jack Abramoff's political
> affiliation relevant?

No.

Tim McNamara

2006-12-02, 10:33 am

In article < 9d33n29ssq8qvknkfsde
1c4f1t073u134p@4ax.com>,
Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:40:01 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> : In article < qkr1n21jel4mqdhu3fq8
n1tl1f4blo1p5m@4ax.com>,
> : carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> :
> : > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:07:36 GMT, "nash"
> : > < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > >Sorry that was suppose to 100/ day. no need to go postal now
> : > >
> : > >peace
> : >
> : > Dear Nash,
> : >
> : > Nothing postal, just basic arithmetic.
> : >
> : > There are not 100 bicyclists with head injuries every day in "any
> : > Chinese city."
> : >
> : > 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries per year in "any Chinese city."
> :
> : Not to mention that there are hundreds of Chinese cities, if not
> : thousands (depending on how one defines "city"). Goiing with
> : "hundred" and "thousand" we get a national incidence of:
> :
> : 36,500 x 100 = 3,650,000 per year.
> :
> : 36,500 x 1,000 = 36,500,000 per year.
> :
> : If this was the case, then the Chinese population would be
> : decimated annually by bicycling-related head injuries. I would
> : think that such injury rates would provoke some sort of
> : governmental or societal response to reduce the risk.
>
> Well, "decimated" may be a bit too strong a term. It means "reduced
> by 90%". The carnage you describe, even using the more lurid of your
> calculations, amounts to approximately .03%. The Chinese population
> is pretty large.

Erm, no. It means to reduce by 10% in its original usage:

"ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin decimat- 'taken as a tenth,'
from the verb decimare, from decimus 'tenth.' In Middle English the
term decimation denoted the levying of a tithe, and later the tax
imposed in England by Cromwell on the Royalists (1655). The verb
decimate originally alluded to the Roman punishment of executing one
man in ten of a mutinous legion.

"USAGE Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is 'kill one in
every ten of (a group of people).' This sense has been superseded by
the later, more general sense 'kill or destroy a large percentage or
part of,' as in: the virus has decimated the population. Some
traditionalists argue that this and other later senses are incorrect,
but it is clear that these extended senses are now part of standard
English. It is sometimes also argued that decimate should refer to
people and not to things or animals such as weeds or insects. It is
generally agreed that decimate should not be used to mean 'defeat
utterly.'"

nash

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

SO
<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o902n2dfn21sv7l
4j22phjog7uos6l5dge@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:11:14 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Nash,
>
> To jog your memory, here's your entire post:
>
> "Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
> injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
> knowledge. Anyone?"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

nash

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

And to think if everybody did the speed limit we would not need engineers,
behavioural psychologists and evolutionary botanists.

Basically, I believe if everyone did the speed limit and followed the rules
there would be 99% less accidents except those that you caused by yourself
to yourself.

nash

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

>
>
>
> a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
> statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
> pro-helmet zealots; and
>
> b) "common knowledge" isn't either.

Google search 3rd entry
In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities. Nearly 70%
of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles. The rate of fatalities
for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater than the average. Farmers
have the greatest number of bicycle incidents. The peak hour for bicycle
accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
motorized vehicle traffic flows. Monday is the peak day for bicycle
accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in July,
which is Beijing's tourism season. Generally speaking, roads and streets
with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have higher
rates of bicycle accident fatalities. Bicycle accidents can be attributed to
many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
skills. The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental conditions,
education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
recommended.

whole document here
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/v...asp?lbid=451894

50% of population ride to work in Beijing
that enough for you citers.

nash

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

John Everett

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
>to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
>working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
>[url]http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/ woman_is_sentenced_f
or_bicyclists_death[
/url]

Note that this took place in Illinois, which has a history of
discounting the rights of cyclists. Note that the State's Attorney in
defending her decision to not press for a more serious charge said,
"...the driver could have no reasonable expectation of a bike on the
side of the road."

