On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken
bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every ride...
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the whole if you
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-
hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-
that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken
bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every
ride...
avoid urban areas you probably are at least reasonably safe.
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-
sauk-county- hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-
run-driver- that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike
was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate
sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off
with broken bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than
once. Just not every ride...
whole if you avoid urban areas you probably are at least
reasonably safe.
Where's the fun in that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atkp8mklOh0
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-
sauk-county- hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-
run-driver- that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike
was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate
sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off
with broken bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than
once. Just not every ride...
whole if you avoid urban areas you probably are at least
reasonably safe.
In a different forum, perhaps, it might be interesting to
have an actual serious and factual discussion about how to
evaluate whether an activity should be considered dangerous.
It would require having participants understand some
fundamentals of statistics and probability. Who could
understand, for example, that there are activities (almost)
everyone considers "safe" and that have tons of data
confirming that they are relatively "safe; and yet, those
activities generate occasional injuries and deaths. IOW,
that the normal curve does have two tails.
But for some of the usual crowd here, I'll point out once
again that just walking generates far more fatalities per
mile than does bicycling. And that every study I've seen on
the question (about five of them, IIRC) has found that the
health benefits of bicycling are far greater than its tiny
risks. So on average, bicycling is safer than _not_ bicycling.
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the whole if you
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-
hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-
that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken
bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every
ride...
avoid urban areas you probably are at least reasonably safe.
In a different forum, perhaps, it might be interesting to have an actual >serious and factual discussion about how to evaluate whether an activity >should be considered dangerous.
It would require having participants understand some fundamentals of >statistics and probability. Who could understand, for example, that
there are activities (almost) everyone considers "safe" and that have
tons of data confirming that they are relatively "safe; and yet, those >activities generate occasional injuries and deaths. IOW, that the normal >curve does have two tails.
But for some of the usual crowd here, I'll point out once again that
just walking generates far more fatalities per mile than does bicycling.
And that every study I've seen on the question (about five of them,
IIRC) has found that the health benefits of bicycling are far greater
than its tiny risks. So on average, bicycling is safer than _not_
bicycling.
On 10/9/2024 2:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-
sauk-county- hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-
run-driver- that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike
was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate
sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off
with broken bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than
once. Just not every ride...
whole if you avoid urban areas you probably are at least
reasonably safe.
In a different forum, perhaps, it might be interesting to
have an actual serious and factual discussion about how to
evaluate whether an activity should be considered dangerous.
It would require having participants understand some
fundamentals of statistics and probability. Who could
understand, for example, that there are activities (almost)
everyone considers "safe" and that have tons of data
confirming that they are relatively "safe; and yet, those
activities generate occasional injuries and deaths. IOW,
that the normal curve does have two tails.
But for some of the usual crowd here, I'll point out once
again that just walking generates far more fatalities per
mile than does bicycling. And that every study I've seen on
the question (about five of them, IIRC) has found that the
health benefits of bicycling are far greater than its tiny
risks. So on average, bicycling is safer than _not_ bicycling.
The entire multi trillion dollar gambling industry survives
on various individual evaluations of known probabilities
applied to an individual case.
No matter what, a probability is not an instance.
Generally, the house wins. But not always.
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous*
and also that the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
*compared to, say, yard work:
https://tinyurl.com/2yhkkesn
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:09:35 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI think it can be dangerous but the benefits worth the risk. The
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the whole if you
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county- >>>>>> hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-
that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken
bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every
ride...
avoid urban areas you probably are at least reasonably safe.
In a different forum, perhaps, it might be interesting to have an actual
serious and factual discussion about how to evaluate whether an activity
should be considered dangerous.
It would require having participants understand some fundamentals of
statistics and probability. Who could understand, for example, that
there are activities (almost) everyone considers "safe" and that have
tons of data confirming that they are relatively "safe; and yet, those
activities generate occasional injuries and deaths. IOW, that the normal
curve does have two tails.
But for some of the usual crowd here, I'll point out once again that
just walking generates far more fatalities per mile than does bicycling.
And that every study I've seen on the question (about five of them,
IIRC) has found that the health benefits of bicycling are far greater
than its tiny risks. So on average, bicycling is safer than _not_
bicycling.
Go ahead and discuss it all you want. I think I'll make my own
evaluations.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:51:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 5:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:09:35 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI think it can be dangerous but the benefits worth the risk. The
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the whole if you >>>>>> avoid urban areas you probably are at least reasonably safe.
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county- >>>>>>>>> hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver- >>>>>>>>> that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not >>>>>>>> dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken >>>>>>> bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every >>>>>>> ride...
In a different forum, perhaps, it might be interesting to have an actual >>>>> serious and factual discussion about how to evaluate whether an activity >>>>> should be considered dangerous.
It would require having participants understand some fundamentals of >>>>> statistics and probability. Who could understand, for example, that
there are activities (almost) everyone considers "safe" and that have >>>>> tons of data confirming that they are relatively "safe; and yet, those >>>>> activities generate occasional injuries and deaths. IOW, that the normal >>>>> curve does have two tails.
But for some of the usual crowd here, I'll point out once again that >>>>> just walking generates far more fatalities per mile than does bicycling. >>>>> And that every study I've seen on the question (about five of them,
IIRC) has found that the health benefits of bicycling are far greater >>>>> than its tiny risks. So on average, bicycling is safer than _not_
bicycling.
Go ahead and discuss it all you want. I think I'll make my own
evaluations.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
question is over a period of time. So take for instance long haul
truckers who drive 100,000's of miles in short span. They increase the
chance of getting into an accident. I would guess like cyclist some have >>> gone even 1 million miles and no accidents. Then some have had a number
of them. Given I ride a lot miles the odds go up for sure. That said
just getting in your car and driving to any place like Chicago you run
the risk of serious accident.
I have run some 85,000 miles in my 42 year career of running and been
hurt. Fell and have injuries but never like those on a bike. My bike
miles now have surpassed my running miles but statistics are one thing
and events another.
Sorry, but "statistics are one thing and events another" sounds like an
excuse for bad thinking.
Let's apply it to the lottery. Here's an article explaining why
"investing" in a lottery ticket is a foolish idea:
https://www.investopedia.com/managing-wealth/worth-playing-lottery/
But there are millions of people who think "Yeah, I know the statistics
are bad. But 'events' are different, and I might still win." (Very few
of them would ever read that article, of course.)
Lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math.
And the logic applies to hundreds of other decisions. When robust data
predicts overwhelming odds of Outcome #1, it's not wise to bet on
Outcome #2, even though there is some tiny chance Outcome #2 may someday
occur.
But Frankie, we have a lottery here in Thailand - drawing the 1st and
16th of each month. Certainly long odds but the ticket cost is about
100 baht and the 1st prize is 6,000,000 baht, some 15,000 days of work
versus or 2 hours work at minimum salary.
There are 14,118 prizes awarded with values ranging from 6,000,000
down to 1,000 baht.
The lottery generates four billion baht a year for the Thai Red Cross, charities, community projects, and scholarships, and keeps many
people, often disabled, employed as ticket sellers.
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the whole if
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-
hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-
that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with
broken bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not
every ride...
you avoid urban areas you probably are at least reasonably safe.
Where's the fun in that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atkp8mklOh0
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might get rich," they
are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them are doing.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might get rich," they
are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them are doing.
People buy lottery tickets for the purpose of thinking "I might get
rich".
Daydreams have more zing when it's conceivable that they might happen.
On 10/11/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:18:23 -0400, Catrike RyderSo they buy a little disappointment every time they do it.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:17:07 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might get rich," they >>>>> are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them are doing.
People buy lottery tickets for the purpose of thinking "I might get
rich".
Daydreams have more zing when it's conceivable that they might happen.
Nothing wrong with having a desire to better one's self. Most people
do.
I can't speak for all people here (obviously) but from what I see it
is much a matter of buying a ticket for 10 baht, which pocket change
here, that might have a return of millions of baht rather then any
real hope of winning.
Whatever. I don't see how it's a logical thing to do.
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2024 9:30 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:07:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/10/2024 2:50 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:51:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 5:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:09:35 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI think it can be dangerous but the benefits worth the risk. The >>>>>>> question is over a period of time. So take for instance long haul >>>>>>> truckers who drive 100,000's of miles in short span. They increase the >>>>>>> chance of getting into an accident. I would guess like cyclist some have
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 2:24 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:In a different forum, perhaps, it might be interesting to have an actual
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:Oh boy do I know at the individual level sure but on the whole if you
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-
hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver- >>>>>>>>>>>>> that-injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not >>>>>>>>>>>> dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense. >>>>>>>>>>> But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken
bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every >>>>>>>>>>> ride...
avoid urban areas you probably are at least reasonably safe. >>>>>>>>>
serious and factual discussion about how to evaluate whether an activity
should be considered dangerous.
It would require having participants understand some fundamentals of >>>>>>>>> statistics and probability. Who could understand, for example, that >>>>>>>>> there are activities (almost) everyone considers "safe" and that have >>>>>>>>> tons of data confirming that they are relatively "safe; and yet, those
activities generate occasional injuries and deaths. IOW, that the normal
curve does have two tails.
But for some of the usual crowd here, I'll point out once again that >>>>>>>>> just walking generates far more fatalities per mile than does bicycling.
And that every study I've seen on the question (about five of them, >>>>>>>>> IIRC) has found that the health benefits of bicycling are far greater >>>>>>>>> than its tiny risks. So on average, bicycling is safer than _not_ >>>>>>>>> bicycling.
Go ahead and discuss it all you want. I think I'll make my own >>>>>>>> evaluations.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
gone even 1 million miles and no accidents. Then some have had a number >>>>>>> of them. Given I ride a lot miles the odds go up for sure. That said >>>>>>> just getting in your car and driving to any place like Chicago you run >>>>>>> the risk of serious accident.
I have run some 85,000 miles in my 42 year career of running and been >>>>>>> hurt. Fell and have injuries but never like those on a bike. My bike >>>>>>> miles now have surpassed my running miles but statistics are one thing >>>>>>> and events another.
Sorry, but "statistics are one thing and events another" sounds like an >>>>>> excuse for bad thinking.
Let's apply it to the lottery. Here's an article explaining why
"investing" in a lottery ticket is a foolish idea:
https://www.investopedia.com/managing-wealth/worth-playing-lottery/ >>>>>>
But there are millions of people who think "Yeah, I know the statistics >>>>>> are bad. But 'events' are different, and I might still win." (Very few >>>>>> of them would ever read that article, of course.)
Lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math.
And the logic applies to hundreds of other decisions. When robust data >>>>>> predicts overwhelming odds of Outcome #1, it's not wise to bet on
Outcome #2, even though there is some tiny chance Outcome #2 may someday >>>>>> occur.
But Frankie, we have a lottery here in Thailand - drawing the 1st and >>>>> 16th of each month. Certainly long odds but the ticket cost is about >>>>> 100 baht and the 1st prize is 6,000,000 baht, some 15,000 days of work >>>>> versus or 2 hours work at minimum salary.
There are 14,118 prizes awarded with values ranging from 6,000,000
down to 1,000 baht.
The lottery generates four billion baht a year for the Thai Red Cross, >>>>> charities, community projects, and scholarships, and keeps many
people, often disabled, employed as ticket sellers.
You're both right.
The Nevada casinos, by law, pay out 98% and still do very
very well. Every US State lottery would be illegal under
Nevada law, and yet the volume wagered is immense. And
consistent I might add.
And here, they provide considerable funding for charity functions :-)
If a person wants to buy a lottery ticket to contribute to charity,
fine. I just contribute to charity.
That is a silly remark. People don't buy a "number" to help the Red
cross, they buy a number to gamble. The point (that you so adroitly
avoid, is that gambling, which is attractive to some, also produces
some 4 billion to fund various local and charity funds.
I can't comment on the entire population of Thailand but my wife would >occasionally buy a ticket if she happened to have her wallet in her
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might get rich," they
are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them are doing.
hand when we walked past the counter.
Yes, the Nevada casinos do very well. They are built on money the
bettors lost, obviously.
As an aside, the TV commercials I've seen for a local casino show young, >>good looking people laughing as they celebrate their wins. I've never
been in the place. But once, passing through Las Vegas, we stayed
overnight at a hotel, then went briefly through a casino. Instead of men >>and women looking like models and celebrating happily, I saw only old >>ladies looking grumpy and bored as they fed token after token into slot >>machines. It didn't look like fun to me. But YMMV.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:18:23 -0400, Catrike RyderSo they buy a little disappointment every time they do it.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:17:07 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:12:12 -0400, Frank KrygowskiNothing wrong with having a desire to better one's self. Most people
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might get rich," they >>>>>> are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them are doing.
People buy lottery tickets for the purpose of thinking "I might get
rich".
Daydreams have more zing when it's conceivable that they might happen. >>>>
do.
I can't speak for all people here (obviously) but from what I see it
is much a matter of buying a ticket for 10 baht, which pocket change
here, that might have a return of millions of baht rather then any
real hope of winning.
Whatever. I don't see how it's a logical thing to do.
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
How so?
You are telling me that my wife was bad at math because she spent a
dime (rough relative value here) on something that she knew had
millions of other "players"? This is a woman (like many other women)
who can tell you in derail where every baht she spent to manage the
house last month was spent?
For all your bragging about all the countries you have ridden a
bicycle in you certainly know little or nothing about the people that
live there.
On 10/11/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:18:23 -0400, Catrike RyderSo they buy a little disappointment every time they do it.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:17:07 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might
get rich," they
are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them
are doing.
People buy lottery tickets for the purpose of thinking
"I might get
rich".
Daydreams have more zing when it's conceivable that they
might happen.
Nothing wrong with having a desire to better one's self.
Most people
do.
I can't speak for all people here (obviously) but from
what I see it
is much a matter of buying a ticket for 10 baht, which
pocket change
here, that might have a return of millions of baht rather
then any
real hope of winning.
Whatever. I don't see how it's a logical thing to do.
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:18:23 -0400, Catrike RyderSo they buy a little disappointment every time they do it.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:17:07 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:12:12 -0400, Frank KrygowskiNothing wrong with having a desire to better one's self. Most people
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But if a person buys a lottery ticket thinking "I might get rich," they >>>>>> are being foolish. And I think that's what most of them are doing.
People buy lottery tickets for the purpose of thinking "I might get
rich".
Daydreams have more zing when it's conceivable that they might happen. >>>>
do.
I can't speak for all people here (obviously) but from what I see it
is much a matter of buying a ticket for 10 baht, which pocket change
here, that might have a return of millions of baht rather then any
real hope of winning.
Whatever. I don't see how it's a logical thing to do.
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
How so?
You are telling me that my wife was bad at math because she spent a
dime (rough relative value here) on something that she knew had
millions of other "players"? This is a woman (like many other women)
who can tell you in derail where every baht she spent to manage the
house last month was spent?
For all your bragging about all the countries you have ridden a
bicycle in you certainly know little or nothing about the people that
live there.
On 10/12/2024 9:05 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
So they buy a little disappointment every time they do it.
I can't speak for all people here (obviously) but from what I see it >>>>> is much a matter of buying a ticket for 10 baht, which pocket change >>>>> here, that might have a return of millions of baht rather then any
real hope of winning.
Whatever. I don't see how it's a logical thing to do.
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
How so?
You are telling me that my wife was bad at math because she spent a
dime (rough relative value here) on something that she knew had
millions of other "players"?
If she ever thought she had a reasonable chance of making a profit, yes,
she was bad at math.
Nope. There are millions and millions of dullards playing.
And here, State lottos sell about 50 billion tickets per year so it's
not just a few dullards playing.
Please keep in mind that ~50% of the population is below average.
On 10/12/2024 4:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Of course some of us can afford to play the ridiculously long odds
lottery game without being careful about pissing away a buck or two.
I think you've just given evidence of your own math weaknesses! :-)
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual suspects, of >course.
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at >mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals with
free will, so although known facts are one thing (yes, lotto
odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and weighting of
criteria (I do have a small chance of winning and I can
spare the money for a ticket) are entirely subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals
with free will, so although known facts are one thing
(yes, lotto odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and
weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance of winning
and I can spare the money for a ticket) are entirely
subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked
why he took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense
cactus patch. He said "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or
do many other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we
stop pretending all choices are equally good?
On 10/12/2024 11:50 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:34:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual suspects, of
course.
Math has nothing to do with it.
:-) Yes, and physics has nothing to do with how short a tricycle's
stopping distance can be!
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different
social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its
only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
competent at
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They
know that in the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your
bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say
"What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have
you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't
care a bit.
tickets. You're also free to toss your money down the
toilet. The end results are the same. The difference is,
you're rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I
_might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual suspects, of
course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals with free will,
so although known facts are one thing (yes, lotto odds are a lousy
deal), the ranking and weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance
of winning and I can spare the money for a ticket) are entirely subjective. >>
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of bicycle tire
width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked why he took
off all his clothes and jumped into a dense cactus patch. He said "It
seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or do many
other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we stop pretending all >choices are equally good?
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals
with free will, so although known facts are one thing
(yes, lotto odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and
weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance of winning
and I can spare the money for a ticket) are entirely
subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked
why he took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense
cactus patch. He said "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or
do many other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we
stop pretending all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on
any given day is perfectly valid. Arithmetically improbable
yes, but a perfectly valid choice.
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying tickets. You're
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and >>>>> financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change >>>>> and who knows, it might happen?
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the >>>> long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say "What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't care a bit.
also free to toss your money down the toilet. The end results are the
same. The difference is, you're rationalizing the first choice by saying >"Well, I _might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
On 10/12/2024 2:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different
social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its
only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
competent at
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They
know that in the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your
bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say
"What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have
you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't
care a bit.
tickets. You're also free to toss your money down the
toilet. The end results are the same. The difference is,
you're rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I
_might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
People say the same thing about my 23mm tubulars, my autos
with no seat belts, my favorite little Italian cigars...
meh.
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different
social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its
only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
competent at
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They
know that in the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your
bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say
"What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have
you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't
care a bit.
tickets. You're also free to toss your money down the
toilet. The end results are the same. The difference is,
you're rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I
_might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:52:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:31:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals
with free will, so although known facts are one thing
(yes, lotto odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and
weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance of winning
and I can spare the money for a ticket) are entirely
subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked
why he took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense
cactus patch. He said "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or
do many other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we
stop pretending all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on
any given day is perfectly valid. Arithmetically improbable
yes, but a perfectly valid choice.
Indeed, every several weeks or so, sombody gets really rich by doing
it.
And every several weeks or so, someone gets killed in a bicycle crash
:-)
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
On 10/12/2024 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual suspects,
of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals with free
will, so although known facts are one thing (yes, lotto odds are a
lousy deal), the ranking and weighting of criteria (I do have a small
chance of winning and I can spare the money for a ticket) are
entirely subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of bicycle tire
width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked why he
took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense cactus patch. He said
"It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or do many
other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we stop pretending
all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
To a degree, it is. I've read that there are people who think it's
"good" to deliberately harm themselves, say with cuts or burns. Of
course, those people are often urged to seek psychological help.
But ISTM if a person endures some detriment (like wasting money on a
lottery ticket) hoping for a certain benefit (like getting rich, or at
least making a profit) and they fail over and over to achieve that
benefit, they are at least being internally inconsistent.
Didn't someone say "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over while hoping for different results"?
