The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone

[Don Homuth]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:18:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>,
>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>

>>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of
>>>us don't pay for Any related head injury.
>>
>> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_.
>>
>> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of
>> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet
>> laws.
>>
>It should.

Why? Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.

> Or the devices should not be Required.

Well, there actually Is another alternative.

Have a piece of Civil Law, not criminal law, that says if a person is
injured and was Not wearing a seat belt, for example, that for
insurance purposes they are at least 50% culpable for their own
injuries.

In which case, they'd have to pay out of pocket for their own
expenses.

That'd get folks' attention ferDamnshur!

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:18:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>,
>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest
>>>>of us don't pay for Any related head injury.
>>>
>>> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should
>>> be_.
>>>
>>> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of
>>> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet
>>> laws.
>>>
>>It should.
>
> Why? Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.

Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.

>
>> Or the devices should not be Required.
>
> Well, there actually Is another alternative.
>
> Have a piece of Civil Law, not criminal law, that says if a person is
> injured and was Not wearing a seat belt, for example, that for
> insurance purposes they are at least 50% culpable for their own
> injuries.

Whoopee.

>
> In which case, they'd have to pay out of pocket for their own
> expenses.

Empty pockets.

>
> That'd get folks' attention ferDamnshur!
>

Ya, sure.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.
>
>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.

Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then?

>>> Or the devices should not be Required.
>>
>> Well, there actually Is another alternative.
>>
>> Have a piece of Civil Law, not criminal law, that says if a person is
>> injured and was Not wearing a seat belt, for example, that for
>> insurance purposes they are at least 50% culpable for their own
>> injuries.
>
>Whoopee.

The insurance companies would just effling Love it. It would initiate
more use of seat belts (and thereby lower their costs) or it would
initiate less of a fiscal payout (and thereby lower their costs).

But curiously, it would lower Everyone's costs as well.

>> In which case, they'd have to pay out of pocket for their own
>> expenses.
>
>Empty pockets.

Collection agencies, etc. It need not be Perfect -- it just needs to
be Better than what's happening now.

>> That'd get folks' attention ferDamnshur!
>>
>Ya, sure.

We legally require folks to carry insurance. That's a good thing,
seems to me. But if folks don't wish to take appropriate actions to
protect themselves, there's no need to require you and me to pay into
the pool to cover the costs of their injuries.

People actually Care about Money. It's not clear that they care much
about their own personal safety, without putting a price tag on it.\

This suggestion would do that.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.
>>
>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.
>
> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then?

Sounds like Edward's approach.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.
>>
>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then?
>
>Sounds like Edward's approach.

Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive care
mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He hasn't
suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, however.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> amakyonin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when
>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or
>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.
>>
>> They'll lose those few seconds at best.
>
>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very
>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not
>there.

You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not.

>> They could miss the next light as a result.
>
>I miss more lights due to other drivers when I am driving

Which is not relevant.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <bJlDi.6285$kI5.1601@trnddc08>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>,
>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>,
>>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than
>>>>>> all other forms of risk?
>>>>>
>>>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK,
>>>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>>unbelted.
>>>>
>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>
>>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of
>>>us don't pay for Any related head injury.
>>
>> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_.
>>
>> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of
>> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet
>> laws.
>>
>
>It should. Or the devices should not be Required.

With the law as your only standard, you have no basis to make those
statements.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.
>>>
>>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then?
>>
>>Sounds like Edward's approach.
>
> Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive care
> mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He hasn't
> suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, however.
>

And the programs available to the homeless, transients, illegals, and
just plain weird are ... ?

 

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <bJlDi.6285$kI5.1601@trnddc08>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>,
>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>,
>>>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>>>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly
>>>>>>> what must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this
>>>>>>> bracelet? Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's
>>>>>>> the special danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so
>>>>>>> much worse than all other forms of risk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK,
>>>>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>>>unbelted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>
>>>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest
>>>>of us don't pay for Any related head injury.
>>>
>>> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should
>>> be_.
>>>
>>> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of
>>> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet
>>> laws.
>>>
>>
>>It should. Or the devices should not be Required.
>
> With the law as your only standard, you have no basis to make those
> statements.

Yeah I do.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:42:27 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.
>>>>
>>>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then?
>>>
>>>Sounds like Edward's approach.
>>
>> Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive care
>> mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He hasn't
>> suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, however.
>>
>And the programs available to the homeless, transients, illegals, and
>just plain weird are ... ?

Where do you wish to go with this?