If you want another prime example of Illinois' official attitude with
respect to cyclists, do a Google search for "Boub Decision".

John Everett - Aurora, Illinois

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Tim McNamara

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

In article < 70d3n2hiuipfo4euupqi
t680iaa1noe9aj@4ax.com>,
John Everett <jeverett3@earthlink.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Note that this took place in Illinois, which has a history of
> discounting the rights of cyclists. Note that the State's Attorney in
> defending her decision to not press for a more serious charge said,
> "...the driver could have no reasonable expectation of a bike on the
> side of the road."
>
> If you want another prime example of Illinois' official attitude with
> respect to cyclists, do a Google search for "Boub Decision".

You mean the one that could be read as saying that bicyclists don't have
the right to ride on the roads?

nash

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

The J Hopkins document shows autos caused 63% of the accidents and bicyclist
the rest.
Most were farmers on bikes
Just read it for your own sake. Ignore the helmut and environmental
conditions summary prescribed by JHopkins

nash

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

"Boub Decision".

Sure is!

carlfogel@comcast.net

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:43:53 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:
[color=darkred]
>SO
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o902n2dfn21sv7l
4j22phjog7uos6l5dge@
4ax.com...

Dear Nash,

A fairly predictable descent from arrogant ignorance to silly evasions
and self-contradictions and finally to the bottom of a childish
barrel.

Amusingly, much of the audience won't even know what your "SO" meant.

Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
your errors pointed out.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carlfogel@comcast.net

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:04:01 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Google search 3rd entry
>In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
>transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities. Nearly 70%
>of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles. The rate of fatalities
>for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater than the average. Farmers
>have the greatest number of bicycle incidents. The peak hour for bicycle
>accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
>motorized vehicle traffic flows. Monday is the peak day for bicycle
>accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in July,
>which is Beijing's tourism season. Generally speaking, roads and streets
>with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have higher
>rates of bicycle accident fatalities. Bicycle accidents can be attributed to
>many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
>measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
>skills. The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
>inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
>the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
>countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental conditions,
>education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
>recommended.
>
>whole document here
>http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/v...asp?lbid=451894
>
>50% of population ride to work in Beijing
>that enough for you citers.
>
Dear Nash,

Er, no.

No number in your citation addresses your "100's of head injuries
everyday in any Chinese city" claim. Those are all percentages of some
unknown number of accidents.

But it's good to see that you've changed your mind about citations and
started looking at reality to see if it corresponds to what you claim.
It isn't so much whether you're right or wrong about a particular
matter--it's getting into the habit of looking into things.

I'd be pleased if you find evidence that I'm mistaken in thinking that
you're off by an order of magnitude or so and that hundreds of
bicyclists suffer head injuries every day in any Chinese city.

But a quick google doesn't suggest that's the case:

"We are fortunate to have an in-depth report for China where bicycle
related deaths kill 22 per 1,000,000 per year [18]."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1379660

So in a Chinese city with a million people, there would be only 22
deaths per 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries. (Of course, those are 22
"bicycle-related" deaths and thus include a fair number of pedestrians
struck and killed by bicycles.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

RLB

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

"Yarper" <yubbers9@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1165006512.331700.178580@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist,
> due directly to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz,
> who ironically is listed as working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/lo...enced_f
o
> r_bicyclists_death
>
> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
> they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.
>
This particular stretch of road does have a full-width shoulder.
The area is dead flat with excellent visibility.
Which makes the driver's antics and crime all the more
questionable. Distracted driver laws are inadequate.

frkrygow@gmail.com

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.

Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.

> Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.

I agree.

Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
bike.

Hmm. Maybe replace the caller's voice with "Watch out for the bike!
Watch out for the bike!" repeated over and over!

- Frank Krygowski

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:04:01 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
: whole document here
: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/v...asp?lbid=451894
:
: 50% of population ride to work in Beijing
: that enough for you citers.