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on any given day
is perfectly valid. Arithmetically improbable yes, but a perfectly valid
choice.
I'll accept that if their motivation is (somehow) not to win money,
their choice might be valid. A bit incomprehensible to me, but maybe valid.
You and I will permanently disagree on this issue: You seem to
consistently say that any choice anyone makes is valid. I consistently
say there actually are such things as mistakes.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Having people agreeing with me not an issue with me, why is it such an
issue with you?
I see you needed to snip most of my post before replying. That makes
you dishonest and a coward in my evaluation.
Here's some of what you snipped.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1099566472/more-cyclists-are-being-killed-by-cars-advocates-say-u-s-streets-are-the-problem
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-deaths/
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/us-cycling-fatalities-hit-multi-decade-high-but-there-may-be-hope-in-safety-in-numbers-effect
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/12/2024 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
p.s. Applied arithmetic story:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/this-michigan-couple-spotted-
a-lucrative-lottery-loophole-1.6809181
I love that story. It illustrates what's possible for people who are >competent at math.
And some should think about the fact that the huge profits that couple >realized were paid by people who were not good at math.
On 10/12/2024 9:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:08:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying tickets. You're
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at >>>>>> mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the >>>>>> long run, you will lose money.
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and >>>>>>> financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change >>>>>>> and who knows, it might happen?
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say "What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't care a bit.
also free to toss your money down the toilet. The end results are the
same. The difference is, you're rationalizing the first choice by saying >>> "Well, I _might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
There is no mathematical incompetence involved.
John, you don't have the competence necessary to recognize the
incompetence.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Having people agreeing with me not an issue with me, why is it such an
issue with you?
I see you needed to snip most of my post before replying. That makes
you dishonest and a coward in my evaluation.
Here's some of what you snipped.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1099566472/more-cyclists-are-being-killed-by-cars-advocates-say-u-s-streets-are-the-problem
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-deaths/ >>
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/us-cycling-fatalities-hit-multi-decade-high-but-there-may-be-hope-in-safety-in-numbers-effect
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As ever with stuff such as safety in numbers or build it they will come >they are advocates tag lines but the details matter, re numbers having cars >expect bikes such as in london maybe is safer or more likely makes cycling >more comfortable as cars are more patient and so on.
The Embankment and other main routes into london always had lots of cyclist >this didnt magically make them nice places to cycle, hence they were >predominantly fast brave male roadies.
The cycle ways allowed for better numbers and more importantly more diverse >cyclists enough that the cyclists Canary is visible ie cargo bike with
young mum and wee kids!
But with details the old cycleway I use to work and similar are barely used >as they dont link up and are for most people the long way around and so
on, similar at least with UK using old railway lines, which can be leisure >routes, but being industrial transport they bypass the towns etc.
Remember years back when the cycleway was installed down most of the old
line in the valley I grew up in, at the meeting Sustrans the cycling >advocates folks didnt seem to grasp that no one in the villages at the >bottom of the steep valley (25%) road to the railway mid way up. Where
going to ride up that to get on the railway for utility.
And as such its used by leisure cyclists and but mostly dog walkers.
All of the hills are steep the shallower ones are 10% the others are in the >20/25% range one of which is iconic enough to get people traveling just to >climb it! It averages 17% and tops out at 25% though is worse hill at the >mouth of the valley, that is bit longer, but has short section between the >bends that holds 30% and then drops to 14% for the last bit!
Roger Merriman
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 9:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:08:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying tickets. You're >>>> also free to toss your money down the toilet. The end results are the
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at >>>>>>> mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and >>>>>>>> financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change >>>>>>>> and who knows, it might happen?
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say "What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have you or your >>>>> wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't care a bit.
same. The difference is, you're rationalizing the first choice by saying >>>> "Well, I _might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
There is no mathematical incompetence involved.
John, you don't have the competence necessary to recognize the
incompetence.
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally its not just folks with a condition.
Ie for some its fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:48:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Having people agreeing with me not an issue with me, why is it such an
issue with you?
I see you needed to snip most of my post before replying. That makes
you dishonest and a coward in my evaluation.
Here's some of what you snipped.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1099566472/more-cyclists-are-being-killed-by-cars-advocates-say-u-s-streets-are-the-problem
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-deaths/
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/us-cycling-fatalities-hit-multi-decade-high-but-there-may-be-hope-in-safety-in-numbers-effect
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As ever with stuff such as safety in numbers or build it they will come
they are advocates tag lines but the details matter, re numbers having cars >> expect bikes such as in london maybe is safer or more likely makes cycling >> more comfortable as cars are more patient and so on.
The Embankment and other main routes into london always had lots of cyclist >> this didnt magically make them nice places to cycle, hence they were
predominantly fast brave male roadies.
The cycle ways allowed for better numbers and more importantly more diverse >> cyclists enough that the cyclists Canary is visible ie cargo bike with
young mum and wee kids!
But with details the old cycleway I use to work and similar are barely used >> as they dont link up and are for most people the long way around and so
on, similar at least with UK using old railway lines, which can be leisure >> routes, but being industrial transport they bypass the towns etc.
Most railway lines in the USA go through the cities and towns. That's
true of the currently used tracks as well as the old abandoned lines
being converted to bike trails.
Remember years back when the cycleway was installed down most of the old
line in the valley I grew up in, at the meeting Sustrans the cycling
advocates folks didnt seem to grasp that no one in the villages at the
bottom of the steep valley (25%) road to the railway mid way up. Where
going to ride up that to get on the railway for utility.
And as such its used by leisure cyclists and but mostly dog walkers.
All of the hills are steep the shallower ones are 10% the others are in the >> 20/25% range one of which is iconic enough to get people traveling just to >> climb it! It averages 17% and tops out at 25% though is worse hill at the
mouth of the valley, that is bit longer, but has short section between the >> bends that holds 30% and then drops to 14% for the last bit!
Expecting people to ride bicycles on 20/30% grades is beyond
ridiculous.
Roger Merriman
I do not, for a minute, claim that riding a bicycle on streets and
roads is too dangerous for anyone to do. I have, in the past, done
quite bit of riding streets and roads myself, and still do it
occasionally on the Catrike. What I do claim and stand behind, is that
it's simply more dangerous than riding where vehicle traffic is not
allowed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:33:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different
social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its
only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
competent at
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They
know that in the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your
bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say
"What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have
you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't
care a bit.
tickets. You're also free to toss your money down the
toilet. The end results are the same. The difference is,
you're rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I
_might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
People say the same thing about my 23mm tubulars, my autos
with no seat belts, my favorite little Italian cigars...
meh.
Well (:-) here no seat belt gets you a fin equal to about 5 days
minimum salary :-)
On 10/12/2024 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The
usual suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals
with free will, so although known facts are one thing
(yes, lotto odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and
weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance of
winning and I can spare the money for a ticket) are
entirely subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was
asked why he took off all his clothes and jumped into a
dense cactus patch. He said "It seemed like a good idea
at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that,
or do many other demonstrably silly things. But please,
can we stop pretending all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
To a degree, it is. I've read that there are people who
think it's "good" to deliberately harm themselves, say with
cuts or burns. Of course, those people are often urged to
seek psychological help.
But ISTM if a person endures some detriment (like wasting
money on a lottery ticket) hoping for a certain benefit
(like getting rich, or at least making a profit) and they
fail over and over to achieve that benefit, they are at
least being internally inconsistent.
Didn't someone say "One definition of insanity is doing the
same thing over and over while hoping for different results"?
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on
any given day is perfectly valid. Arithmetically
improbable yes, but a perfectly valid choice.
I'll accept that if their motivation is (somehow) not to win
money, their choice might be valid. A bit incomprehensible
to me, but maybe valid.
You and I will permanently disagree on this issue: You seem
to consistently say that any choice anyone makes is valid. I
consistently say there actually are such things as mistakes.
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic
safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
On 10/12/2024 3:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You're free, of course, to continue buying tickets.
You're also free to toss your money down the toilet. The
end results are the same. The difference is, you're
rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I _might_
win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical
incompetence.
People say the same thing about my 23mm tubulars, my autos
with no seat belts, my favorite little Italian cigars...
I doubt people are really saying the same thing, i.e. that
those choices indicate your math skills are bad.
For the record, I wouldn't question your choice on any of
those three items. I'd be happy to discuss those three
choices in detail with you, and I think we'd find easy
agreement.
Regarding the last one, I've been joking lately that I ought
to take up smoking. It won't have time to kill me. Something
else will get me first.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:15:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:52:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:31:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals
with free will, so although known facts are one thing
(yes, lotto odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and
weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance of winning
and I can spare the money for a ticket) are entirely
subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked
why he took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense
cactus patch. He said "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or
do many other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we
stop pretending all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on
any given day is perfectly valid. Arithmetically improbable
yes, but a perfectly valid choice.
Indeed, every several weeks or so, sombody gets really rich by doing
it.
And every several weeks or so, someone gets killed in a bicycle crash
:-)
While riding on the streets or roads.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/12/2024 8:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic
safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Doesn't matter. It's his conclusion from the same facts we
all observe. I may disagree but it his an arguable (valid)
position.
On 10/13/2024 2:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:15:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:52:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:31:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals
with free will, so although known facts are one thing
(yes, lotto odds are a lousy deal), the ranking and
weighting of criteria (I do have a small chance of winning
and I can spare the money for a ticket) are entirely
subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of
bicycle tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked
why he took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense
cactus patch. He said "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or
do many other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we
stop pretending all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on
any given day is perfectly valid. Arithmetically improbable
yes, but a perfectly valid choice.
Indeed, every several weeks or so, sombody gets really rich by doing
it.
And every several weeks or so, someone gets killed in a bicycle crash
:-)
While riding on the streets or roads.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, life kills. Inexorably.
Yes even on bicycle paths, yes even sans voiture:
https://chi.streetsblog.org/2020/08/21/mark-goodman-56-died-after-bike-crash-on-lft-another-cyclist-was-injured-on-lsd
Our founder once hooked handlebars with a cyclist wobbling
at him on that same path. He was bruised but basically OK in
a pile of flesh and bicycles on the asphalt until a
rollerblader smacked him square in the head.
So it's not Manichean. The probability changes but not the
possibility.
On 10/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/11/2024 9:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I doubt anyone here disagrees.
Looks to me like others have already disagreed! The usual
suspects, of course.
As with so many RBT discussions, humans are individuals with free
will, so although known facts are one thing (yes, lotto odds are a >>>>>> lousy deal), the ranking and weighting of criteria (I do have a
small chance of winning and I can spare the money for a ticket) are >>>>>> entirely subjective.
See also riding in traffic, helmet use or not, choice of bicycle
tire width, etc etc.
I'm reminded of an old funny story, in which a guy was asked why he
took off all his clothes and jumped into a dense cactus patch. He
said "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Sure, individuals with free will are welcome to do that, or do many
other demonstrably silly things. But please, can we stop pretending
all choices are equally good?
Good is inherently subjective.
To a degree, it is. I've read that there are people who think it's
"good" to deliberately harm themselves, say with cuts or burns. Of
course, those people are often urged to seek psychological help.
But ISTM if a person endures some detriment (like wasting money on a
lottery ticket) hoping for a certain benefit (like getting rich, or at
least making a profit) and they fail over and over to achieve that
benefit, they are at least being internally inconsistent.
Didn't someone say "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over while hoping for different results"?
But the choice of whether or not to buy a lotto ticket on any given
day is perfectly valid. Arithmetically improbable yes, but a
perfectly valid choice.
I'll accept that if their motivation is (somehow) not to win money,
their choice might be valid. A bit incomprehensible to me, but maybe
valid.
You and I will permanently disagree on this issue: You seem to
consistently say that any choice anyone makes is valid. I consistently
say there actually are such things as mistakes.
Let's try another example. The BLM (Bureau of Land Mismangement) has
millions of acres with immense potential- fuels, metals, grazing land,
harvestable forests, on and on. The net revenue per acre is about zero.
How does that make any sense?
I'm not familiar with the facts regarding that controversy. But we've
had a similar one locally. Here it is:
The village owns 265 acre Poland Municipal Forest. Its core acreage was >donated in the 1930s by a widow, who specified in the deed that it was
to "remain in a natural state insofar as possible." Her vision was a
nature preserve, and the citizens of the area value it highly as a
nature preserve.
About 7 years ago, a local guy with deep connections to the logging
industry "generously donated" money to hire a commercial forester to
survey the place and advise the village on its "care." To the dismay of
the "generous donor," even that forester said it would not make sense to >harvest the forest for timber; but he did recommend cutting down trees >surrounding those trees that could someday be harvested, to help them
grow more rapidly. And he recommended a publicity campaign to eventually >convince the citizens to go along with logging.
The public meeting discussing this was jam packed, and I think the
logger and the "donor" were lucky to not be lynched. If they had been, I >might have enjoyed watching.
Again, I don't know how this applies in your example, but overall, there
are - or should be - criteria other than money.
It does make sense to some vociferous subsets of the citizenry, pagan
Mother Earth worshippers all the way to, "I like the sunrise view from
my RV four days per year."
We're getting that around here in the form of opposition to solar farms
out in the country. Opponents have lobbied against them even when the >proposed farms will not be visible from roads or adjacent properties,
because of setbacks and proposed screens of evergreens. Seems like
politics to me.
I have strong opinions but both, ridiculous though they may be, are
valid. Similarly, 'good' or 'right' are subjective evaluations in this
case as well as the lotto. Or tubular tires. Or riding in traffic.
I'm concentrating on issues where judgments of "good" are internally >inconsistent - that is, when those judging are consistently not
achieving their stated objectives - as in "Why do I buy lottery tickets? >Because I might win and get rich!"
To perhaps flip the political aspect: I'd feel the same way about a
person who says "I'm going to go back to college and invest the tuition
cost to get my masters degree in poetry. I plan to get wealthy by
writing poetry."
On 10/13/2024 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, life kills. Inexorably.
Yes even on bicycle paths, yes even sans voiture:
https://chi.streetsblog.org/2020/08/21/mark-goodman-56-died-after-bike-
crash-on-lft-another-cyclist-was-injured-on-lsd
Our founder once hooked handlebars with a cyclist wobbling at him on
that same path. He was bruised but basically OK in a pile of flesh and
bicycles on the asphalt until a rollerblader smacked him square in the
head.
I believe I've mentioned that our bike club rides have demonstrated
_far_ more crashes and injuries per mile of bike path riding compared to
per mile of road riding. It's not even close. No deaths, but on paths a
nice collection of broken bones, dislocations, a concussion to >unconsciousness, and of course bruises and abrasions.
So it's not Manichean. The probability changes but not the possibility.
I think one way of describing our current dispute is that many people
don't fully understand possibility and probability should be treated >differently.
On 10/13/2024 11:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/12/2024 8:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Doesn't matter. It's his conclusion from the same facts we all observe.
I may disagree but it his an arguable (valid) position.
"Arguable" applies to almost any position. All it requires is someone
willing to argue. It's a far different word from "accurate" or "correct."
I just can't agree with your apparent assertion that all opinions are >factually correct.
But then, I'm a data guy. I think rejecting - or, more likely, just not >understanding - robust data and proven facts deserves no respect.
On 10/13/2024 4:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 22:06:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
p.s. Applied arithmetic story:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/this-michigan-couple-spotted- >>>> a-lucrative-lottery-loophole-1.6809181
I love that story. It illustrates what's possible for people who are
competent at math.
And some should think about the fact that the huge profits that couple
realized were paid by people who were not good at math.
I don't buy a ticket very often, but had I bought a ticket to that
lottery I would have contributed a buck or two to that couple's
winnings.
I don't think I would have been unhappy about that. I would instead
have thought, "good for them" for a moment or two. Losing a few bucks
in a lottery is not a significant event in my life.
It's hard to comprehend why you apparently believe it would be a
significant event in your life, such that you've ranted and raved
about it for several days, now.
:-) As usual, you misunderstand. Losing a buck or two on a lottery would
make no difference to me at all.
We began this little kerfuffle as a discussion on the meaning of
"dangerous." I was talking about misinterpretation of data, and I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry, but "statistics are one thing and events another" sounds like an >excuse for bad thinking.
"Let's apply it to the lottery. Here's an article explaining why
"investing" in a lottery ticket is a foolish idea: >https://www.investopedia.com/managing-wealth/worth-playing-lottery/
"But there are millions of people who think "Yeah, I know the statistics
are bad. But 'events' are different, and I might still win." (Very few
of them would ever read that article, of course.)
"Lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math." >--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm astonished that we have a gaggle of people apparently claiming that >buying lottery tickets is smart! But I've read that there's one born
every minute.
On 10/13/2024 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:20:53 -0400, Frank KrygowskiNope. You misunderstand, yet again. That paragraph made no mention of
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/13/2024 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, life kills. Inexorably.
Yes even on bicycle paths, yes even sans voiture:
https://chi.streetsblog.org/2020/08/21/mark-goodman-56-died-after-bike- >>>> crash-on-lft-another-cyclist-was-injured-on-lsd
Our founder once hooked handlebars with a cyclist wobbling at him on
that same path. He was bruised but basically OK in a pile of flesh and >>>> bicycles on the asphalt until a rollerblader smacked him square in the >>>> head.
I believe I've mentioned that our bike club rides have demonstrated
_far_ more crashes and injuries per mile of bike path riding compared to >>> per mile of road riding. It's not even close. No deaths, but on paths a
nice collection of broken bones, dislocations, a concussion to
unconsciousness, and of course bruises and abrasions.
Are you claiming that my rides are actually more dangerous than
yours?
your rides at all.
SMH
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-hit-and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-that-injured-bicyclist
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-hit- and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-that- injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cyclist-killed-in-sauk-county-hit- and-run/ar-AA1rXCzM
https://www.cbs58.com/news/sheboygan-police-seek-hit-run-driver-that- injured-bicyclist
Didn't someone post a day or so ago that riding a bike was not
dangerious?
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I've left blood on the pavement and also have walked off with broken
bones (carrying a wrecked bicycle) more than once. Just not every
ride...
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the >(copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity should
be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are another." I
saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams of data
confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than wasting >money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending their >wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills in this
group were quite so low.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:57:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the >>(copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity should
be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are another." I >>saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams of data >>confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than wasting >>money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending their >>wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills in this
group were quite so low.
But why not? You keep going on as though you've discovered a gold
mine while I view it as pocket change.
Are you really so improvised that you have count pennies?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying tickets. You're
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and >>>>> financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change >>>>> and who knows, it might happen?
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in
the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say "What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't care a bit.
also free to toss your money down the toilet. The end results are the
same. The difference is, you're rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I _might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 9:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:08:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying tickets. You're >>>> also free to toss your money down the toilet. The end results are the
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at >>>>>>> mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and >>>>>>>> financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change >>>>>>>> and who knows, it might happen?
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say "What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have you or your >>>>> wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't care a bit.
same. The difference is, you're rationalizing the first choice by saying >>>> "Well, I _might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical incompetence.
There is no mathematical incompetence involved.
John, you don't have the competence necessary to recognize the
incompetence.
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost
literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying
that the (copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively
safe activity should be ignored, because "statistics are one
thing and events are another." I saw that as an attempt to
say one rare event trumps reams of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical
than wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to
defending their wasting money on the lottery. Or that the
mathematical skills in this group were quite so low.