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:42:27 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then?
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like Edward's approach.
>>>
>>> Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive
>>> care mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He
>>> hasn't suggested not allowing folks to have their own program,
>>> however.
>>>
>>And the programs available to the homeless, transients, illegals, and
>>just plain weird are ... ?
>
> Where do you wish to go with this?
>

How about answering the question.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> amakyonin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when
>>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or
>>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
>>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
>>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.
>>>
>>> They'll lose those few seconds at best.
>>
>>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very
>>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not
>>there.
>
> You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not.

No, I mean doing at worst 25mph instead of 30mph. Often it's doing 35mph
instead of 30mph. luck of the draw wether I have to speed up or slow down
to time a pass of a bicyclist.

>>> They could miss the next light as a result.
>>
>>I miss more lights due to other drivers when I am driving

> Which is not relevant.

It damn well is. If someone slowing down a driver is the problem, address
the bigest bang for buck first, the sloth driver.

When I was biking Irving Park Road today I had the fastest average speed
of any vehicle on the road. IPR has a a very wide curb lane that is
effectively blocked to motor vehicles during the afternoon by on street
parking. However there is still an 8 foot space to ride. I can ride there
and for the most part not be slowed by drivers.

 

[Claire Petersky]

"John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Besides, drivers pay for the road, so they are who it's for. Duh.

The road is paid for through general taxes, ie, property and sales taxes,
duh. The roadways that are only partly paid for by fuel taxes are state and
federal highways that I legally or logistically can't use with my bike, duh.
Since I buy things and own a house, I have paid for the road, no matter if I
ride my bike, walk, or drive a car, duh.

Meanwhile, the cars much more heavily destroy the roads, duh. Bikes don't
cause all those potholes, duh. And motorists, when they crash into things,
create much more harm than me on my bike, duh. Therefore, I am paying
disproportionately in EMT services for those motorists, duh.

Bicyclists also subsidize those motorists because, generally, they're in
better physical condition, duh. So we subsidize their medical treatments
because they're fat and out of shape, duh.

I've only scratched the surface in the ways that bicyclists subsidize
motorists and their use of the road, duh.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of cars on MY road when I'm trying to ride home
after work. I still don't see why I have to be delayed by all of them. Why
can't they just drive on the sidewalk!? Or walk?!

(idiots, mutter mutter)

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> amakyonin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when
>>>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or
>>>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
>>>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
>>>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.
>>>>
>>>> They'll lose those few seconds at best.
>>>
>>>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very
>>>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not
>>>there.
>>
>> You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not.
>
>No, I mean doing at worst 25mph instead of 30mph.

It's never necessary to slow to less than 25mph to pass a
lane-blocking bicyclist? Again, I think not.

>> Which is not relevant.
>
>It damn well is. If someone slowing down a driver is the problem, address
>the bigest bang for buck first, the sloth driver.

If they are both problems, there is no need to address them in a
strict hierarchical order.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> amakyonin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when
>>>>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or
>>>>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
>>>>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
>>>>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.
>>>>>
>>>>> They'll lose those few seconds at best.
>>>>
>>>>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very
>>>>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not
>>>>there.
>>>
>>> You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not.
>>
>>No, I mean doing at worst 25mph instead of 30mph.

> It's never necessary to slow to less than 25mph to pass a
> lane-blocking bicyclist? Again, I think not.

I see you're trying to change this into something I did write.

I've never had to adjust my speed more than about 5mph to pass a
bicyclist.

>>> Which is not relevant.
>>
>>It damn well is. If someone slowing down a driver is the problem, address
>>the bigest bang for buck first, the sloth driver.

> If they are both problems, there is no need to address them in a
> strict hierarchical order.

The bicyclist isn't a problem, it's the idiot driver who cannot figure
out how to pass smoothly. Both 'problems' are the drivers.

I don't have a problem passing bicyclists and I drive congested roads of
the city and country variety.

Tonight's 'problem driver' when I was bicycling... I am riding up to a
RED signal in the right lane... the left lane has a longer queue. This
woman decides to move fast down the left lane and as I am to start passing
the last car in the left lane queue she cuts me off.... I can't avoid
hitting her by braking alone as she is now on her brakes to avoid rear
ending the car in the right lane queue and my braking doesn't allow for
the distance being shortened. I keep sounding my air horn and
sail by her on the right as she didn't accelerate when the light turned
green.... guess what? she was slothing a right hand turn. The *****
either wanted me to wait for her or was intending to right hook me. I
don't know which.

Of course had she just moved behind me, she would have lost no time and
there would have been no collision risk... just another asshole driver
who *had* to pass the bicyclist.... If I had been driving she would not
have pulled that asshattery and if she had there might have been bent
sheet metal as per insurance rules, those sort of things will be side
impacts.