Damn! I actually learned something in this, er, discussion. Who knew that the
disparaging term for people who ask for proof of a windy assertion is
"citers"? :^)

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
: >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
: >>knowledge. Anyone?
: >>
: >
: > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
: > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
: > pro-helmet zealots; and
: >
: > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
:
: here is another from J. Hopkins U.
: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1380951
:
: I could go on.

We'll forgive you if you don't.

nash

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

I did not say deaths. grow up

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cse3n2dl4a0q7fp
qbj7h5do0jdrh9trf9a@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:04:01 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Nash,
>
> Er, no.
>
> No number in your citation addresses your "100's of head injuries
> everyday in any Chinese city" claim. Those are all percentages of some
> unknown number of accidents.
>
> But it's good to see that you've changed your mind about citations and
> started looking at reality to see if it corresponds to what you claim.
> It isn't so much whether you're right or wrong about a particular
> matter--it's getting into the habit of looking into things.
>
> I'd be pleased if you find evidence that I'm mistaken in thinking that
> you're off by an order of magnitude or so and that hundreds of
> bicyclists suffer head injuries every day in any Chinese city.
>
> But a quick google doesn't suggest that's the case:
>
> "We are fortunate to have an in-depth report for China where bicycle
> related deaths kill 22 per 1,000,000 per year [18]."
>
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1379660
>
> So in a Chinese city with a million people, there would be only 22
> deaths per 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries. (Of course, those are 22
> "bicycle-related" deaths and thus include a fair number of pedestrians
> struck and killed by bicycles.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

frkrygow@gmail.com

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

nash wrote:
> Google search 3rd entry

Ah! Good. Now let's learn to analyze:

> In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
> transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities.

IOW, bicycling is _safer_ than average, w.r.t. fatalities.

> Nearly 70% of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles.

Not surprising. By the same token, I'm sure well over 90% of American
traffic accidents are "related to" automobiles. It's directly related
to the popularity of vehicle type. But "accident" generally does not
mean "injury," let alone "fatality." My guess is the typical Chinese
accident is much, much less costly than the typical American one.

> The rate of fatalities for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater than the average.

Yes, the elderly are more frail. But that does nothing to quantify the
rate for either group.

> Farmers have the greatest number of bicycle incidents.

Ever notice how these "litany of horrors" abstracts always descend into
the absurdly irrelevant?

> The peak hour for bicycle
> accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
> motorized vehicle traffic flows.

My gosh! Who'd have thought that??!

> Monday is the peak day for bicycle
> accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in July,
> which is Beijing's tourism season.

<nudge> ?? What? Oh - um, fascinating!

> Generally speaking, roads and streets
> with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have higher
> rates of bicycle accident fatalities.

Brilliant, I tell you! Brilliant! Who could have guessed?

> Bicycle accidents can be attributed to
> many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
> measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
> skills.

Earthshaking science! Nobel Prize, here we come!

> The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
> inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
> the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
> countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental conditions,
> education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
> recommended.

Of _course_ the "use of helmet"! Bell Sports executives are probably
drooling on their wing tips. And just think, no messy Safe Kids
pass-throughs for their "political action" funds. Just a nice, clean
donation to a Party official. Watch for it!

But, back to the original point: Where, exactly, did it say that "any
[I believe you meant "every"] Chinese city has hundreds of cyclist head
injuries every day of the year"?

The trick with citations is not merely to find one. It's to find one
that's actually relevant to the point you were trying to make.

- Frank Krygowski

nash

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

Because you know I am right.
Again you expect me to dig up stuff I saw on TV maybe 10 years ago. I give
up. Roughly what I said is true.
Per city I only rationalized. 100/ day easy.
Plus I was only answering to Dave's Reckoning. The jist of what I was
saying or the idea, reaction, does not have to be footnoted.
I disagreed, you disagree with me, therefore you agree with Dave. Tell
us why you agree with dave's reckoning. We are waiting patiently for a well
thought out, footnoted, master's thesis on this.