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost
literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying
that the (copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively
safe activity should be ignored, because "statistics are one
thing and events are another." I saw that as an attempt to
say one rare event trumps reams of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical
than wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to
defending their wasting money on the lottery. Or that the
mathematical skills in this group were quite so low.
On 10/12/2024 3:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/12/2024 12:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:53:04 -0400, Catrike RyderThat's fine. You're free, of course, to continue buying
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different
social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its
only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
competent at
mathematical probability do know what will happen. They
know that in the
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover
your bets?
Why do you think that's any of your business?
I don't think Frankly understands English well... I say
"What the
heck, its only pocket Change" and he says "How often have
you or your
wife won enough to cover your bets?"
I never recovered enough to match my "bets" and I don't
care a bit.
tickets. You're also free to toss your money down the
toilet. The end results are the same. The difference is,
you're rationalizing the first choice by saying "Well, I
_might_ win big!"
That's the part that indicates some mathematical
incompetence.
"I might win big" doesn't indicate mathematical
incompetence. It indicates the the person making the bet has
decided it's worth the risk of losing. You've rationalized
it isn't worth the risk to you. Others have decided
differently.
I play from time to time. I waste much more money on other
things that show even less of a return. It isn't due to an
mathematical incompetence.
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the
(copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity
should be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are
another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams
of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than
wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending their
wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills in this
group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known facts not in
dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads and also low on
separated paths. Neither is zero. We all place that bet every morning
(or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people place that bet.
Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make their own
choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail more risk than
others, but people evaluate that risk in relation to their own lives in
their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think it's worth >discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably illogical or
inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of >bicycling, while ignoring the comparatively huge number of available >anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using the same mode
to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable monetary investment. That
is, "Those hundreds of millions of bad lottery results don't matter; I
can still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per fatality don't >matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put it
another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed the >problems your daughter has faced from installations designed to appease
those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries from bad >segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured motorist
harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:04:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally >>>>> pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the
(copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity
should be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are
another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams
of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than
wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending their >>>> wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills in this
group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known facts not in
dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads and also low on >>> separated paths. Neither is zero. We all place that bet every morning
(or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people place that bet.
Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make their own
choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail more risk than >>> others, but people evaluate that risk in relation to their own lives in
their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think it's worth
discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably illogical or
inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of
bicycling, while ignoring the comparatively huge number of available
anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using the same mode
to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable monetary investment. That
is, "Those hundreds of millions of bad lottery results don't matter; I
can still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per fatality don't
matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put it
another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed the
problems your daughter has faced from installations designed to appease
those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries from bad
segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured motorist
harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the
almost literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was
implying that the (copious) data showing bicycling to be
a relatively safe activity should be ignored, because
"statistics are one thing and events are another." I saw
that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams of
data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more
logical than wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to
defending their wasting money on the lottery. Or that the
mathematical skills in this group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known
facts not in dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads
and also low on separated paths. Neither is zero. We all
place that bet every morning (or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people
place that bet. Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make
their own choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail
more risk than others, but people evaluate that risk in
relation to their own lives in their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think
it's worth discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably
illogical or inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to
exaggerate the dangers of bicycling, while ignoring the
comparatively huge number of available anecdotes about
walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using
the same mode to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable
monetary investment. That is, "Those hundreds of millions of
bad lottery results don't matter; I can still imagine a good
lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per
fatality don't matter. I can still imagine being run over by
a car." Or to put it another way, "Nothing can make
bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've
discussed the problems your daughter has faced from
installations designed to appease those fearful people. I've
had friends who suffered injuries from bad segregation
designs, and I know folks who have endured motorist
harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally its not just folks with a condition. >>>
Ie for some its fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and financial
experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who dabbles in day
trading, and has done well enough to maintain his consulting business
with the income from his portfolio. His wife is an asset manager for a
local financial institution. They love to gamble, make regular trips to
Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season tickets. You'd hardly call either
of them mathematically incompetent. They've decided the risk is worth
the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
In a way, state or national lotteries are a great thing. Like it or not,
it does take some money to run a government. Lotteries give those buying >tickets a way to voluntarily pay extra, i.e. more than their fair share.
Heck, I'd be happy to have _all_ government expenses paid by lotteries. >Remove income tax, sales tax, property tax, and just run lots of huge >lotteries. Millions of people would say "Oh goody, more chances to
win!!!" And that scheme would certainly save me money.
Am 14.10.2024 um 17:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:04:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally >>>>>> pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the >>>>> (copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity
should be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are
another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams >>>>> of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than
wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending their >>>>> wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills in this >>>>> group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known facts not in
dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads and also low on >>>> separated paths. Neither is zero. We all place that bet every morning
(or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people place that bet. >>>> Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make their own
choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail more risk than >>>> others, but people evaluate that risk in relation to their own lives in >>>> their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think it's worth
discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably illogical or
inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of
bicycling, while ignoring the comparatively huge number of available
anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using the same mode
to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable monetary investment. That
is, "Those hundreds of millions of bad lottery results don't matter; I
can still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per fatality don't
matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put it
another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>>
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed the
problems your daughter has faced from installations designed to appease
those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries from bad
segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured motorist
harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
Life is inherently unsafe. Living is the only known activity with 100%
death rate; this does not stop us from participating in this activity.
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a condition. >>>
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is an
asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to gamble,
make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season tickets.
You'd hardly call either of them mathematically incompetent. They've
decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
In a way, state or national lotteries are a great thing. Like it or not,
it does take some money to run a government. Lotteries give those buying tickets a way to voluntarily pay extra, i.e. more than their fair share.
Heck, I'd be happy to have _all_ government expenses paid by lotteries. Remove income tax, sales tax, property tax, and just run lots of huge lotteries. Millions of people would say "Oh goody, more chances to
win!!!" And that scheme would certainly save me money.
Am 14.10.2024 um 17:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:04:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally >>>>>> pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the >>>>> (copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity
should be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are
another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps reams >>>>> of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than
wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending their >>>>> wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills in this >>>>> group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known facts not in
dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads and also
low on
separated paths. Neither is zero. We all place that bet every morning
(or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people place that bet. >>>> Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make their own
choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail more risk than >>>> others, but people evaluate that risk in relation to their own lives in >>>> their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think it's worth
discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably illogical or
inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of
bicycling, while ignoring the comparatively huge number of available
anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using the same mode
to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable monetary investment. That
is, "Those hundreds of millions of bad lottery results don't matter; I
can still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per fatality don't
matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put it
another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic
safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed the
problems your daughter has faced from installations designed to appease
those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries from bad
segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured motorist
harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
Life is inherently unsafe. Living is the only known activity with 100% death rate; this does not stop us from participating in this activity.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:23:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and >>>> enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and >>>> other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a condition. >>>>
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and financial >>> experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who dabbles in day
trading, and has done well enough to maintain his consulting business
with the income from his portfolio. His wife is an asset manager for a
local financial institution. They love to gamble, make regular trips to
Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season tickets. You'd hardly call either >>> of them mathematically incompetent. They've decided the risk is worth
the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:04:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
That's very much like "Over ten million miles
ridden per fatality don't
matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put it
another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic
safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed
the
problems your daughter has faced from installations designed
to appease
those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries from bad
segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured motorist
harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point,
gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea
and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as
well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks
with a condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like
drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math
skills and financial experience. He is now a semi-retired
web designer who dabbles in day trading, and has done
well enough to maintain his consulting business with the
income from his portfolio. His wife is an asset manager
for a local financial institution. They love to gamble,
make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery
season tickets. You'd hardly call either of them
mathematically incompetent. They've decided the risk is
worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he
plays either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays
slots for hours on end. They go in with a budget, when it's
spent they quit. My wife and I have no interest, gambling
bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been
closely analogous to people's perception of the supposed
great dangers of bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The
casual lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than
bingo night at the church hall. The casual cyclist -
regardless of where they ride - is always some risk of
personal injury.
In a way, state or national lotteries are a great thing.
Like it or not, it does take some money to run a
government. Lotteries give those buying tickets a way to
voluntarily pay extra, i.e. more than their fair share.
Heck, I'd be happy to have _all_ government expenses paid
by lotteries. Remove income tax, sales tax, property tax,
and just run lots of huge lotteries. Millions of people
would say "Oh goody, more chances to win!!!" And that
scheme would certainly save me money.
That's an interesting plan, but it would require massively
more participation than the business models for lotteries
can currently manage.
Just out of interest I just checked to see what a MAss
lottery season ticket costs, and evidently the state ended
the program this year.
https://support.masslottery.com/support/solutions/ articles/63000281023-why-are-you-no-longer-going-to-offer-
season-tickets-
"the system that has been utilized to process Season Tickets
is no longer viable. After a thorough evaluation of the
Season Ticket program and possible alternatives, it was
determined that the most appropriate business decision at
this time is to end the program. If a feasible option were
to become available, we would consider resuming
subscription-based purchases in the future."
It would seem that a lottery system as a primary revenue
generating scheme would be untenable. There's a limit to the
the market, apparently.
On 10/14/2024 10:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and >>>>> enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and >>>>> other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a
condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is
an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season
tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent. They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours
on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My wife
and I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night at
the church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride -
is always some risk of personal injury.
In a way, state or national lotteries are a great thing. Like it or
not, it does take some money to run a government. Lotteries give
those buying tickets a way to voluntarily pay extra, i.e. more than
their fair share.
Heck, I'd be happy to have _all_ government expenses paid by
lotteries. Remove income tax, sales tax, property tax, and just run
lots of huge lotteries. Millions of people would say "Oh goody, more
chances to win!!!" And that scheme would certainly save me money.
That's an interesting plan, but it would require massively more
participation than the business models for lotteries can currently
manage.
Just out of interest I just checked to see what a MAss lottery season
ticket costs, and evidently the state ended the program this year.
https://support.masslottery.com/support/solutions/
articles/63000281023-why-are-you-no-longer-going-to-offer- season-
tickets-
"the system that has been utilized to process Season Tickets is no
longer viable. After a thorough evaluation of the Season Ticket
program and possible alternatives, it was determined that the most
appropriate business decision at this time is to end the program. If a
feasible option were to become available, we would consider resuming
subscription-based purchases in the future."
It would seem that a lottery system as a primary revenue generating
scheme would be untenable. There's a limit to the the market, apparently.
Many variables in that however. If The Commonwealth paid out 98%, as the Nevada casinos do, participation and frequency would rise. I can't say
where those curves cross.
https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-state-lottery
MA already pays out at a higher rate than most States, roughly 88% overall.
https://fallriverreporter.com/massachusetts-state-lottery-sets-records- for-net-profit-revenue-customer-payouts/
On 10/14/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2024 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally >>>>>> pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the >>>>> (copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity
should be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are
another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps
reams of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than
wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending
their wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills
in this group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known facts not in
dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads and also low
on separated paths. Neither is zero. We all place that bet every
morning (or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people place that
bet. Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make their own
choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail more risk
than others, but people evaluate that risk in relation to their own
lives in their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think it's worth
discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably illogical or
inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of
bicycling, while ignoring the comparatively huge number of available
anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using the same
mode to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable monetary investment.
That is, "Those hundreds of millions of bad lottery results don't
matter; I can still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per fatality
don't matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put
it another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car
traffic safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed the
problems your daughter has faced from installations designed to
appease those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries
from bad segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured
motorist harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
Ending up on the losing side of any of those, after the fact, is not the
same as being 'wrong' in one's choice before the fact.
In a classic coin toss, someone wins and someone loses. In cases cited
above, it's a bit more complex arithmetically but not different in kind.
People find themselves on one side or the other of a previously unknown
(but possible) outcome.
???
You must be using a very unusual definition of "wrong." Or perhaps
you're using an excessively heavy handed application of Schrdingers Cat?
If a person says "The coin flip will turn up heads" and the coin flip
turns up tails, how is he not wrong?
Similarly, if a person says "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe" and you ride your bike to work time and again with no >problems, how is he not wrong?
If, say, he were to claim "I meant not safe on average" but the
available data clearly shows it is very safe on average, how is he not
wrong?
As usual, you and I differ in that I believe some things actually are >mistakes.
I consider riding my bicycle safe enough. But there are specific times
and places when I just will not (deep slushy snow with buses and beer
trucks sliding sideways). That's a personal risk limit. Others' risk
limit is at a different point. They are not 'wrong'.
I certainly accept the concept of personal risk limits. But I don't
think we should respect people's wildly inflated estimates of risk, nor
the warnings those people spew because of their inflated fears.
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and >>>>> enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and >>>>> other groups of people but equally its not just folks with a
condition.
Ie for some its fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is
an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season
tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours
on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is
always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the faulty >evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and >>>>> enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and >>>>> other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a
condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is
an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season
tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent. They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours
on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My wife
and I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night at
the church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride -
is always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the faulty evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:21:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You must be using a very unusual definition of "wrong." Or perhaps
you're using an excessively heavy handed application of Schrödinger’s Cat?
If a person says "The coin flip will turn up heads" and the coin flip
turns up tails, how is he not wrong?
Similarly, if a person says "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe" and you ride your bike to work time and again with no
problems, how is he not wrong?
Your personal anecdotes do not set any overall standards.
If, say, he were to claim "I meant not safe on average" but the
available data clearly shows it is very safe on average, how is he not
wrong?
Life itself is not safe, as was recently posted here, so how can
cycling among cars and trucks be safe?
As usual, you and I differ in that I believe some things actually are
mistakes.
Your opinion is just your opinion.
By the way, nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe.
On 10/14/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2024 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the
almost literally
pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was
implying that the (copious) data showing bicycling to
be a relatively safe activity should be ignored,
because "statistics are one thing and events are
another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare
event trumps reams of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more
logical than wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to
defending their wasting money on the lottery. Or that
the mathematical skills in this group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known
facts not in dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads
and also low on separated paths. Neither is zero. We all
place that bet every morning (or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people
place that bet. Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People
make their own choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail
more risk than others, but people evaluate that risk in
relation to their own lives in their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think
it's worth discussion when a person's choice is
demonstrably illogical or inconsistent. Example: Using an
anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of bicycling, while
ignoring the comparatively huge number of available
anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using
the same mode to conclude a lottery ticket is a
reasonable monetary investment. That is, "Those hundreds
of millions of bad lottery results don't matter; I can
still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per
fatality don't matter. I can still imagine being run over
by a car." Or to put it another way, "Nothing can make
bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've
discussed the problems your daughter has faced from
installations designed to appease those fearful people.
I've had friends who suffered injuries from bad
segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured
motorist harassment because of their choice to avoid such
facilities.
Ending up on the losing side of any of those, after the
fact, is not the same as being 'wrong' in one's choice
before the fact.
In a classic coin toss, someone wins and someone loses. In
cases cited above, it's a bit more complex arithmetically
but not different in kind. People find themselves on one
side or the other of a previously unknown (but possible)
outcome.
???
You must be using a very unusual definition of "wrong." Or
perhaps you're using an excessively heavy handed application
of Schrödinger’s Cat?
If a person says "The coin flip will turn up heads" and the
coin flip turns up tails, how is he not wrong?
Similarly, if a person says "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" and you ride your bike to
work time and again with no problems, how is he not wrong?
If, say, he were to claim "I meant not safe on average" but
the available data clearly shows it is very safe on average,
how is he not wrong?
As usual, you and I differ in that I believe some things
actually are mistakes.
I consider riding my bicycle safe enough. But there are
specific times and places when I just will not (deep
slushy snow with buses and beer trucks sliding sideways).
That's a personal risk limit. Others' risk limit is at a
different point. They are not 'wrong'.
I certainly accept the concept of personal risk limits. But
I don't think we should respect people's wildly inflated
estimates of risk, nor the warnings those people spew
because of their inflated fears.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope and >>>>>> enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, and >>>>>> other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a
condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is
an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically incompetent. >>>>> They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours
on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My wife and >>> I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night at the >>> church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is
always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point,
gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea
and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as
well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just
folks with a
condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like
drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math
skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web
designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to
maintain his
consulting business with the income from his
portfolio. His wife is
an asset manager for a local financial institution.
They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass
lottery season
tickets. You'd hardly call either of them
mathematically incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to
casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays
slots for hours
on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they
quit. My wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been
closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great
dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever.
The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than
bingo night at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where
they ride - is
always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that
is, the faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that
clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the
hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well
reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a >>>>>>>> condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his >>>>>>> consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to >>>>>>> gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours >>>>> on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My
wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night
at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is >>>>> always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
On 10/14/2024 2:45 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the hope >>>>>>> and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well reasons, >>>>>>> and
other groups of people but equally its not just folks with a
condition.
Ie for some its fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery
season tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent. They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for
hours on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My
wife and I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night at
the church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride -
is always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Even with regards to "faulty evaluation of data and probability' there
is no analogy. Millions and millions of people play the lottery knowing
full well the odds arent' in their favor. For most it's an enjoyable
hobby with a slight thrill of anticipation at the drawing.
In other words, most people pay the few bucks a week for the fun of
participating, not due to faulty logic. Sure, there are some under the
delusion that they're going to win, and others with addiction issues,
but those are outliers - not statistically significant enough to claim a
broad analogy to mathematical incompetence.
To pile analogy on analogy: Similarly, most bicyclists do not think
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
But the
only sample we have here does play the lottery, and doesn't seem to >comprehend data. I still think there's a connection.
Why do you want to begrudge other peoples fun?
Oh heck, they can spend all they want on lottery tickets!
While it's
very unlikely (um - statistically?) there may be a tiny chance it will >microscopically reduce my tax burden! Benefit! ;-)
On 10/14/2024 3:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2024 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:...
On 10/14/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Ending up on the losing side of any of those, after the fact, is not
the same as being 'wrong' in one's choice before the fact.
In a classic coin toss, someone wins and someone loses. In cases
cited above, it's a bit more complex arithmetically but not different
in kind. People find themselves on one side or the other of a
previously unknown (but possible) outcome.
???
You must be using a very unusual definition of "wrong." Or perhaps
you're using an excessively heavy handed application of Schrdingers
Cat?
If a person says "The coin flip will turn up heads" and the coin flip
turns up tails, how is he not wrong?
Similarly, if a person says "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe" and you ride your bike to work time and again
with no problems, how is he not wrong?
If, say, he were to claim "I meant not safe on average" but the
available data clearly shows it is very safe on average, how is he not
wrong?
As usual, you and I differ in that I believe some things actually are
mistakes.
Sorry if I was unclear.
Personal belief/preference statements before the fact can cover quite a
span without being wrong.
After the fact is of course a different matter, for coin tosses as well
as for a successful bicycle ride conclusion (or being killed along the
way). You don't actually know until the end.
But after the facts are in you do know whether the person had been wrong
at the time he made his choice, his bet, whatever. He was either right
or wrong.
If you want to defend the guy who turned out wrong, the best you can say
is "At the time, he wasn't yet proven wrong."
If your friend claimed a million dollar lotto prize, would you chastise
him for poor judgement?
I'd probably just express astonishment that he won. And to make the
situation sort of hypothetically practical (nice oxymoron, eh?) I'd be >willing to take such a friend's side bet every day - that is, each time
he'd play, I'd be happy to bet him one-to-one odds that he'd lose.
If he'd agree, you know I'd consistently make money off of him. Just as >casinos and lotteries make money off of people's bets. Because people >thinking "I might win" are very consistently wrong.
On 10/14/2024 2:45 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the
hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well
reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a
condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his
consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife
is an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love
to gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery
season tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent. They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for
hours on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit.
My wife and I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night at
the church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride
- is always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Even with regards to "faulty evaluation of data and probability' there
is no analogy. Millions and millions of people play the lottery
knowing full well the odds arent' in their favor. For most it's an
enjoyable hobby with a slight thrill of anticipation at the drawing.
In other words, most people pay the few bucks a week for the fun of
participating, not due to faulty logic. Sure, there are some under the
delusion that they're going to win, and others with addiction issues,
but those are outliers - not statistically significant enough to claim
a broad analogy to mathematical incompetence.
To pile analogy on analogy: Similarly, most bicyclists do not think
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." But the
only sample we have here does play the lottery, and doesn't seem to comprehend data. I still think there's a connection.
Why do you want to begrudge other peoples fun?
Oh heck, they can spend all they want on lottery tickets! While it's
very unlikely (um - statistically?) there may be a tiny chance it will microscopically reduce my tax burden! Benefit! ;-)
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss
logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
in different messages in the same thread.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:21:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2024 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2024 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
The real question is why you go on and on about the almost literally >>>>>>> pennies we spent.
The subject came up this way: Someone here was was implying that the >>>>>> (copious) data showing bicycling to be a relatively safe activity
should be ignored, because "statistics are one thing and events are >>>>>> another." I saw that as an attempt to say one rare event trumps
reams of data confirming its rarity.
I then said, essentially, "that thinking is no more logical than
wasting money on the lottery."
I didn't expect there were people here so dedicated to defending
their wasting money on the lottery. Or that the mathematical skills >>>>>> in this group were quite so low.
Everything mentioned is a personal evaluation of known facts not in
dispute.
Oh, I suspect there's some dispute!
The rate for cyclist death/injury is low on public roads and also low >>>>> on separated paths. Neither is zero. We all place that bet every
morning (or frequently at any rate).
The lotto is one in a million or some such. Some people place that
bet. Others do not.
For smokers and lung cancer it's roughly 1:7. People make their own >>>>> choice there as well.
Humans have agency and free will. Some decisions entail more risk
than others, but people evaluate that risk in relation to their own
lives in their own way.
People do make their own choices, of course. But I think it's worth
discussion when a person's choice is demonstrably illogical or
inconsistent. Example: Using an anecdote to exaggerate the dangers of
bicycling, while ignoring the comparatively huge number of available
anecdotes about walking, driving, etc.
The people using that mode of thinking are probably using the same
mode to conclude a lottery ticket is a reasonable monetary investment. >>>> That is, "Those hundreds of millions of bad lottery results don't
matter; I can still imagine a good lottery result."
That's very much like "Over ten million miles ridden per fatality
don't matter. I can still imagine being run over by a car." Or to put
it another way, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car
traffic safe."
And that latter attitude does affect others. IIRC you've discussed the >>>> problems your daughter has faced from installations designed to
appease those fearful people. I've had friends who suffered injuries
from bad segregation designs, and I know folks who have endured
motorist harassment because of their choice to avoid such facilities.
Ending up on the losing side of any of those, after the fact, is not the >>> same as being 'wrong' in one's choice before the fact.
In a classic coin toss, someone wins and someone loses. In cases cited
above, it's a bit more complex arithmetically but not different in kind. >>> People find themselves on one side or the other of a previously unknown
(but possible) outcome.
???
You must be using a very unusual definition of "wrong." Or perhaps
you're using an excessively heavy handed application of Schrödingers Cat? >>
If a person says "The coin flip will turn up heads" and the coin flip
turns up tails, how is he not wrong?
Similarly, if a person says "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe" and you ride your bike to work time and again with no
problems, how is he not wrong?
Your personal anecdotes do not set any overall standards.
If, say, he were to claim "I meant not safe on average" but the
available data clearly shows it is very safe on average, how is he not
wrong?
Life itself is not safe, as was recently posted here, so how can
cycling among cars and trucks be safe?
As usual, you and I differ in that I believe some things actually are
mistakes.
Your opinion is just your opinion.
By the way, nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe.
I consider riding my bicycle safe enough. But there are specific times
and places when I just will not (deep slushy snow with buses and beer
trucks sliding sideways). That's a personal risk limit. Others' risk
limit is at a different point. They are not 'wrong'.
I certainly accept the concept of personal risk limits. But I don't
think we should respect people's wildly inflated estimates of risk, nor
the warnings those people spew because of their inflated fears.
Why do you continued to talk about who and what you respect? Your
respect in such matters is insignificant.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe. During my thirty years in a rural
part of New York State, two cars drove into buildings within walking
distance of my house -- distances I had, in fact, walked. The first
parked in the bar-room of a pub, the second in a sleeping porch. (The
boy who usually slept there was out that night.)
Things have slacked off since we moved to a tourist town. I've been
to the scene of only one car-parked-inside incident in the twenty
years we have been here, and that was in an adjoining town.
But it was in a part of Warsaw that is closer to my house than some
parts of Winona Lake. The two towns form a closed ring around the
lake.
But I employ more vigilance on recreationways than in my bedroom.
Come to think of it, I've scored two serious injuries and an
embarrassing crash on the Greenway, and the emergency-room injury I
incurred on a street came of putting my foot down so suddenly that I
tore my shin on my left pedal. Twelve stitches.
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a
binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all.
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be >logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively.
And I suppose I
should add something about the necessity of what might be called a
"lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor
scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper
tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as
many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden
between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to
any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in >fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far
safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's
safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting.
But the data that speaks loudest to me is that whether in terms of years
of life gained vs. lost, or health care costs spent vs. saved, or other
such metrics, cycling is safer than _not_ cycling. Its benefits greatly >outweigh its tiny detriments.
I'd say if any activity is safer than _not_ doing that activity, it
qualifies as "safe."
(Citations on request.)
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss
logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements
can be true.
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the
hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well
reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a >>>>>>>> condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his >>>>>>> consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to >>>>>>> gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours >>>>> on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My
wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night
at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is >>>>> always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:07:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
So she does buy the ticket in hopes of winning. ("I might win.")
I asked my housekeeper about playing the lottery - 40? years old,
married, 2 kids, a bit more then minimum salary, etc. - and did she
expect to win and so on, She said that she buys a ticket every month.
I asked did she think she was going to win? And she said no. I asked
her if she didn't expect to win why buy a ticket> She said "I might
win" and went on to explain that if she did win she would receive an
unimaginable (to her) amount of money.
But she won't. And I'm willing to bet on it, every time she buys a
ticket. Would you take my bet, John?
Why? Why would I bet on whether she wins or looses... in fact I hope
she doesn't as if she wins all that money she'll probably stop
working.
But more important, why do you care? Does it have any effect on your
income? Why all the ranting and raving about lotteries did you bet
your pay on the lottery and lose?
Or is this just another instance where you can feel superior .. Look!
Look! I' don't bet on the Lottery! Aren't I wonderful!
Am 14.10.2024 um 22:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss
logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements
can be true.
Whether or not both statements are ture depends on your exact definition
or the word "safe". If you define "safe" in one certain sense, the
first sentence is trivially true but then you should logically strip it
to its minimum
"nothing can make bicycling safe".
By adding the sub-clause "among truck traffic" you imply that the
sub-clause has a significant impact on the meaning of the sentence.
With your second sentence you imply that this sub-clause above has no >significant impact.
So you're not lying by words but by implications.
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the >>>>>>>>> hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well
reasons, and
other groups of people but equally its not just folks with a >>>>>>>>> condition.
Ie for some its fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and >>>>>>>> financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who >>>>>>>> dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his >>>>>>>> consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to >>>>>>>> gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays >>>>>> either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours >>>>>> on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My
wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of >>>>>>> bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual >>>>>> lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night
at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is >>>>>> always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:01:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:33:02 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:07:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
So she does buy the ticket in hopes of winning. ("I might win.")
I asked my housekeeper about playing the lottery - 40? years old,
married, 2 kids, a bit more then minimum salary, etc. - and did she
expect to win and so on, She said that she buys a ticket every month. >>>>> I asked did she think she was going to win? And she said no. I asked >>>>> her if she didn't expect to win why buy a ticket> She said "I might
win" and went on to explain that if she did win she would receive an >>>>> unimaginable (to her) amount of money.
But she won't. And I'm willing to bet on it, every time she buys a >>>>ticket. Would you take my bet, John?
Why? Why would I bet on whether she wins or looses... in fact I hope
she doesn't as if she wins all that money she'll probably stop
working.
But more important, why do you care? Does it have any effect on your >>>income? Why all the ranting and raving about lotteries did you bet
your pay on the lottery and lose?
Or is this just another instance where you can feel superior .. Look! >>>Look! I' don't bet on the Lottery! Aren't I wonderful!
Continuousy refusing to do something where the risk is almost zero and
the reward is huge, is, in my opinion, incredibly stupid.
But Frankie is at risk. Think of the money he might lose.
Thus the agonizing calculations before deciding not to risk his pocket >change.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the >>>>>>>>>> hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well
reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a >>>>>>>>>> condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and >>>>>>>>> financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who >>>>>>>>> dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his >>>>>>>>> consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to >>>>>>>>> gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>>>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays >>>>>>> either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours >>>>>>> on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My
wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely >>>>>>>> analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of >>>>>>>> bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual >>>>>>> lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night >>>>>>> at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is >>>>>>> always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
On 10/15/2024 6:09 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:00:48 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 22:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss >>>>> logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements
can be true.
You guess wrong. The two statements as written, in context, are
diametrically opposed.
Whether or not both statements are ture depends on your exact definition >>> or the word "safe". If you define "safe" in one certain sense, the
first sentence is trivially true but then you should logically strip it
to its minimum
"nothing can make bicycling safe".
By adding the sub-clause "among truck traffic" you imply that the
sub-clause has a significant impact on the meaning of the sentence.
With your second sentence you imply that this sub-clause above has no
significant impact.
So you're not lying by words but by implications.
He wasn't lying, he's just a fucking idiot.
I'm not lying at all. Cycling among cars and trucks isn't safe enough
for me to do it when I don't have to, but I don't see it as a "great
danger." I've never said nor implied that I thought it was a "great
danger."
and again, the dumbass isn't bright enough o understand his own context.
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
implicitly states it's dangerous. If you didn't think it was dangerous,
you wouldn't have written "nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe."
Seriously, you're as bad as kunich sometimes
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was
Chuck Yeager's.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:00:48 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 22:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss >>>> logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements
can be true.
Whether or not both statements are ture depends on your exact definition
or the word "safe". If you define "safe" in one certain sense, the
first sentence is trivially true but then you should logically strip it
to its minimum
"nothing can make bicycling safe".
By adding the sub-clause "among truck traffic" you imply that the
sub-clause has a significant impact on the meaning of the sentence.
With your second sentence you imply that this sub-clause above has no
significant impact.
So you're not lying by words but by implications.
I'm not lying at all. Cycling among cars and trucks isn't safe enough
for me to do it when I don't have to, but I don't see it as a "great
danger." I've never said nor implied that I thought it was a "great
danger."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the >>>>>>>>>>> hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well >>>>>>>>>>> reasons, and
other groups of people but equally its not just folks with a >>>>>>>>>>> condition.
Ie for some its fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and >>>>>>>>>> financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who >>>>>>>>>> dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his >>>>>>>>>> consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to >>>>>>>>>> gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>>>>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays >>>>>>>> either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours >>>>>>>> on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My >>>>>>>> wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely >>>>>>>>> analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of >>>>>>>>> bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual >>>>>>>> lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night >>>>>>>> at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is >>>>>>>> always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the >>>>>>> faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:18:25 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements >>>>> can be true.
You guess wrong. The two statements as written, in context, are
diametrically opposed.
As I said, "Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both
statements can be true."
Something evaluated as unsafe is not the same as it having a great
danger.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:25:38 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:15 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>> lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for
instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was
Chuck Yeager's.
dumbass..Risk assessment is a term used in statistical analysis. You're
using it incorrectly (quelle surprise) to describe your personal fear.
It wasn't me who used that term, little fella.
And by the way, I didn't immediately jump on your recent (look above) incorrect statement that math was purely subjective. Math, is of
course, not "purely subjective," but I understood what you were trying
to say.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
You might want to try understanding Rolfs explanation rather than being
an intransigent asshole. He hit the nail on the head and english isn't'
even his first language.
And before you whine about snipping content, the content I snipped
wasn't relevant to the points being discussed by Rolf and myself. IT
wasn't dishonest or cowardly, it's called "netiquette", dumbass.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>> lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied otherwise
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 6:15 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for
instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was
Chuck Yeager's.
dumbass..Risk assessment is a term used in statistical analysis. You're
using it incorrectly (quelle surprise) to describe your personal fear.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
You might want to try understanding Rolfs explanation rather than being
an intransigent asshole. He hit the nail on the head and english isn't'
even his first language.
And before you whine about snipping content, the content I snipped
wasn't relevant to the points being discussed by Rolf and myself. IT
wasn't dishonest or cowardly, it's called "netiquette", dumbass.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point, gambling people >>>>>>>>>> absolutely know the odds but some folks like the idea and the >>>>>>>>>> hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries as well
reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just folks with a >>>>>>>>>> condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like drink really. >>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math skills and >>>>>>>>> financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web designer who >>>>>>>>> dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to maintain his >>>>>>>>> consulting business with the income from his portfolio. His wife is >>>>>>>>> an asset manager for a local financial institution. They love to >>>>>>>>> gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have Mass lottery season >>>>>>>>> tickets. You'd hardly call either of them mathematically
incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to casinos he plays >>>>>>> either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays slots for hours >>>>>>> on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they quit. My
wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't been closely >>>>>>>> analogous to people's perception of the supposed great dangers of >>>>>>>> bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there whatsoever. The casual >>>>>>> lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than bingo night >>>>>>> at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where they ride - is >>>>>>> always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking - that is, the
faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was
Chuck Yeager's.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 8:21 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:25:38 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:15 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>>> lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for >>>> instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was >>>> Chuck Yeager's.
dumbass..Risk assessment is a term used in statistical analysis. You're
using it incorrectly (quelle surprise) to describe your personal fear.
It wasn't me who used that term, little fella.
It was you that tried to argue that probability was subjective, pipsqueak.
And by the way, I didn't immediately jump on your recent (look above)
incorrect statement that math was purely subjective. Math, is of
course, not "purely subjective," but I understood what you were trying
to say.
Oh? care to give an example of how math is subjective?
This is why you
couldn't hack it in school. Disagreeing with the trigonometric
identities is a sure way to show you weren't cut out for anything beyond >Through the Looking Glass.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
You might want to try understanding Rolfs explanation rather than being
an intransigent asshole. He hit the nail on the head and english isn't'
even his first language.
And before you whine about snipping content, the content I snipped
wasn't relevant to the points being discussed by Rolf and myself. IT
wasn't dishonest or cowardly, it's called "netiquette", dumbass.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:55:53 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:21 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:25:38 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:15 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>>>> lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for >>>>> instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was >>>>> Chuck Yeager's.
dumbass..Risk assessment is a term used in statistical analysis. You're >>>> using it incorrectly (quelle surprise) to describe your personal fear.
It wasn't me who used that term, little fella.
It was you that tried to argue that probability was subjective, pipsqueak.
Nope
And by the way, I didn't immediately jump on your recent (look above)
incorrect statement that math was purely subjective. Math, is of
course, not "purely subjective," but I understood what you were trying
to say.
Oh? care to give an example of how math is subjective?
It was you who said math was "purely subjective." It was me who said
"Math, is of course, not "purely subjective."
This is why you
couldn't hack it in school. Disagreeing with the trigonometric
identities is a sure way to show you weren't cut out for anything beyond
Through the Looking Glass.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
You might want to try understanding Rolfs explanation rather than being >>>> an intransigent asshole. He hit the nail on the head and english isn't' >>>> even his first language.
And before you whine about snipping content, the content I snipped
wasn't relevant to the points being discussed by Rolf and myself. IT
wasn't dishonest or cowardly, it's called "netiquette", dumbass.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and
probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but
may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is
subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation"
which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky
divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at
10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their
parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was
outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to
partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every
200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the
floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to
suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said
nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring
ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are
subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities
is not subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a
probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating a
probability does not change the probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state
proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>>>> lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego. >>>
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own
ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is
an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes
that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance
for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us
will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less important to a particular individual.
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2024 8:35 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/13/2024 5:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think your both rather missing the others point,
gambling people
absolutely know the odds but some folks like the
idea and the hope and
enjoy it.
Folks like myself are prone to it, brain injuries
as well reasons, and
other groups of people but equally it’s not just
folks with a
condition.
Ie for some it’s fun, others is a problem. Bit like
drink really.
Roger Merriman
Our good friends are a couple with both decent math
skills and
financial experience. He is now a semi-retired web
designer who
dabbles in day trading, and has done well enough to
maintain his
consulting business with the income from his
portfolio. His wife is
an asset manager for a local financial institution.
They love to
gamble, make regular trips to Foxwoods, and have
Mass lottery season
tickets. You'd hardly call either of them
mathematically incompetent.
They've decided the risk is worth the reward.
I'm curious what they count as the "reward."
"It's fun". Not my quote, theirs. When they go to
casinos he plays
either black jack or poker for hours on end, she plays
slots for hours
on end. They go in with a budget, when it's spent they
quit. My wife and
I have no interest, gambling bores us.
I wouldn't have brought up this issue if it hadn't
been closely
analogous to people's perception of the supposed
great dangers of
bicycling.
Oh fer fucks sake. There's no analogy there
whatsoever. The casual
lottery player is at no more safety/welfare risk than
bingo night at the
church hall. The casual cyclist - regardless of where
they ride - is
always some risk of personal injury.
What's analogous is not the risk, but the thinking -
that is, the faulty
evaluation of data and probability. I thought I made
that clear.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability
is indeed subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may
suffer from lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which
might mean the one or the other.
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>>> lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego. >>
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an >objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility >https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 9:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:55:53 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:21 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Nope
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:25:38 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:15 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:It wasn't me who used that term, little fella.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>>>>> lack of data.
No, it's subjective. Different people have different risk factors, for >>>>>> instance my risk factor for flying an airplane is far greater than was >>>>>> Chuck Yeager's.
dumbass..Risk assessment is a term used in statistical analysis. You're >>>>> using it incorrectly (quelle surprise) to describe your personal fear. >>>>
It was you that tried to argue that probability was subjective, pipsqueak. >>
And by the way, I didn't immediately jump on your recent (look above)
incorrect statement that math was purely subjective. Math, is of
course, not "purely subjective," but I understood what you were trying >>>> to say.
Oh? care to give an example of how math is subjective?
It was you who said math was "purely subjective." It was me who said
"Math, is of course, not "purely subjective."
I see. I stand corrected - rushing the keyboard as it were. My apologies.
This is why you
couldn't hack it in school. Disagreeing with the trigonometric
identities is a sure way to show you weren't cut out for anything beyond >>> Through the Looking Glass.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
You might want to try understanding Rolfs explanation rather than being >>>>> an intransigent asshole. He hit the nail on the head and english isn't' >>>>> even his first language.