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ccl3n2ltmpme5ca
e6pk495nshg617g6g8o@
4ax.com...
>: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
> : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
> : >>knowledge. Anyone?
> : >>
> : >
> : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
> : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
> : > pro-helmet zealots; and
> : >
> : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
> :
> : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
> : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1380951
> :
> : I could go on.
>
> We'll forgive you if you don't.

nash

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

>
> nash wrote:
>
> Ah! Good. Now let's learn to analyze:
>
>
> IOW, bicycling is _safer_ than average, w.r.t. fatalities.
>
>
> Not surprising. By the same token, I'm sure well over 90% of American
> traffic accidents are "related to" automobiles. It's directly related
> to the popularity of vehicle type. But "accident" generally does not
> mean "injury," let alone "fatality." My guess is the typical Chinese
> accident is much, much less costly than the typical American one.
>
>
> Yes, the elderly are more frail. But that does nothing to quantify the
> rate for either group.
>
>
> Ever notice how these "litany of horrors" abstracts always descend into
> the absurdly irrelevant?
>
>
> My gosh! Who'd have thought that??!
>
>
> <nudge> ?? What? Oh - um, fascinating!
>
>
> Brilliant, I tell you! Brilliant! Who could have guessed?
>
>
> Earthshaking science! Nobel Prize, here we come!
>
>
> Of _course_ the "use of helmet"! Bell Sports executives are probably
> drooling on their wing tips. And just think, no messy Safe Kids
> pass-throughs for their "political action" funds. Just a nice, clean
> donation to a Party official. Watch for it!
>
> But, back to the original point: Where, exactly, did it say that "any
> [I believe you meant "every"] Chinese city has hundreds of cyclist head
> injuries every day of the year"?
>
> The trick with citations is not merely to find one. It's to find one
> that's actually relevant to the point you were trying to make.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the jist
of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$
You people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So
why are you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous for my
taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would you?
Because that is what you are telling me.

I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show.
Have you answered even one of my questions No

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:54:29 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:
: Because you know I am right.
: Again you expect me to dig up stuff I saw on TV maybe 10 years ago. I give
: up. Roughly what I said is true.
: Per city I only rationalized. 100/ day easy.
: Plus I was only answering to Dave's Reckoning. The jist of what I was
: saying or the idea, reaction, does not have to be footnoted.
: I disagreed, you disagree with me, therefore you agree with Dave.

I do? How did that happen? Just yesterday I posted the following:

-> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:55:40 -0500, "Dave Reckoning"
-> < Dave_Reckoning@notma
il.com> wrote:
-> : The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
-> : traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!!
-> : Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that
-> : they can drive over anything that gets in their way.
-> :
-> If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better optometrist.

: Tell us why you agree with dave's reckoning. We are waiting patiently for
: a well thought out, footnoted, master's thesis on this.

I guess you're in for a long wait.

: "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
: news:ccl3n2ltmpme5ca
e6pk495nshg617g6g8o@
4ax.com...
: >: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
: > : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
: > : >>knowledge. Anyone?
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
: > : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
: > : > pro-helmet zealots; and
: > : >
: > : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
: > :
: > : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
: > : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1380951
: > :
: > : I could go on.
: >
: > We'll forgive you if you don't.

nash

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

>>>Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
your errors pointed out.

You wrote the same rhetoric before.
I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.

Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
Fogel
Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

nash WHO? wrote:

LEARN TO ATRIBUTE WHEN QUOTING!

> illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
> expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
> your errors pointed out.

STOP MESSING UP THE QUOTING HEIRARCHY MARKERS WHEN QUOTING!

> You wrote the same rhetoric before.
> I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
> be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
> be.

What is a "brain sex category"?