And before you whine about snipping content, the content I snipped
wasn't relevant to the points being discussed by Rolf and myself. IT >>>>> wasn't dishonest or cowardly, it's called "netiquette", dumbass.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/14/2024 11:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:07:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
So she does buy the ticket in hopes of winning. ("I might win.")
I asked my housekeeper about playing the lottery - 40? years old,
married, 2 kids, a bit more then minimum salary, etc. - and did she
expect to win and so on, She said that she buys a ticket every month. >>>> I asked did she think she was going to win? And she said no. I asked
her if she didn't expect to win why buy a ticket> She said "I might
win" and went on to explain that if she did win she would receive an
unimaginable (to her) amount of money.
But she won't. And I'm willing to bet on it, every time she buys a
ticket. Would you take my bet, John?
Why? Why would I bet on whether she wins or looses...
OK, I'll give you credit for understanding the odds well enough to
refuse to bet me.
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile >traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric:
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a
binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all.
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be
logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I
should add something about the necessity of what might be called a
"lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor
scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper
tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as
many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden
between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to >>> any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in
fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far
safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's
safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting.
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly
because of men"
fatalities per person-trips.
Do you not understand the difference? (And if only the crowd here were >different, we could have a rational discussion on the benefits and
detriments of the various metrics. But with you, John, not a chance.)
Now feel free to address the other points I made.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:52:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own >>>>>> ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is
an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes >>> that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance
for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us
will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
A personal assessment of the risks and rewards is an evaluation.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Accepting for example the known failure rate for
parachutes, many of us will pass on that opportunity while
others will seek the experience despite some risk. Same
for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic and so on.
It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
ISTM what you're saying or implying is that a well informed
individual will compare the risks (or detriments) and either
objectively or subjectively compare them with the benefits.
In some cases, the benefits are shown by fairly robust data
- as in, the health benefits of bicycling. In other cases,
the benefits are personal - as in, the joy and excitement of
falling free and observing the world far below. And that all
seems sensible to me.
The problems occur when people have very incorrect
perceptions of either the risks (as is common with
bicycling) or the likelihood of benefits (as seems common
with lotteries).
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:52:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own >>>>>> ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is
an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes >>> that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance
for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us
will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
A personal assessment of the risks and rewards is an evaluation.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 6:09 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:00:48 +0200, Rolf MantelAs I recall, you think riding among cars and trucks is enough of a
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 22:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss >>>>> logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements
can be true.
Whether or not both statements are ture depends on your exact definition >>> or the word "safe". If you define "safe" in one certain sense, the
first sentence is trivially true but then you should logically strip it
to its minimum
"nothing can make bicycling safe".
By adding the sub-clause "among truck traffic" you imply that the
sub-clause has a significant impact on the meaning of the sentence.
With your second sentence you imply that this sub-clause above has no
significant impact.
So you're not lying by words but by implications.
I'm not lying at all. Cycling among cars and trucks isn't safe enough
for me to do it when I don't have to, but I don't see it as a "great
danger." I've never said nor implied that I thought it was a "great
danger."
"great danger" that you almost never do it.
To get a few miles from your
home to your nice safe bicycle path with no scary cars or trucks, you
load your tricycle in your pickup truck, rather than ride it. And even
there, you won't ride without a loaded handgun at your crotch, because
you're so afraid of ... I don't know, maybe the young mothers pushing
their babies in strollers?
You live in a very, very scary world!
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are
objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating
a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things differently.
Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a
thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an >>>> objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:07:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:09 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:00:48 +0200, Rolf MantelAs I recall, you think riding among cars and trucks is enough of a
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 22:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss >>>>>> logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't." >>>>>>
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements >>>>> can be true.
Whether or not both statements are ture depends on your exact definition >>>> or the word "safe". If you define "safe" in one certain sense, the
first sentence is trivially true but then you should logically strip it >>>> to its minimum
"nothing can make bicycling safe".
By adding the sub-clause "among truck traffic" you imply that the
sub-clause has a significant impact on the meaning of the sentence.
With your second sentence you imply that this sub-clause above has no
significant impact.
So you're not lying by words but by implications.
I'm not lying at all. Cycling among cars and trucks isn't safe enough
for me to do it when I don't have to, but I don't see it as a "great
danger." I've never said nor implied that I thought it was a "great
danger."
"great danger" that you almost never do it.
"Great danger" is your term, not mine.
Great danger experience is
something I'd make a decided effort to avoid. On the other hand, I
have and will continue to ride on streets and roads whenever I have a
reason to do it.
To get a few miles from your
home to your nice safe bicycle path with no scary cars or trucks, you
load your tricycle in your pickup truck, rather than ride it. And even
there, you won't ride without a loaded handgun at your crotch, because
you're so afraid of ... I don't know, maybe the young mothers pushing
their babies in strollers?
You live in a very, very scary world!
That's from the guy who says riding on bike paths is dangerous and
having a gun in your home is dangerous.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us
will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
ISTM what you're saying or implying is that a well informed individual
will compare the risks (or detriments) and either objectively or
subjectively compare them with the benefits. In some cases, the benefits
are shown by fairly robust data - as in, the health benefits of
bicycling. In other cases, the benefits are personal - as in, the joy
and excitement of falling free and observing the world far below. And
that all seems sensible to me.
The problems occur when people have very incorrect perceptions of either
the risks (as is common with bicycling) or the likelihood of benefits
(as seems common with lotteries).
On 10/15/2024 10:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:52:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own >>>>>>> ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is >>>>> an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes >>>> that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance >>>> for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us >>>> will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
A personal assessment of the risks and rewards is an evaluation.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And quantifying the actuarial risk is 'valuation'.
On 10/15/2024 11:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:52:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own >>>>>>> ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is >>>>> an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes >>>> that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance >>>> for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us >>>> will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
A personal assessment of the risks and rewards is an evaluation.
Which has no effect on the statistics
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are
objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating >>> a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things differently.
Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a
thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it.
Very good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can actually >purchase.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an >>>>> objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 11:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:07:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:09 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:00:48 +0200, Rolf MantelAs I recall, you think riding among cars and trucks is enough of a
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 22:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:31:42 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On that particular individuals situation, I'll agree that they dismiss >>>>>>> logic, especially when that particular individual writes
"nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
and
"Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't." >>>>>>>
in different messages in the same thread.
I guess Junior isn't bright enough to understand that both statements >>>>>> can be true.
Whether or not both statements are ture depends on your exact definition >>>>> or the word "safe". If you define "safe" in one certain sense, the
first sentence is trivially true but then you should logically strip it >>>>> to its minimum
"nothing can make bicycling safe".
By adding the sub-clause "among truck traffic" you imply that the
sub-clause has a significant impact on the meaning of the sentence.
With your second sentence you imply that this sub-clause above has no >>>>> significant impact.
So you're not lying by words but by implications.
I'm not lying at all. Cycling among cars and trucks isn't safe enough
for me to do it when I don't have to, but I don't see it as a "great
danger." I've never said nor implied that I thought it was a "great
danger."
"great danger" that you almost never do it.
"Great danger" is your term, not mine.
Nope.
You wrote "Who percieves any great dangers of bicycling? I certainly don't."
No one else here used that phrase before you (in this thread at least)
Great danger experience is
something I'd make a decided effort to avoid. On the other hand, I
have and will continue to ride on streets and roads whenever I have a
reason to do it.
To get a few miles from your
home to your nice safe bicycle path with no scary cars or trucks, you
load your tricycle in your pickup truck, rather than ride it. And even
there, you won't ride without a loaded handgun at your crotch, because
you're so afraid of ... I don't know, maybe the young mothers pushing
their babies in strollers?
You live in a very, very scary world!
That's from the guy who says riding on bike paths is dangerous and
having a gun in your home is dangerous.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from >>>>>>> lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego. >>>>
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are >objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating
a probability does not change the probability.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers"
and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at
10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their
parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Data comparing skydiving to some other common activities:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Data from Failure Analysis Associates, consultants to the
insurance industry.
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean >>>>>>> the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>> US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own >>>>> ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is
an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes
that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance
for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us
will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:25:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us
will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
ISTM what you're saying or implying is that a well informed individual
will compare the risks (or detriments) and either objectively or
subjectively compare them with the benefits. In some cases, the benefits
are shown by fairly robust data - as in, the health benefits of
bicycling. In other cases, the benefits are personal - as in, the joy
and excitement of falling free and observing the world far below. And
that all seems sensible to me.
The problems occur when people have very incorrect perceptions of either
You're assessment of perceptions has no value to anyone but yourself.
Why do you post them as if others care?
the risks (as is common with bicycling) or the likelihood of benefits
(as seems common with lotteries).
I don't have any problems with my assessments of risks and rewards on bicycling and lotteries.
Why do you have problems?
On 10/15/2024 12:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
What an absolute moron.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are >>>>> objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating >>>>> a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things differently. >>>> Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a
thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it.
Very good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can actually
purchase.
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because people evaluate
things differently. There might be a probability that one can get in
a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having more problems
with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our individual
evaluations.
No, we evaluate the risk different, not the probability. The probability
is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not >>>>>>> subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an >>>>>>> objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the >>>>>>> probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud. >>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured >>>>>>>>> me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are >>>> objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating >>>> a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things differently.
Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a
thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it.
Very good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can actually
purchase.
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because people evaluate
things differently. There might be a probability that one can get in
a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having more problems
with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our individual evaluations.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an >>>>>> objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 11:47 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:25:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us >>>> will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic
and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less
important to a particular individual.
ISTM what you're saying or implying is that a well informed individual
will compare the risks (or detriments) and either objectively or
subjectively compare them with the benefits. In some cases, the benefits >>> are shown by fairly robust data - as in, the health benefits of
bicycling. In other cases, the benefits are personal - as in, the joy
and excitement of falling free and observing the world far below. And
that all seems sensible to me.
The problems occur when people have very incorrect perceptions of either
You're assessment of perceptions has no value to anyone but yourself.
Why do you post them as if others care?
And he still doesn't get the idea of a discussion forum
the risks (as is common with bicycling) or the likelihood of benefits
(as seems common with lotteries).
I don't have any problems with my assessments of risks and rewards on
bicycling and lotteries.
Why do you post your opinion as if anyone cares?
Why do you have problems?
He didn't say he did, dumbass
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:37:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 12:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
What an absolute moron.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective." >>>>>>>
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are >>>>>> objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating >>>>>> a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things differently. >>>>> Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a
thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it.
Very good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can actually >>>> purchase.
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because people evaluate
things differently. There might be a probability that one can get in
a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having more problems
with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our individual
evaluations.
No, we evaluate the risk different, not the probability. The probability
is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it.
Do you not evaluate the probabilities of the upcoming election as to
how it may afffect you? Of course you do.
Evaluating the probablities as to how they affect you is how you
evaluate the risk. Almost all evaluations are subjective.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not >>>>>>>> subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the >>>>>>>> probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud. >>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 1:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:37:44 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 12:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Evaluations of data and probability are
subjective.
What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely
subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and
probability is indeed
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is
objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative
risks is subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term
"evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were
"sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an
airplane at 10,000 ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening
their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks
was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they
decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for
every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how
badly the floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english
language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've
never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and
glaring ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are
subjective."
Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability
*are*
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Probabilities are
objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective
exercise. Evaluating
a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is
simply a
determination of value, and different people value
things differently.
Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald
Trump values a
thousand dollar bill very different from the way you
or I value it.
Very good, now look at it from the perspective on what
it can actually
purchase.
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices
vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not
subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because
people evaluate
things differently. There might be a probability that
one can get in
a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate
it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having
more problems
with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our
individual
evaluations.
No, we evaluate the risk different, not the probability.
The probability
is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it.
Do you not evaluate the probabilities of the upcoming
election as to
how it may afffect you? Of course you do.
I evaluate the risks of the various probabilities.
Evaluating the probablities as to how they affect you is
how you
evaluate the risk. Almost all evaluations are subjective.
Evaluating the risks as indicated by the probabilities is
how I make the decisions.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating
probabilities is not
subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating
a probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does
not change the
probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine
state proud.
On 10/15/2024 1:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:37:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 12:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Very good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can actually >>>>> purchase.
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed
What an absolute moron.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective." >>>>>>>>
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective. Probabilities are >>>>>>> objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. Evaluating
a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things differently. >>>>>> Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a >>>>>> thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it. >>>>>
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because people evaluate >>>> things differently. There might be a probability that one can get in
a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having more problems >>>> with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our individual
evaluations.
No, we evaluate the risk different, not the probability. The probability >>> is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it.
Do you not evaluate the probabilities of the upcoming election as to
how it may afffect you? Of course you do.
I evaluate the risks of the various probabilities.
Evaluating the probablities as to how they affect you is how you
evaluate the risk. Almost all evaluations are subjective.
Evaluating the risks as indicated by the probabilities is how I make the >decisions.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not >>>>>>>>> subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the >>>>>>>>> probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud. >>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:35:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:47 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:25:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:You're assessment of perceptions has no value to anyone but yourself.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us >>>>> will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience
despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic >>>>> and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less >>>>> important to a particular individual.
ISTM what you're saying or implying is that a well informed individual >>>> will compare the risks (or detriments) and either objectively or
subjectively compare them with the benefits. In some cases, the benefits >>>> are shown by fairly robust data - as in, the health benefits of
bicycling. In other cases, the benefits are personal - as in, the joy
and excitement of falling free and observing the world far below. And
that all seems sensible to me.
The problems occur when people have very incorrect perceptions of either >>>
Why do you post them as if others care?
And he still doesn't get the idea of a discussion forum
the risks (as is common with bicycling) or the likelihood of benefits
(as seems common with lotteries).
I don't have any problems with my assessments of risks and rewards on
bicycling and lotteries.
Why do you post your opinion as if anyone cares?
I posted a fact, not an opinion.
I don't have any problems with my
assessments of risks and rewards on bicycling and lotteries.
Krygowski, OTOH, posted his opinon that problems occur... etc
Why do you have problems?
He didn't say he did, dumbass
He said he thought there were problems..
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/15/2024 2:07 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 1:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:37:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 12:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen CycleVery good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are*
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is indeed
What an absolute moron.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" >>>>>>>>>>>>> and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute >>>>>>>>>>>>> at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was
outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to
partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 >>>>>>>>>>>> jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the >>>>>>>>>>>> floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit >>>>>>>>>>>> his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor >>>>>>>>>>> implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring >>>>>>>>>> ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective." >>>>>>>>>
subjective," you pathetic moron..
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Probabilities are
objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise.
Evaluating
a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things
differently.
Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a >>>>>>> thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it. >>>>>>
actually
purchase.
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because people evaluate >>>>> things differently. There might be a probability that one can get in >>>>> a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having more problems >>>>> with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our individual
evaluations.
No, we evaluate the risk different, not the probability. The
probability
is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it.
Do you not evaluate the probabilities of the upcoming election as to
how it may afffect you? Of course you do.
I evaluate the risks of the various probabilities.
Evaluating the probablities as to how they affect you is how you
evaluate the risk. Almost all evaluations are subjective.
Evaluating the risks as indicated by the probabilities is how I make
the decisions.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not >>>>>>>>>> subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a
probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the >>>>>>>>>> probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud. >>>>>>>>>>
"Evaluating the risks as indicated by the probabilities is how I make
the decisions."
Very logical, nothing wrong with that.
But categorically? There's nothing in life to which you said, "What the
hell, I'm going for it." ?
On 10/15/2024 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
As I've previous written I've been asking people about why they buy
lottery tickets and to date no one has said that they "expect" to win.
Of course they expect to lose. And they do lose, over and over. Yet they
keep on buying. "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over and expecting different results." Or in this case, hoping
against hope for different results.
In every case it has been the thought that "what the heck" there is
faint possibility that they could win a vast amount ands i's only
pocket change.
Yep. It's a tax on people who are bad at math. I didn't coin that
phrase, by the way, but it's certainly accurate.
Again, I'm not trying to stop anyone from buying lottery tickets. In
fact, I'd be in favor of lotteries replacing all other taxes.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:54:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:27:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 10:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:52:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
What an absolute moron.
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective.
One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>> subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but may suffer >>>>>>>>>>> from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 ft and >>>>>>>>>> falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute at 1,000 >>>>>>>>>> ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>>>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the floriduh >>>>>>>>> dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit his own >>>>>>>>> ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor implied >>>>>>>> otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring ignorance. >>>>>>>
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective." >>>>>>>
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not >>>>>>> subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a probability is >>>>>>> an objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the >>>>>>> probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud. >>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Mr Mantel's comment was helpful.
The probability is a calculable value assuming facts are known.
Actuaries do that all day long (for high stakes).
As far as the arithmetic goes, there's no room for interpretation so yes >>>>>> that value is objective.
That aside, people have individual weight or importance or significance >>>>>> for different, sometimes many, criteria.
Accepting for example the known failure rate for parachutes, many of us >>>>>> will pass on that opportunity while others will seek the experience >>>>>> despite some risk. Same for lotto tickets, riding bicycles in traffic >>>>>> and so on. It's not the actual rate, but rather what is more or less >>>>>> important to a particular individual.
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was outweighed by their >>>>> personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to partake had no >>>>> effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 jumps in the >>>>> US last year.
A personal assessment of the risks and rewards is an evaluation.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And quantifying the actuarial risk is 'valuation'.
Indeed, by buying a two dollar lottery ticket I risk losing two
dollars.
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies.
Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a
"serial".
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies.
Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a
"serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the
snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat,
but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in, everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as
did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
On 10/15/2024 3:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 2:07 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Of course those things exist. But regarding the supposed focus of this
On 10/15/2024 1:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:37:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 12:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:29 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 11:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:51:14 -0400, Zen CycleVery good, now look at it from the perspective on what it can
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:07:37 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Indeed... <LOL> "Evaluations of data and probability *are* >>>>>>>>>> subjective," you pathetic moron..
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:32:18 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2024 6:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:06:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.10.2024 um 21:19 schrieb AMuzi:
On 10/14/2024 2:12 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 10/14/2024 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>One's evaluation of risk from known data and probability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is indeed
Evaluations of data and probability are subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What an absolute moron.
Data? certainly.
Probability? That's pure math, purely subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
subjective before the fact.
Risk assessment (calculating the risk) is objective but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may suffer from
lack of data.
Deciding how to act given various relative risks is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective.
I have have carefully avoided your term "evaluation" which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might mean
the one or the other.
Years ago I had a couple of friends who were "sky divers" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and assured
me very seriously that jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ft and
falling 9,000 ft (at 100mph) before opening their parachute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 1,000
ft was perfectly safe and great fun :-)
Exactly. Their personal assessment of the risks was
outweighed by their
personal joie de vivre. The fact that they decided to >>>>>>>>>>>>> partake had no
effect on the hard statistic of ~1 death for every 200,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> jumps in the
US last year.
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Probabilities are not subjective, no matter how badly the >>>>>>>>>>>>> floriduh
dumbass decides to misinterpret the english language to suit >>>>>>>>>>>>> his own ego.