> I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
> male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
> Fogel
> Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

"nash" needs to work on his/her punctuation, logic, and Usenet
protocol.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

nash

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

Robert I was trying to disagree with Dave, maybe the timing was mixed up.
I understand your comment and thought it was hilarious.
Cheers

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:22n3n2hulp9o7dt
8shbqk52496vgvpbct5@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:54:29 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
> wrote:
> : Because you know I am right.
> : Again you expect me to dig up stuff I saw on TV maybe 10 years ago. I
> give
> : up. Roughly what I said is true.
> : Per city I only rationalized. 100/ day easy.
> : Plus I was only answering to Dave's Reckoning. The jist of what I was
> : saying or the idea, reaction, does not have to be footnoted.
> : I disagreed, you disagree with me, therefore you agree with Dave.
>
> I do? How did that happen? Just yesterday I posted the following:
>
> -> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:55:40 -0500, "Dave Reckoning"
> -> < Dave_Reckoning@notma
il.com> wrote:
> -> : The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
> -> : traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common
> sense!!!
> -> : Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense
> that
> -> : they can drive over anything that gets in their way.
> -> :
> -> If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better
> optometrist.
>
> : Tell us why you agree with dave's reckoning. We are waiting patiently
> for
> : a well thought out, footnoted, master's thesis on this.
>
> I guess you're in for a long wait.
>
> : "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
> : news:ccl3n2ltmpme5ca
e6pk495nshg617g6g8o@
4ax.com...
> : >: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist
> head
> : > : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as
> common
> : > : >>knowledge. Anyone?
> : > : >>
> : > : >
> : > : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
> : > : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls
> and
> : > : > pro-helmet zealots; and
> : > : >
> : > : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
> : > :
> : > : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
> : > : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1380951
> : > :
> : > : I could go on.
> : >
> : > We'll forgive you if you don't.

Robert Coe

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
:
: Tim McNamara wrote:
: >
: > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
: > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
: > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
: > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
: > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
:
: Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
:
: > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
: > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
: > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
: > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
: > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
: > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
:
: I agree.

I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
safely.

Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
cell phone in one hand any more impaired?

Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
attention.

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165087569.226835.113850@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

They would probably just start looking at their phone trying to determine
what's wrong with it.

> Hmm. Maybe replace the caller's voice with "Watch out for the bike!
> Watch out for the bike!" repeated over and over!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

carlfogel@comcast.net

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:17:33 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
>expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
>your errors pointed out.
>
>You wrote the same rhetoric before.
>I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
>be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
>Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
>be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
>male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
>Fogel
>Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

Dear Nash,

Judging by your increasingly bizarre posts elsewhere, I suppose that
your "brain sex study" was on some television show ten years ago.

Possibly "The Simpsons"?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Pegleg

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

Tim McNamara

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
"nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:

> I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
> jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You people are
> thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So why are
> you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
> in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous
> for my taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck.
> comment. Would you? Because that is what you are telling me.
>
> I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have you
> answered even one of my questions No

Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
unable to think critically as well.

Michael Press

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

In article <d3ich.401482$1T2.388044@pd7urf2no>,
"nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> top posted a
scathing retort:

[retort moved below]

> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o902n2dfn21sv7l
4j22phjog7uos6l5dge@
4ax.com...
>
> SO

Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand,
water is water. And east is east and west is west, and
if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce,
they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know.

Learn the reasons for not top-posting here:
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm>

--
Michael Press

Zoot Katz

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:48:21 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>: > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
>: > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
>: > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
>: > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
>: > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
>: > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
>:
>: I agree.
>
>I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
>at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
>on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
>arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
>hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
>this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
>doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
>accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
>bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
>safely.

Only because they're lucky, so far. Do some research. There are many
studies out there showing cell-phone use while driving is comparable
to driving drunk. Drivers on cell-phones have tunnel vision. They
don't scan the road. They don't check their mirrors. They don't check
their blind spots. They fail to notice traffic signals or other
vehicles signalling. They don't read direction or information signs.
They seldom use their own turn signals.They misjudge braking
distances, etc. Basically, they're impaired.
>
>Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
>State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
>person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
>cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
Yes. Hands-free sets make little difference. Blind people aren't
permitted to drive. Unfortunately, stupid self-indulgent people are.

>Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
>unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
>cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
>attention.

I can spot them a block away. They're the idiots piddling along and
not looking where they're going. As a bicyclist I'm more aware of my
surroundings than a caged scud jockey ever will be. I've learned to
read a driver's body-language and can most often predict what they're
going to do before they even have a clue themselves.
--
zk

Zoot Katz

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:55:20 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
>: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
>: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
>: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
>: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
>: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
>: and Austria, 31%.
>:
>: Do some research
>
>Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
>shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.
>
>What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
>fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
>going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)

Granted, the countries where "second generation" traffic calming has
proved effective at reducing causalities don't have the outrageous
personal injury suits and settlements prevalent in the litigious
culture currently infecting your US of A. They also have more
stringent rules, better enforcement and more comprehensive drivers'
education. In America any fool can drive a car and most of them do.

Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
average drivers. And perhaps too you erroneously believe that your
fuel costs and other vehicle expenses entitles you to exclusive
domain on the streets for which we all pay. I'd further wager that
you habitually exceed the speed limit, fail to signal turns and lane
changes, disregard pedestrians' right-of-way and neglect to check
your mirrors and blind spots while gabbing on your precious cell
phone.

If you've not yet killed or injured anyone with your inattentive,
negligent or just plain incompetent driving, consider yourself lucky.
Hopefully when your luck runs out a bridge abutment absorbs the
"collateral damage" and it's only your estate being sued.
--
zk

Tim McNamara

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

In article <xblch.404969$5R2.276341@pd7urf3no>,
"nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net> wrote:

>
> You wrote the same rhetoric before. I was writing to Bicycles.misc
> the list I did not notice. I do not want to be in those groups it
> just happened. But now I will cut them out.

Thank you.

> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that
> you can be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am
> smarter than most male brains and most female brains combined. I
> work 4X better than you Carl Fogel

You forgot to mention that you are grandiose and deluded.

> Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

It would appear that you are the one who has been at the plonk.

Michael Press

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

In article
<1165087569.226835.113850@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

1. Illegal in the USA.
2. Driver's call is suddenly interrupted, and _all_
her attention and vision goes to the infernal device.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

In article
< asn3n29l2165h3f7u99j
iitsl184midmd7@4ax.com>,
Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> :
> : Tim McNamara wrote:
> : >
> : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> : > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> : > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> : > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> : > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> :
> : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
> :
> : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> : > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> : > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> : > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> : > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> : > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
> :
> : I agree.
>
> I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
> at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
> on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
> arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
> hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
> this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
> doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
> accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
> bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
> safely.
>
> Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
> State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
> person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
> cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
> Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
> unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
> cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
> attention.

Talking to someone takes far more attention than
eating. Someone on the other end of a telephone call
does not care how riled up they make the driver,
because they are not in the car with him.

--
Michael Press

frkrygow@gmail.com

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

nash wrote:

> I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
> be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
> be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
> male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
> Fogel

:-)

That from the guy who also posted:

"I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
jist
of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$
You people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read
NO So
why are you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to
bike
in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous for
my
taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would
you?
Because that is what you are telling me.

"I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show.
Have you answered even one of my questions No "

That's some meticulous spelling and grammar, all right! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

neil0502@yahoo.com

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

Oh, I've been tempted...

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:47:40 GMT, "nash" < zwepytzkehillc9@jeta
ble.net>
wrote:

>I did not say deaths. grow up
>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cse3n2dl4a0q7fp
qbj7h5do0jdrh9trf9a@
4ax.com...

[color=darkred]

No, but you did say there were "100's" of head injuries per day. Carl
has done some sums that show that if you are right, only 22 of more
than 35 thousand head injuries result in deaths; a figure that is
wildly at odds with other typical cycling death/injury ratios.

damyth

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

Robert Coe wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> :
> : Tim McNamara wrote:
> : >
> : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> : > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> : > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> : > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> : > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> :
> : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
> :
> : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> : > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> : > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> : > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> : > don't help much if