Indeed, probabilities are not subjective. I've never said nor >>>>>>>>>>>> implied
otherwise
Wow, You continue to impress with your willful and glaring >>>>>>>>>>> ignorance.
You wrote: "Evaluations of data and probability are subjective." >>>>>>>>>>
Dumbass, Evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Probabilities are
objective. Evaluating a probability is an objective exercise. >>>>>>>>> Evaluating
a probability does not change the probability.
I never said it changed anything. An evaluation is simply a
determination of value, and different people value things
differently.
Take money for example. I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump values a >>>>>>>> thousand dollar bill very different from the way you or I value it. >>>>>>>
actually
purchase.
Ok, but you do realize that even new automobile prices vary from
dealer to dealer.
Again, no wonder you couldn't hack it in school.
Do you not understand what subjective and objective mean?
I understand that evaluating probabilities is not subjective.
Evaluating things as almost always subjective, because people evaluate >>>>>> things differently. There might be a probability that one can get in >>>>>> a bicycle accident, but you and I would likely evaluate it very
differently. As an 80 year old, the chances of me having more problems >>>>>> with a bicycle accident than you is likely to weigh our individual >>>>>> evaluations.
No, we evaluate the risk different, not the probability. The
probability
is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it.
Do you not evaluate the probabilities of the upcoming election as to
how it may afffect you? Of course you do.
I evaluate the risks of the various probabilities.
Evaluating the probablities as to how they affect you is how you
evaluate the risk. Almost all evaluations are subjective.
Evaluating the risks as indicated by the probabilities is how I make
the decisions.
Probabilities are not subjective. Evaluating probabilities is not >>>>>>>>>>> subjective. Probabilities are objective. Evaluating a
probability is an
objective exercise. Evaluating a probability does not change the >>>>>>>>>>> probability.
Here's an example of evaluating a probablility
https://getsure.org/skydiving-death-statistics/
Category Fatalities Percentage
Incorrect
procedures 75 31
Landing 64 27
Midair
collision 36 15
no/low pull 26 11
Correct
procedures 12 5
Gear failure 7 3
Flight 7 3
Collapse 6 2
Medical 6 2
Incorrect gear 2 1
Total 241 100%
The numbers don't change unless you're doing it wrong.
Floriduh Dumbass - continuing to make the dumbshine state proud. >>>>>>>>>>>
"Evaluating the risks as indicated by the probabilities is how I make
the decisions."
Very logical, nothing wrong with that.
But categorically? There's nothing in life to which you said, "What the
hell, I'm going for it." ?
group - which is bicycling - I think it's more common for people to say >"Omigod, no, I'm too afraid to do that!"
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:08:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh Valleys old
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies. >>>>> Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a
"serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the >>>> snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat,
but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in,
everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as
did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
(okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/villages only the 6 >> form drove to school everyone else walked or took the school bus, plenty of >> fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and wrong things and so >> on.
Youre not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile unless your diet >> is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility cycling, ie very little >> burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters who have to really >> watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just balloons as you where! >>
Roger Merriman
We had several school buses on different routs but to prevent
overloading the rule was that they wouldn't pick up students closer
then 1 mile from the school. And because of a lack of parking space if
you were old enough to drive a car that was forbidden too.
The school was "ruled"by a town "School Board" so I assume that the
rules were supported by the bulk of the citizens.
As for diet and fat, I'm not so sure. Certainly in "My" town people
walked everywhere, all day, every day. And as I mentioned I don't
remember any fat people.
The car was for the Sunday afternoon drive, I mean why would anyone
waste gasoline just to get to work, or get the groceries. Gasoline
costs money!
Even my grandmother, at about 60 years of age, walked "downtown", and
home again, once or twice a month.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies.
Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a
"serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the
snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat,
but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in, everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as
did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
On 10/15/2024 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
As I've previous written I've been asking people about why
they buy
lottery tickets and to date no one has said that they
"expect" to win.
Of course they expect to lose. And they do lose, over and
over. Yet they keep on buying. "One definition of insanity
is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
different results." Or in this case, hoping against hope for
different results.
In every case it has been the thought that "what the heck"
there is
faint possibility that they could win a vast amount ands
i's only
pocket change.
Yep. It's a tax on people who are bad at math. I didn't coin
that phrase, by the way, but it's certainly accurate.
Again, I'm not trying to stop anyone from buying lottery
tickets. In fact, I'd be in favor of lotteries replacing all
other taxes.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:12:31 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:08:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Only one school bus which went to the outlying villages which were beyond a >> reasonable walking distance at least for utility.
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh Valley?s old >>>> (okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/villages only the 6 >>>> form drove to school everyone else walked or took the school bus, plenty of
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies. >>>>>>> Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a >>>>>>> "serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the >>>>>> snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat, >>>>> but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in, >>>>> everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as >>>>> did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and wrong things and so >>>> on.
You?re not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile unless your diet
is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility cycling, ie very little >>>> burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters who have to really >>>> watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just balloons as you where! >>>>
Roger Merriman
We had several school buses on different routs but to prevent
overloading the rule was that they wouldn't pick up students closer
then 1 mile from the school. And because of a lack of parking space if
you were old enough to drive a car that was forbidden too.
Don’t remember many 6 form students driving but used to be maybe 2/3 cars >> for students.
The school was on the East of the town so folks on the far west would be 30 >> ish minutes to walk from one side to another, most would be far less.
Last time I passed could see 2 or 3 loading bays for the school run but
most would be walking.
The school was "ruled"by a town "School Board" so I assume that the
rules were supported by the bulk of the citizens.
As for diet and fat, I'm not so sure. Certainly in "My" town people
walked everywhere, all day, every day. And as I mentioned I don't
remember any fat people.
The car was for the Sunday afternoon drive, I mean why would anyone
waste gasoline just to get to work, or get the groceries. Gasoline
costs money!
Even my grandmother, at about 60 years of age, walked "downtown", and
home again, once or twice a month.
Walking burns very little calories and junk food ie calories rich but not
nutritional good can be bought cheaply, so you’ll not burn it off by
walking about.
In the industry days they didn’t have access to this, and did manual labour
and struggled to get enough food, hence the Welsh Valleys people average is >> around 5ft, though younger generations are getting taller though still
below average.
Not having that heritage I’m a foot taller etc.
Roger Merriman
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC
I've recently been reading a number of books written by Jack Higgins -
The Eagle Has Landed and so on. Most of the action is London or North
Ireland and it seems to rain all then time. Every page or so someone
is potting on their rain hat or shaking out their rain coat or running
from the car into the house or walking on the Thames Embankment in the
rain.
Does it really rain that much in the U.K.?
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:12:31 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:08:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Only one school bus which went to the outlying villages which were beyond a >> reasonable walking distance at least for utility.
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh Valley?s old >>>> (okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/villages only the 6 >>>> form drove to school everyone else walked or took the school bus, plenty of
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies. >>>>>>> Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a >>>>>>> "serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the >>>>>> snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat, >>>>> but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in, >>>>> everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as >>>>> did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and wrong things and so >>>> on.
You?re not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile unless your diet
is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility cycling, ie very little >>>> burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters who have to really >>>> watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just balloons as you where! >>>>
Roger Merriman
We had several school buses on different routs but to prevent
overloading the rule was that they wouldn't pick up students closer
then 1 mile from the school. And because of a lack of parking space if
you were old enough to drive a car that was forbidden too.
Don’t remember many 6 form students driving but used to be maybe 2/3 cars >> for students.
The school was on the East of the town so folks on the far west would be 30 >> ish minutes to walk from one side to another, most would be far less.
Last time I passed could see 2 or 3 loading bays for the school run but
most would be walking.
The school was "ruled"by a town "School Board" so I assume that the
rules were supported by the bulk of the citizens.
As for diet and fat, I'm not so sure. Certainly in "My" town people
walked everywhere, all day, every day. And as I mentioned I don't
remember any fat people.
The car was for the Sunday afternoon drive, I mean why would anyone
waste gasoline just to get to work, or get the groceries. Gasoline
costs money!
Even my grandmother, at about 60 years of age, walked "downtown", and
home again, once or twice a month.
Walking burns very little calories and junk food ie calories rich but not
nutritional good can be bought cheaply, so you’ll not burn it off by
walking about.
In the industry days they didn’t have access to this, and did manual labour
and struggled to get enough food, hence the Welsh Valleys people average is >> around 5ft, though younger generations are getting taller though still
below average.
Not having that heritage I’m a foot taller etc.
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC
I've recently been reading a number of books written by Jack Higgins -
The Eagle Has Landed and so on. Most of the action is London or North
Ireland and it seems to rain all then time. Every page or so someone
is potting on their rain hat or shaking out their rain coat or running
from the car into the house or walking on the Thames Embankment in the
rain.
Does it really rain that much in the U.K.?
On 10/16/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the
Saturday movies.
Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next
film of a
"serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school?
Barefoot? Even in the
snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow,
from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost
unbelievable feat,
but when I was a young man, in the little New England
town I lived in,
everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or
more to work as
did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
Valley’s old
(okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/
villages only the 6
form drove to school
"6 form"?
everyone else walked or took the school bus, plenty of
fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and
wrong things and so
on.
You’re not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile
unless your diet
is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility
cycling, ie very little
burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters
who have to really
watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just
balloons as you where!
Roger Merriman
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh Valley’s old (okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/villages only the 6 form drove to school
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies.
Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a
"serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the
snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat,
but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in,
everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as
did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and wrong things and so on.
You’re not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile unless your diet is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility cycling, ie very little burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters who have to really watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just balloons as you where!
Roger Merriman
On 10/16/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh Valley’s old
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies. >>>>> Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a
"serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the >>>> snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st
grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat,
but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in,
everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as
did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
(okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/villages only the 6 >> form drove to school
"6 form"?
everyone else walked or took the school bus, plenty of
fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and wrong things and so >> on.
You’re not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile unless your diet
is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility cycling, ie very little >> burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters who have to really >> watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just balloons as you where! >>
Roger Merriman
Am 16.10.2024 um 15:07 schrieb John B.:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:12:31 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:08:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Only one school bus which went to the outlying villages which were beyond a >>> reasonable walking distance at least for utility.
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:09 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI grew up in the Brecon Beacons and the edge of the Welsh Valley?s old >>>>> (okay not that old only 19th century) industrial towns/villages only the 6
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
And what, today, is the value of two dollars?
I can remember when 11 cents would get you into the Saturday movies. >>>>>>>> Two full length "feature" films, the news and the next film of a >>>>>>>> "serial".
:-) And you walked five miles each way to school? Barefoot? Even in the >>>>>>> snow? And it was uphill both ways?
No Frank I walked 1 mile to school, even in the snow, from the 1st >>>>>> grade until I graduated from High School.
I realize that in today's America that is an almost unbelievable feat, >>>>>> but when I was a young man, in the little New England town I lived in, >>>>>> everybody walked, my father normally walked a mile or more to work as >>>>>> did nearly all the other men in the village.
And, I might add, I don't remember any fat people.
form drove to school everyone else walked or took the school bus, plenty of
fat people as diet is the main reason, ie too much and wrong things and so
on.
You?re not going to stay thin by just walking/being mobile unless your diet
is good.
Cycling in some ways is worse particularly utility cycling, ie very little
burned, I know a number of long ish distanced commuters who have to really
watch what they eat, as otherwise there weight just balloons as you where!
Roger Merriman
We had several school buses on different routs but to prevent
overloading the rule was that they wouldn't pick up students closer
then 1 mile from the school. And because of a lack of parking space if >>>> you were old enough to drive a car that was forbidden too.
Don’t remember many 6 form students driving but used to be maybe 2/3 cars >>> for students.
The school was on the East of the town so folks on the far west would be 30 >>> ish minutes to walk from one side to another, most would be far less.
Last time I passed could see 2 or 3 loading bays for the school run but
most would be walking.
The school was "ruled"by a town "School Board" so I assume that the
rules were supported by the bulk of the citizens.
As for diet and fat, I'm not so sure. Certainly in "My" town people
walked everywhere, all day, every day. And as I mentioned I don't
remember any fat people.
The car was for the Sunday afternoon drive, I mean why would anyone
waste gasoline just to get to work, or get the groceries. Gasoline
costs money!
Even my grandmother, at about 60 years of age, walked "downtown", and
home again, once or twice a month.
Walking burns very little calories and junk food ie calories rich but not >>> nutritional good can be bought cheaply, so you’ll not burn it off by
walking about.
In the industry days they didn’t have access to this, and did manual labour
and struggled to get enough food, hence the Welsh Valleys people average is >>> around 5ft, though younger generations are getting taller though still
below average.
Not having that heritage I’m a foot taller etc.
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC
I've recently been reading a number of books written by Jack Higgins -
The Eagle Has Landed and so on. Most of the action is London or North
Ireland and it seems to rain all then time. Every page or so someone
is potting on their rain hat or shaking out their rain coat or running
from the car into the house or walking on the Thames Embankment in the
rain.
Does it really rain that much in the U.K.?
With the typical "West Coast" pattern also described as "all-year wet",
there is no dry season (occasionally you get a three-week stretch
without any rain but you cannot rely on it) and it rains more the
further West you get.
Typically, the rain is mostly thin drizzle or short showers so the
annual total rain fall is only 560mm in London and 900mm in Belfast,
N.I. compared to the 1200mm in Bankok.
The cultural impact is mostly due to the lack of long-term
predictability: when I plan for the weekend, I do not know on Monday
what outdoor activities are possible (by Thursday or Friday I tend to
have a good enough idea what activities are feasible on the weekend).
London's rainiest month is June with 16 days with rain, i.e. even then
half of the days do not have rain.
In Belfast, N.I., the rainiest month is August with 23 days with rain
with a total of 213 days per year.
Rolf
On 10/16/2024 8:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
As I've previous written I've been asking people about
why they buy
lottery tickets and to date no one has said that they
"expect" to win.
Of course they expect to lose. And they do lose, over and
over. Yet they keep on buying. "One definition of
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results." Or in this case, hoping
against hope for different results.
In every case it has been the thought that "what the
heck" there is
faint possibility that they could win a vast amount ands
i's only
pocket change.
Yep. It's a tax on people who are bad at math. I didn't
coin that phrase, by the way, but it's certainly accurate.
Again, I'm not trying to stop anyone from buying lottery
tickets. In fact, I'd be in favor of lotteries replacing
all other taxes.
I ride my bike even while knowing that I am going to flat
periodically, usually at the most inconvenient moment.
meh.
You're judging the benefits of riding, which you receive
daily, vs. the tiny detriment of maybe having to fix a flat.
Nothing wrong there.
On 10/16/2024 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 04:29:43 -0400, Catrike RyderOh, I understand. They're consistently wasting smaller amounts of money
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:05:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
Of course they expect to lose. And they do lose, over and over. Yet they >>>> keep on buying. "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over >>>> and over and expecting different results." Or in this case, hoping
As I've previous written I've been asking people about why they buy
lottery tickets and to date no one has said that they "expect" to win. >>>>
against hope for different results.
In every case it has been the thought that "what the heck" there is
faint possibility that they could win a vast amount ands i's only
pocket change.
Yep. It's a tax on people who are bad at math. I didn't coin that
phrase, by the way, but it's certainly accurate.
Nonsense, it's not accurate. If people don't expect to win, it
demonstrates that they do understand the math.
Again, I'm not trying to stop anyone from buying lottery tickets. In
fact, I'd be in favor of lotteries replacing all other taxes.
Frankie can't seem to get through his head that, at least here, the
people I've talked so far, are not wagering the families jewels, it is
simply a matter of some pocket change.
on the minuscule hope of making a profit.
On 10/15/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:27:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:57:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>>>>>>>>I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a >>>>>> binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all. >>>>>>
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be >>>>>> logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I >>>>>> should add something about the necessity of what might be called a >>>>>> "lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor
scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper >>>>>> tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as >>>>>> many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden
between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to >>>>>> any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in >>>>>> fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far >>>>>> safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's >>>>>> safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting.
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly >>>>> because of men"
traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric:
fatalities per person-trips.
Apples and oranges....
I would assume that "trips" would be a reasonable assessment, as most
people ride bicycles, or walk, from here to there, i.e., a trip, but
perhaps Frankie spends the morning riding round and round in his
driveway going nowhere?
There are advantages and disadvantages to the various denominators - per >trip, per mile, per hour, per lifetime or whatever.
Do people ride going nowhere? Ask your tricyclist friend, who unloads
his trike from his truck, rides out, rides back and reloads into his truck.
My last several trips on my bike were very short, a couple miles and a
few minutes at most. If those were added into average computations, I >certainly lowered the number of injuries per trip. Meanwhile, my last
several car trips were ~ 1 hour, mostly freeway. Hardly comparable.
I think the most general metric is per hour exposure. That allows
comparisons between things like swimming, skiing, skydiving, hiking, and >other activities whether transportation or not.
Another statistic that seems to be ignored is exposure time to danger,
i.e., auto traffic. Bicycleing speed is about 4 minutes\mile while
walking is 18 min\mile, nearly 5 times longer and thus 5 times more
exposure to danger.
And unlike bicycling, people whose hobby is walking do not seem to spend
time on the internet trying to convince everyone their hobby is
dangerous! Why do so many cyclists do that?
Again:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15
Hunting .08
On 10/15/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:27:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:57:58 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI would assume that "trips" would be a reasonable assessment, as
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>>>>>>>>I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a >>>>>> binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all. >>>>>>
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be >>>>>> logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I >>>>>> should add something about the necessity of what might be called a >>>>>> "lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor
scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper >>>>>> tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as >>>>>> many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden
between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to >>>>>> any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in >>>>>> fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far >>>>>> safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's >>>>>> safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting.
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly >>>>> because of men"
traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric:
fatalities per person-trips.
Apples and oranges....
most
people ride bicycles, or walk, from here to there, i.e., a trip, but
perhaps Frankie spends the morning riding round and round in his
driveway going nowhere?
There are advantages and disadvantages to the various denominators -
per trip, per mile, per hour, per lifetime or whatever.
Do people ride going nowhere? Ask your tricyclist friend, who unloads
his trike from his truck, rides out, rides back and reloads into his
truck.
My last several trips on my bike were very short, a couple miles and a
few minutes at most. If those were added into average computations, I certainly lowered the number of injuries per trip. Meanwhile, my last
several car trips were ~ 1 hour, mostly freeway. Hardly comparable.
I think the most general metric is per hour exposure. That allows
comparisons between things like swimming, skiing, skydiving, hiking,
and other activities whether transportation or not.
Another statistic that seems to be ignored is exposure time to danger,
i.e., auto traffic. Bicycleing speed is about 4 minutes\mile while
walking is 18 min\mile, nearly 5 times longer and thus 5 times more
exposure to danger.
And unlike bicycling, people whose hobby is walking do not seem to
spend time on the internet trying to convince everyone their hobby is dangerous! Why do so many cyclists do that?
Again:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15
Hunting .08
Nope.You still don't get it. It is "an insignificant" amount of
money...
I find it rather enlightening that here we see American tourists
throwing money around like dirty water, apparently without a care in
the world, while you seem to begrudge spending pennies.
On 10/16/2024 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:52:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Oh, I understand. They're consistently wasting smaller amounts of money
on the minuscule hope of making a profit.
Nope.You still don't get it. It is "an insignificant" amount of
money...
Which they're wasting, on the minuscule hope of making a profit.
I find it rather enlightening that here we see American tourists
throwing money around like dirty water, apparently without a care in
the world, while you seem to begrudge spending pennies.
What are the tourists getting when they spend money? Food?
Transportation? Admission to interesting events? Probably.
What are the lottery players getting? Zero.
But I don't begrudge them the choice to do so. Again, I'd prefer that
all taxes be replaced by lotteries. Let the necessary funds come only
from people who are bad at math.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:33:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:52:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/16/2024 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 04:29:43 -0400, Catrike RyderOh, I understand. They're consistently wasting smaller amounts of money >>>on the minuscule hope of making a profit.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:05:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2024 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
Of course they expect to lose. And they do lose, over and over. Yet they >>>>>> keep on buying. "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over >>>>>> and over and expecting different results." Or in this case, hoping >>>>>> against hope for different results.
As I've previous written I've been asking people about why they buy >>>>>>> lottery tickets and to date no one has said that they "expect" to win. >>>>>>
In every case it has been the thought that "what the heck" there is >>>>>>> faint possibility that they could win a vast amount ands i's only >>>>>>> pocket change.
Yep. It's a tax on people who are bad at math. I didn't coin that
phrase, by the way, but it's certainly accurate.
Nonsense, it's not accurate. If people don't expect to win, it
demonstrates that they do understand the math.
Again, I'm not trying to stop anyone from buying lottery tickets. In >>>>>> fact, I'd be in favor of lotteries replacing all other taxes.
Frankie can't seem to get through his head that, at least here, the
people I've talked so far, are not wagering the families jewels, it is >>>> simply a matter of some pocket change.
Krygowski's been whining and complaining about that for the better
part of a week, now. Why does it bother him so much?
But perhaps it isn't just "pocket change" to Frankie... There are
people who bemoan the loss of even pennies. Or perhaps pennies are an >important factor in trying to get by on a teacher's salary?
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:31:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/16/2024 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:52:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Oh, I understand. They're consistently wasting smaller amounts of money >>>> on the minuscule hope of making a profit.
Nope.You still don't get it. It is "an insignificant" amount of
money...
Which they're wasting, on the minuscule hope of making a profit.
Good Lord! You really are a penny pincher aren't you.
Is this because you've worked all these years for a poor salary and
just don't have the money to spend or is it some sort of mental thing
where you can't bare to let go of a single penny? >https://www.softmindindia.com/Blog/hidden-costs-of-being-stingy
The Hidden Costs of Being Stingy:
I find it rather enlightening that here we see American tourists
throwing money around like dirty water, apparently without a care in
the world, while you seem to begrudge spending pennies.
What are the tourists getting when they spend money? Food?
Transportation? Admission to interesting events? Probably.
Sure... at tremendously inflated prices. I was talking to one,
something I seldom do other then to give directions, and he proudly
showed me several Tee Shirts, the kind with printed messages, that
he'd bought. As one does I asked "How Much", and he bragged "only
1,000 baht each". That I could buy for 100 baht.
Bad at math? Or perhaps sort of stupid?
On 10/16/2024 8:22 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 10/15/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:27:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:57:58 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI would assume that "trips" would be a reasonable assessment, as
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile >>>>>> traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric:
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>>>>>>>>>>I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a >>>>>>>> binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all. >>>>>>>>
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be >>>>>>>> logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I >>>>>>>> should add something about the necessity of what might be called a >>>>>>>> "lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor >>>>>>>> scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper >>>>>>>> tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as
many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden >>>>>>>> between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to
any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in >>>>>>>> fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far >>>>>>>> safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's >>>>>>>> safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting. >>>>>>>
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly >>>>>>> because of men"
fatalities per person-trips.
Apples and oranges....
most
people ride bicycles, or walk, from here to there, i.e., a trip, but
perhaps Frankie spends the morning riding round and round in his
driveway going nowhere?
There are advantages and disadvantages to the various denominators -
per trip, per mile, per hour, per lifetime or whatever.
Do people ride going nowhere? Ask your tricyclist friend, who unloads
his trike from his truck, rides out, rides back and reloads into his
truck.
My last several trips on my bike were very short, a couple miles and a
few minutes at most. If those were added into average computations, I
certainly lowered the number of injuries per trip. Meanwhile, my last
several car trips were ~ 1 hour, mostly freeway. Hardly comparable.
I think the most general metric is per hour exposure. That allows
comparisons between things like swimming, skiing, skydiving, hiking,
and other activities whether transportation or not.
Another statistic that seems to be ignored is exposure time to danger, >>>> i.e., auto traffic. Bicycleing speed is about 4 minutes\mile while
walking is 18 min\mile, nearly 5 times longer and thus 5 times more
exposure to danger.
And unlike bicycling, people whose hobby is walking do not seem to
spend time on the internet trying to convince everyone their hobby is
dangerous! Why do so many cyclists do that?
Again:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15
Hunting .08
There are plainly some selection effects shown above. There is no way
that swimming is safer than "living" for those that actually swim.
Swimming is not terribly dangerous, but it is more dangerous than
sleeping or sitting on the couch. *However*, those who can no longer
swim tend to be likelier to die while sleeping or sitting on the couch
than those who can.
You're right. OTOH such selection effects are unavoidable for most of
the items in the list. "Living" is the only one everybody must do.
Also, I'll note that the table is based on detriments alone, not related >benefits. I've many times referred to multiple studies that found the
health benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. I imagine
that's true of swimming too.
And I'll confess that I occasionally ride my motorcycle. It has far
greater danger than a bicycle, and approximately none of its health
benefit. One could say, I suppose, that riding a motorcycle is no more >logical than playing a lottery. That's one reason I don't propose to
actually ban lotteries. Or rock climbing, or eating meat, or smoking in >private, etc.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:48 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.10.2024 um 02:20 schrieb John B.:
Nope.You still don't get it. It is "an insignificant" amount of
money...
I find it rather enlightening that here we see American tourists
throwing money around like dirty water, apparently without a care in
the world, while you seem to begrudge spending pennies.
The ease or unwillingness to spend money is a very individual trait.
When my children were young, grandpa sometimes brought a few coins along
for them.
My daughter spent it all no sweets.
My son once (age 7) said "Dad, I have €300 and I want to but this Lego
Technic set. Please help me buying it".
People like my daughter will be like your American Tourists; people like
my son will never visit Thailand (unless he gets a work assignment in
the area) because there's a large nubmer of destinations reachible
without an expensive flight.
Keep the boy (:-)
While I've lived "abroad" for much of my life I still find it
difficult when I visit some foreign countries.
Two of us went to India to help an Indian company bid a project that
would use some of the equipment that our company furnished.
Well, we hit the ground running, so to speak. The Indians gave us an
office to work in and we get busy putting the bid together, We got it finished and handed it over to the Indian Company Owner and he says
that we've done a great job and he wants to take us our for supper.
So, we go back to the hotel and get all shined up and he comes by with
his big shiny car and we are off to a very up market restaurant. So we
are sitting there and he is explain what each menu item is and I look around... and everybody is rating with their fingers.
It seems that Indians don't use knives and forks :-)
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to our public
radio station for its fund drive. Enough to (probably) fund your wasted >lottery tickets for roughly half the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to actually
solving a mathematics problem.
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station "
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
On 10/17/2024 6:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:40:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/16/2024 8:22 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 10/15/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:27:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:57:58 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI would assume that "trips" would be a reasonable assessment, as
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile >>>>>>>> traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric: >>>>>>>> fatalities per person-trips.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>>>>>>>>>>>>I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a
binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all. >>>>>>>>>>
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be
logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I >>>>>>>>>> should add something about the necessity of what might be called a >>>>>>>>>> "lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor >>>>>>>>>> scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper
tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as
many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden >>>>>>>>>> between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to
any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in >>>>>>>>>> fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far
safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's >>>>>>>>>> safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting. >>>>>>>>>
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly
because of men"
Apples and oranges....
most
people ride bicycles, or walk, from here to there, i.e., a trip, but >>>>>> perhaps Frankie spends the morning riding round and round in his
driveway going nowhere?
There are advantages and disadvantages to the various denominators - >>>>> per trip, per mile, per hour, per lifetime or whatever.
Do people ride going nowhere? Ask your tricyclist friend, who unloads >>>>> his trike from his truck, rides out, rides back and reloads into his >>>>> truck.
My last several trips on my bike were very short, a couple miles and a >>>>> few minutes at most. If those were added into average computations, I >>>>> certainly lowered the number of injuries per trip. Meanwhile, my last >>>>> several car trips were ~ 1 hour, mostly freeway. Hardly comparable.
I think the most general metric is per hour exposure. That allows
comparisons between things like swimming, skiing, skydiving, hiking, >>>>> and other activities whether transportation or not.
Another statistic that seems to be ignored is exposure time to danger, >>>>>> i.e., auto traffic. Bicycleing speed is about 4 minutes\mile while >>>>>> walking is 18 min\mile, nearly 5 times longer and thus 5 times more >>>>>> exposure to danger.
And unlike bicycling, people whose hobby is walking do not seem to
spend time on the internet trying to convince everyone their hobby is >>>>> dangerous! Why do so many cyclists do that?
Again:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15
Hunting .08
There are plainly some selection effects shown above. There is no way >>>> that swimming is safer than "living" for those that actually swim.
Swimming is not terribly dangerous, but it is more dangerous than
sleeping or sitting on the couch. *However*, those who can no longer
swim tend to be likelier to die while sleeping or sitting on the couch >>>> than those who can.
You're right. OTOH such selection effects are unavoidable for most of
the items in the list. "Living" is the only one everybody must do.
Also, I'll note that the table is based on detriments alone, not related >>> benefits. I've many times referred to multiple studies that found the
health benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. I imagine
that's true of swimming too.
And I'll confess that I occasionally ride my motorcycle. It has far
greater danger than a bicycle, and approximately none of its health
benefit. One could say, I suppose, that riding a motorcycle is no more
logical than playing a lottery. That's one reason I don't propose to
actually ban lotteries. Or rock climbing, or eating meat, or smoking in
private, etc.
Why would you even contemplate banning lotteries, rock climbing,
eating meat, or smoking in private, etc.
??? "... I _don't_ propose to actually ban ..."
My! You're very, very confused!
On 10/17/2024 12:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio
station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
And now we know the dumbass has never contributed to any
non-profit/charity. Not surprising since he's convinced himself that >selfishness is a sign of a higher-evolved being.
Not to mention that the dumbass is creating yet another strawman with
his ignorant assumption that since he views public radio as a complete
waste of FCC bandwidth, everyone else must as well. Did it ever occur to
you that Frank may get as much - if not more - sense of return from his >contribution to public radio as people who play the lottery get from
spending money on lottery tickets?
Of course not, that would mean developing a sense of empathy, clearly a
sign of a lesser-evolved being.
dumbass.....
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio
station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:50:17 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio
station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
And now we know the dumbass has never contributed to any
non-profit/charity. Not surprising since he's convinced himself that
selfishness is a sign of a higher-evolved being.
Not to mention that the dumbass is creating yet another strawman with
his ignorant assumption that since he views public radio as a complete
waste of FCC bandwidth, everyone else must as well. Did it ever occur to
you that Frank may get as much - if not more - sense of return from his
contribution to public radio as people who play the lottery get from
spending money on lottery tickets?
Of course not, that would mean developing a sense of empathy, clearly a
sign of a lesser-evolved being.
dumbass.....
I stated a simple fact.
Public Radio broascasting did not change in
the slightest because Krygowski contributed to Public Radio, so he got nothing in return for his expenditure.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/17/2024 3:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:50:17 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio
station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
And now we know the dumbass has never contributed to any
non-profit/charity. Not surprising since he's convinced himself that
selfishness is a sign of a higher-evolved being.
Not to mention that the dumbass is creating yet another strawman with
his ignorant assumption that since he views public radio as a complete
waste of FCC bandwidth, everyone else must as well. Did it ever occur to >>> you that Frank may get as much - if not more - sense of return from his
contribution to public radio as people who play the lottery get from
spending money on lottery tickets?
Of course not, that would mean developing a sense of empathy, clearly a
sign of a lesser-evolved being.
dumbass.....
I stated a simple fact.
No, you stated an opinion, one based on a false first premise:
Public Radio broascasting did not change in
the slightest because Krygowski contributed to Public Radio, so he got
nothing in return for his expenditure.
By that twisted logic, no one ever gets anything from contributing to a >non-profit.
His public station was able to keep their programs on the air due to the >combined efforts of contributors. If everyone thought as selfishly as
you non-profit groups that genuinely help people would cease to exist.
I'd imagine you'd have a chuckle and tip back a congac knowing that
homeless vets in florida wouldn't have had a new roof over their heads.
https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/2021/11/10/bravo-house-new-roof-leads-more-focus-plight-homeless-veterans-southwest-florida/6265424001/
I can't imagine being such an ignorant arrogant misanthrope as you.
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 17:26:43 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:31:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/17/2024 3:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:50:17 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio >>>>>> station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
And now we know the dumbass has never contributed to any
non-profit/charity. Not surprising since he's convinced himself that >>>>> selfishness is a sign of a higher-evolved being.
Not to mention that the dumbass is creating yet another strawman with >>>>> his ignorant assumption that since he views public radio as a complete >>>>> waste of FCC bandwidth, everyone else must as well. Did it ever occur to >>>>> you that Frank may get as much - if not more - sense of return from his >>>>> contribution to public radio as people who play the lottery get from >>>>> spending money on lottery tickets?
Of course not, that would mean developing a sense of empathy, clearly a >>>>> sign of a lesser-evolved being.
dumbass.....
I stated a simple fact.
No, you stated an opinion, one based on a false first premise:
Public Radio broascasting did not change in
the slightest because Krygowski contributed to Public Radio, so he got >>>> nothing in return for his expenditure.
By that twisted logic, no one ever gets anything from contributing to a
non-profit.
No individual (Krygowski is an individual) gets anything back from
contributing to Public Radio unless they contribute way more than
Krygowski can contribute.
If you disagree, explain what he gets back.
I submit that all he gets back is a good emotional feeling.. very
similar to how some people feel about buying a two dollar lottery
ticket.
That's the point I'm making.
See if you can respond without an insult... as I have done.
His public station was able to keep their programs on the air due to the >>> combined efforts of contributors. If everyone thought as selfishly as
you non-profit groups that genuinely help people would cease to exist.
I'd imagine you'd have a chuckle and tip back a congac knowing that
homeless vets in florida wouldn't have had a new roof over their heads.
Actually, I get a good emotional feeling by contributing to what I
consider worthy causes.
https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/2021/11/10/bravo-house-new-roof-leads-more-focus-plight-homeless-veterans-southwest-florida/6265424001/
I can't imagine being such an ignorant arrogant misanthrope as you.
Your imagination is not my concern. Neither is Krygowski's
C'est bon
Soloman
I had no idea what "Public Radio" is so I looked it up on the Web and
it seems to be,
"National Public Radio stations represent public or non-commercial
radio. Public radio does not air commercials, rather, it airs
sponsorship messages from businesses or organizations that support the station. The Federal Communications Commission strictly specifies that non-profit stations cannot broadcast commercials for for-profit
businesses. Instead, businesses can sponsor public radio following
messaging guidelines."
Which brings up the question, what is the real difference between
"This portion funded by J.B. Slocomb Hardware who has screws for
bicycles" and "J.B.Slocomb Hardware has the correct size screws for
your bicycle bottle holder, only $1.00 each".
On 10/17/2024 12:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:53:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to our public
radio station for its fund drive. Enough to (probably) fund your wasted
lottery tickets for roughly half the year.
Well, golly, just look at you.
:-) There's certainly no point in looking at you!
On 10/17/2024 5:26 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
No individual (Krygowski is an individual) gets anything back from
contributing to Public Radio unless they contribute way more than
Krygowski can contribute.
If you disagree, explain what he gets back.
I submit that all he gets back is a good emotional feeling.. very
similar to how some people feel about buying a two dollar lottery
ticket.
That's the point I'm making.
And it's wrong, on even more levels than usual.
First, saying a lottery purchaser gets "a good emotional feeling" is
really another way of saying the purchaser thinks "Oooh, I might win!" >Because there's really no other reason a person buys that ticket. But
that feeling is exactly counterbalanced night after night by the feeling
of "Shit, I lost again."
The net on "feelings" is zero at best. The net
on money spent is negative for the purchaser, positive for the lottery >system, which is why the lottery exists. In effect, the purchaser has
paid a voluntary tax.
Next, I do get benefit from my contributions to the station. Besides
being known as a member of a community of intelligent and cultured >contributors,
I have some influence and I've been able to affect choices
of programming. Many years ago, when I learned one of my favorite
programs was due to be canceled, I successfully got a reprieve for it.
And just a couple years ago, when they decided to air one of my least >favorite programs twice per day instead of once, I was able to convince
them to drop that idea. In both instances, I organized some friends to
help with the requests, and it was easy enough for me to find friends
who agreed with me and backed up my requests.
Beyond that, I contribute at a level that grants me "day sponsorships"
in which I choose the message announced several times per day. I've used
this many times to publicize events run by organizations to which I
belong, including (as examples pertinent to this group) National Bike to
Work Day and our club's annual century ride, back when I was the ride >chairman. I've also used it to give publicity to some of those community >groups and the good work done by them.
Finally, I'm very interested in seeing this public radio station remain
on the air. They provide information and programming that's hard to
encounter through other media.
For those reading who have some
understanding of economics, the shoe Freakonomics should be very
interesting; and it's occasionally pertinent to issues discussed here.
All this may not impress someone whose idea of "community involvement"
is to snarl at people who say hello on a bike trail. But that's not my >problem.
On 10/17/2024 12:48 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:54:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 6:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:40:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/16/2024 8:22 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 10/15/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:27:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:57:58 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI would assume that "trips" would be a reasonable assessment, as >>>>>>>> most
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile >>>>>>>>>> traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric: >>>>>>>>>> fatalities per person-trips.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a
binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all.
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be
logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I >>>>>>>>>>>> should add something about the necessity of what might be called a >>>>>>>>>>>> "lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor >>>>>>>>>>>> scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper
tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as
many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden >>>>>>>>>>>> between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to
any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in
fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far
safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's
safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly
because of men"
Apples and oranges....
people ride bicycles, or walk, from here to there, i.e., a trip, but >>>>>>>> perhaps Frankie spends the morning riding round and round in his >>>>>>>> driveway going nowhere?
There are advantages and disadvantages to the various denominators - >>>>>>> per trip, per mile, per hour, per lifetime or whatever.
Do people ride going nowhere? Ask your tricyclist friend, who unloads >>>>>>> his trike from his truck, rides out, rides back and reloads into his >>>>>>> truck.
My last several trips on my bike were very short, a couple miles and a >>>>>>> few minutes at most. If those were added into average computations, I >>>>>>> certainly lowered the number of injuries per trip. Meanwhile, my last >>>>>>> several car trips were ~ 1 hour, mostly freeway. Hardly comparable. >>>>>>>
I think the most general metric is per hour exposure. That allows >>>>>>> comparisons between things like swimming, skiing, skydiving, hiking, >>>>>>> and other activities whether transportation or not.
Another statistic that seems to be ignored is exposure time to danger, >>>>>>>> i.e., auto traffic. Bicycleing speed is about 4 minutes\mile while >>>>>>>> walking is 18 min\mile, nearly 5 times longer and thus 5 times more >>>>>>>> exposure to danger.
And unlike bicycling, people whose hobby is walking do not seem to >>>>>>> spend time on the internet trying to convince everyone their hobby is >>>>>>> dangerous! Why do so many cyclists do that?
Again:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15
Hunting .08
There are plainly some selection effects shown above. There is no way >>>>>> that swimming is safer than "living" for those that actually swim. >>>>>> Swimming is not terribly dangerous, but it is more dangerous than
sleeping or sitting on the couch. *However*, those who can no longer >>>>>> swim tend to be likelier to die while sleeping or sitting on the couch >>>>>> than those who can.
You're right. OTOH such selection effects are unavoidable for most of >>>>> the items in the list. "Living" is the only one everybody must do.
Also, I'll note that the table is based on detriments alone, not related >>>>> benefits. I've many times referred to multiple studies that found the >>>>> health benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. I imagine >>>>> that's true of swimming too.
And I'll confess that I occasionally ride my motorcycle. It has far
greater danger than a bicycle, and approximately none of its health
benefit. One could say, I suppose, that riding a motorcycle is no more >>>>> logical than playing a lottery. That's one reason I don't propose to >>>>> actually ban lotteries. Or rock climbing, or eating meat, or smoking in >>>>> private, etc.
Why would you even contemplate banning lotteries, rock climbing,
eating meat, or smoking in private, etc.
??? "... I _don't_ propose to actually ban ..."
My! You're very, very confused!
You stated one reason, in addition to natural human rights, not to ban
"lotteries, rock climbing, eating meat, or smoking in private, etc."
That reason, if I read your nonsense post correctly, has to do with
what you believe is logic.
That tells me that you actually have actually contemplated that
ridiculous notion.
Nope. And you've just demonstrated your own weak logic.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:31:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/17/2024 3:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:50:17 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio
station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
And now we know the dumbass has never contributed to any
non-profit/charity. Not surprising since he's convinced himself that
selfishness is a sign of a higher-evolved being.
Not to mention that the dumbass is creating yet another strawman with
his ignorant assumption that since he views public radio as a complete >>>> waste of FCC bandwidth, everyone else must as well. Did it ever occur to >>>> you that Frank may get as much - if not more - sense of return from his >>>> contribution to public radio as people who play the lottery get from
spending money on lottery tickets?
Of course not, that would mean developing a sense of empathy, clearly a >>>> sign of a lesser-evolved being.
dumbass.....
I stated a simple fact.
No, you stated an opinion, one based on a false first premise:
Public Radio broascasting did not change in
the slightest because Krygowski contributed to Public Radio, so he got
nothing in return for his expenditure.
By that twisted logic, no one ever gets anything from contributing to a
non-profit.
No individual (Krygowski is an individual) gets anything back from contributing to Public Radio unless they contribute way more than
Krygowski can contribute.
If you disagree, explain what he gets back.>
I submit that all he gets back is a good emotional feeling.. very
similar to how some people feel about buying a two dollar lottery
ticket.
That's the point I'm making.
See if you can respond without an insult... as I have done.
His public station was able to keep their programs on the air due to the
combined efforts of contributors. If everyone thought as selfishly as
you non-profit groups that genuinely help people would cease to exist.
I'd imagine you'd have a chuckle and tip back a congac knowing that
homeless vets in florida wouldn't have had a new roof over their heads.
Actually, I get a good emotional feeling by contributing to what I
consider worthy causes.
https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/2021/11/10/bravo-house-new-roof-leads-more-focus-plight-homeless-veterans-southwest-florida/6265424001/
I can't imagine being such an ignorant arrogant misanthrope as you.
Your imagination is not my concern. Neither is Krygowski's
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:50:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 5:26 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
No individual (Krygowski is an individual) gets anything back from
contributing to Public Radio unless they contribute way more than
Krygowski can contribute.
If you disagree, explain what he gets back.
I submit that all he gets back is a good emotional feeling.. very
similar to how some people feel about buying a two dollar lottery
ticket.
That's the point I'm making.
And it's wrong, on even more levels than usual.
First, saying a lottery purchaser gets "a good emotional feeling" is
really another way of saying the purchaser thinks "Oooh, I might win!"
Because there's really no other reason a person buys that ticket. But
that feeling is exactly counterbalanced night after night by the feeling
of "Shit, I lost again."
I've had that downer a few times back when I tried to race the
Spitfire, but never when I didn't win a lottery. Mostly, we just shrug
it off with a smile, knowing it's a good cause.
The net on "feelings" is zero at best. The net
on money spent is negative for the purchaser, positive for the lottery
system, which is why the lottery exists. In effect, the purchaser has
paid a voluntary tax.
Whatever.. Most people don't let that bother them. Why do you?
Next, I do get benefit from my contributions to the station. Besides
being known as a member of a community of intelligent and cultured
contributors,
<LOL> Listening to someone telling you what to think does not make
you intelligent or cultured. It makes you a group thinking parrot, and
that's clearly what you are.
You've mentioned that you attend church; I'll bet you obediently bow
your head and let your bossman in the pulpit speak for you.
I have some influence and I've been able to affect choices
of programming. Many years ago, when I learned one of my favorite
programs was due to be canceled, I successfully got a reprieve for it.
And just a couple years ago, when they decided to air one of my least
favorite programs twice per day instead of once, I was able to convince
them to drop that idea. In both instances, I organized some friends to
help with the requests, and it was easy enough for me to find friends
who agreed with me and backed up my requests.
Beyond that, I contribute at a level that grants me "day sponsorships"
in which I choose the message announced several times per day. I've used
this many times to publicize events run by organizations to which I
belong, including (as examples pertinent to this group) National Bike to
Work Day and our club's annual century ride, back when I was the ride
chairman. I've also used it to give publicity to some of those community
groups and the good work done by them.
Knowing how much you lie and exaggerate, I won't be believing any of
the above brags without good documentation.
Finally, I'm very interested in seeing this public radio station remain
on the air. They provide information and programming that's hard to
encounter through other media.
I've no use for broadcast radio, public or otherwise;
AM/FM/Satellite... We don't even have a radio in our home, and both vehicles' electronics are set up to play music off our phones or
portable storage devices.
For those reading who have some
understanding of economics, the shoe Freakonomics should be very
interesting; and it's occasionally pertinent to issues discussed here.
Good grief... Some people will suck up all kinds of garbage.
All this may not impress someone whose idea of "community involvement"
is to snarl at people who say hello on a bike trail. But that's not my
problem.
<LOL> There's some fine irony from Krygowski who is the snarliest
loonie-toon I've ever come across short of leftist TV shows.
As for me, Snarling is not my thing unless someone snarls at me. That
doesn't happen very often on my bike rides.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:53:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to our public >>>> radio station for its fund drive. Enough to (probably) fund your wasted >>>> lottery tickets for roughly half the year.
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent auto mechanic >>>>> has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a lottery ticket. >>>>
Well, golly, just look at you.
:-) There's certainly no point in looking at you!
..and yet, that's what you do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:52:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:48 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:54:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 6:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:40:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/16/2024 8:22 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 10/15/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:27:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:57:58 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI would assume that "trips" would be a reasonable assessment, as >>>>>>>>> most
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 11:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:36 -0400, Frank KrygowskiIn my post above, I said "bicycling is safer (in fatalities per mile
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/14/2024 9:11 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:55:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words.
I wonder if anyone here agrees with you.
Nothing can make *anything* safe.
I think that's true only if, as Roger mentioned, you treat "safe" as a
binary condition, perhaps meaning _perfectly_ safe - no harm at all.
I've written quite a lot - including here - about the fact that to be
logical, "safety" must be evaluated comparatively. And I suppose I
should add something about the necessity of what might be called a
"lowest level of concern." IOW, I'd say we should not count minor >>>>>>>>>>>>> scrapes, scratches and bruises, although I know of one research paper
tried to inflate the "danger" of bicycling by deliberately recording as
many of those as possible. (It still found over 6500 miles ridden >>>>>>>>>>>>> between boo-boos, and over 25,000 miles ridden between injuries shown to
any medical worker.)
But back to comparison: I've got data showing bicycling is safer (in
fatalities per mile traveled) than walking. And data showing it's far
safer (in fatalities per hour) than swimming. And data showing it's
safer (in injuries per month) than gardening and weightlifting. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup, safer then walking... got the data...
Now read
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
"Cycling has a higher risk of fatality than driving or walking, mostly
because of men"
traveled) than walking." Your article used a different metric: >>>>>>>>>>> fatalities per person-trips.
Apples and oranges....
people ride bicycles, or walk, from here to there, i.e., a trip, but >>>>>>>>> perhaps Frankie spends the morning riding round and round in his >>>>>>>>> driveway going nowhere?
There are advantages and disadvantages to the various denominators - >>>>>>>> per trip, per mile, per hour, per lifetime or whatever.
Do people ride going nowhere? Ask your tricyclist friend, who unloads >>>>>>>> his trike from his truck, rides out, rides back and reloads into his >>>>>>>> truck.
My last several trips on my bike were very short, a couple miles and a >>>>>>>> few minutes at most. If those were added into average computations, I >>>>>>>> certainly lowered the number of injuries per trip. Meanwhile, my last >>>>>>>> several car trips were ~ 1 hour, mostly freeway. Hardly comparable. >>>>>>>>
I think the most general metric is per hour exposure. That allows >>>>>>>> comparisons between things like swimming, skiing, skydiving, hiking, >>>>>>>> and other activities whether transportation or not.
Another statistic that seems to be ignored is exposure time to danger,
i.e., auto traffic. Bicycleing speed is about 4 minutes\mile while >>>>>>>>> walking is 18 min\mile, nearly 5 times longer and thus 5 times more >>>>>>>>> exposure to danger.
And unlike bicycling, people whose hobby is walking do not seem to >>>>>>>> spend time on the internet trying to convince everyone their hobby is >>>>>>>> dangerous! Why do so many cyclists do that?
Again:
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15
Hunting .08
There are plainly some selection effects shown above. There is no way >>>>>>> that swimming is safer than "living" for those that actually swim. >>>>>>> Swimming is not terribly dangerous, but it is more dangerous than >>>>>>> sleeping or sitting on the couch. *However*, those who can no longer >>>>>>> swim tend to be likelier to die while sleeping or sitting on the couch >>>>>>> than those who can.
You're right. OTOH such selection effects are unavoidable for most of >>>>>> the items in the list. "Living" is the only one everybody must do. >>>>>>
Also, I'll note that the table is based on detriments alone, not related >>>>>> benefits. I've many times referred to multiple studies that found the >>>>>> health benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. I imagine >>>>>> that's true of swimming too.
And I'll confess that I occasionally ride my motorcycle. It has far >>>>>> greater danger than a bicycle, and approximately none of its health >>>>>> benefit. One could say, I suppose, that riding a motorcycle is no more >>>>>> logical than playing a lottery. That's one reason I don't propose to >>>>>> actually ban lotteries. Or rock climbing, or eating meat, or smoking in >>>>>> private, etc.
Why would you even contemplate banning lotteries, rock climbing,
eating meat, or smoking in private, etc.
??? "... I _don't_ propose to actually ban ..."
My! You're very, very confused!
You stated one reason, in addition to natural human rights, not to ban
"lotteries, rock climbing, eating meat, or smoking in private, etc."
That reason, if I read your nonsense post correctly, has to do with
what you believe is logic.
That tells me that you actually have actually contemplated that
ridiculous notion.
Nope. And you've just demonstrated your own weak logic.
<CHUCKLE> Logical thinking is clearly not Krygowski's strong suit
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/17/2024 5:26 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:31:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/17/2024 3:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:50:17 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:10:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 10/17/2024 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent
auto mechanic
has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown
Ohio. Take
that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle
and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a
lottery ticket.
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to
our public radio station for its fund drive. Enough to
(probably) fund your wasted lottery tickets for roughly half
the year.
And John, that will probably be the closest you'll come to
actually solving a mathematics problem.
"I made a nice donation to our public radio station"
I think anyone here would have guessed that you would.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that the "public radio >>>>>> station," would not stop broadcasting if he had not, means that,
according to his own standards, makes it a waste of money.
And now we know the dumbass has never contributed to any
non-profit/charity. Not surprising since he's convinced himself that >>>>> selfishness is a sign of a higher-evolved being.
Not to mention that the dumbass is creating yet another strawman with >>>>> his ignorant assumption that since he views public radio as a complete >>>>> waste of FCC bandwidth, everyone else must as well. Did it ever occur to >>>>> you that Frank may get as much - if not more - sense of return from his >>>>> contribution to public radio as people who play the lottery get from >>>>> spending money on lottery tickets?
Of course not, that would mean developing a sense of empathy, clearly a >>>>> sign of a lesser-evolved being.
dumbass.....
I stated a simple fact.
No, you stated an opinion, one based on a false first premise:
Public Radio broascasting did not change in
the slightest because Krygowski contributed to Public Radio, so he got >>>> nothing in return for his expenditure.
By that twisted logic, no one ever gets anything from contributing to a
non-profit.
No individual (Krygowski is an individual) gets anything back from
contributing to Public Radio unless they contribute way more than
Krygowski can contribute.
Speaking for the entire demographic that make small contributions to >charities now, eh? My, that's not arrogant at all.
If you disagree, explain what he gets back.>
I submit that all he gets back is a good emotional feeling.. very
similar to how some people feel about buying a two dollar lottery
ticket.
That's the point I'm making.
and in your estimation that isn't worth it.
See if you can respond without an insult... as I have done.
Sure, completely dismissing the return from a small contribution to
charity by arrogantly building an ignorant straw man isn't insulting at
all. Fuck you.
His public station was able to keep their programs on the air due to the >>> combined efforts of contributors. If everyone thought as selfishly as
you non-profit groups that genuinely help people would cease to exist.
I'd imagine you'd have a chuckle and tip back a congac knowing that
homeless vets in florida wouldn't have had a new roof over their heads.
Actually, I get a good emotional feeling by contributing to what I
consider worthy causes.
The logic of doing that escapes me. The fact that what you consider to
be a worthy cause would not stop providing whatever benefits that >organization provides whether you contribute or not, means that,
according to your own standards, it's a waste of money.
Unless of course you're claiming you have some right to a good emotional >feeling that Frank shouldn't be allowed to experience. Based on your >behaviour in this forum that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/2021/11/10/bravo-house-new-roof-leads-more-focus-plight-homeless-veterans-southwest-florida/6265424001/
I can't imagine being such an ignorant arrogant misanthrope as you.
Your imagination is not my concern. Neither is Krygowski's
Then shut the fuck up about it.
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/18/2024 3:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 12:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:53:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
And yet, within the past 24 hours I made a nice donation to our public >>>>> radio station for its fund drive. Enough to (probably) fund your wasted >>>>> lottery tickets for roughly half the year.
I think I've solved the "Mathematics" problem.
A casual search of the Internet showed that a competent auto mechanic >>>>>> has a higher income then a collage teacher in Youngstown Ohio. Take >>>>>> that together with the guy riding a 20 year old bicycle and it's
obvious why the guy doesn't want to spend money on a lottery ticket. >>>>>
Well, golly, just look at you.
:-) There's certainly no point in looking at you!
..and yet, that's what you do.
One tends to look at a yappy little chihuahua who constantly begs for >attention by thinking their interjections are witty and have any effect,
when in reality they're just constant demonstrations of willful
ignorance and serve no purpose other than to a bring attention to yourself.
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at
his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even >acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/18/2024 3:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:50:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2024 5:26 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
No individual (Krygowski is an individual) gets anything back from
contributing to Public Radio unless they contribute way more than
Krygowski can contribute.
If you disagree, explain what he gets back.
I submit that all he gets back is a good emotional feeling.. very
similar to how some people feel about buying a two dollar lottery
ticket.
That's the point I'm making.
And it's wrong, on even more levels than usual.
First, saying a lottery purchaser gets "a good emotional feeling" is
really another way of saying the purchaser thinks "Oooh, I might win!"
Because there's really no other reason a person buys that ticket. But
that feeling is exactly counterbalanced night after night by the feeling >>> of "Shit, I lost again."
I've had that downer a few times back when I tried to race the
Spitfire, but never when I didn't win a lottery. Mostly, we just shrug
it off with a smile, knowing it's a good cause.
The net on "feelings" is zero at best. The net
on money spent is negative for the purchaser, positive for the lottery
system, which is why the lottery exists. In effect, the purchaser has
paid a voluntary tax.
Whatever.. Most people don't let that bother them. Why do you?
Next, I do get benefit from my contributions to the station. Besides
being known as a member of a community of intelligent and cultured
contributors,
<LOL> Listening to someone telling you what to think does not make
you intelligent or cultured. It makes you a group thinking parrot, and
that's clearly what you are.
Thanks for confirming that you consider education and analysis to be
"being told what to think". Meanwhile, you continue to parrot bullshit
you hear from right-wing news - fucking hypocrite.
You've mentioned that you attend church; I'll bet you obediently bow
your head and let your bossman in the pulpit speak for you.
I have some influence and I've been able to affect choices
of programming. Many years ago, when I learned one of my favorite
programs was due to be canceled, I successfully got a reprieve for it.
And just a couple years ago, when they decided to air one of my least
favorite programs twice per day instead of once, I was able to convince
them to drop that idea. In both instances, I organized some friends to
help with the requests, and it was easy enough for me to find friends
who agreed with me and backed up my requests.
Beyond that, I contribute at a level that grants me "day sponsorships"
in which I choose the message announced several times per day. I've used >>> this many times to publicize events run by organizations to which I
belong, including (as examples pertinent to this group) National Bike to >>> Work Day and our club's annual century ride, back when I was the ride
chairman. I've also used it to give publicity to some of those community >>> groups and the good work done by them.
Knowing how much you lie and exaggerate, I won't be believing any of
the above brags without good documentation.
Finally, I'm very interested in seeing this public radio station remain
on the air. They provide information and programming that's hard to
encounter through other media.
I've no use for broadcast radio, public or otherwise;
AM/FM/Satellite... We don't even have a radio in our home, and both
vehicles' electronics are set up to play music off our phones or
portable storage devices.
And more confirmation of your willful ignorance
For those reading who have some
understanding of economics, the shoe Freakonomics should be very
interesting; and it's occasionally pertinent to issues discussed here.
Good grief... Some people will suck up all kinds of garbage.
Sure like "All one has to do is see what Walz didn't do against the >Minneapolis riots and how Kamala argued for riots to continue. Also see
how Biden screwed up the Afghanistan withdrawal and how he permeated >thousands of illegals to enter the country. "
All this may not impress someone whose idea of "community involvement"
is to snarl at people who say hello on a bike trail. But that's not my
problem.
<LOL> There's some fine irony from Krygowski who is the snarliest
loonie-toon I've ever come across short of leftist TV shows.
As for me, Snarling is not my thing unless someone snarls at me. That
doesn't happen very often on my bike rides.
Your entire life has been a snarl.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/18/2024 9:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Krygowski doesn't seem to have many good emotional feelings. He seems
to me to be pretty bitter about life.
That may be a world record for psychological projection.
SMH
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at
his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even
acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he
has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
He's probably envious that
I have courage to ride city streets and country roads with (gasp!)
actual hills, both alone and among (wow!) actual friends, and (gasp!)
without needing a handgun for "security."
His only hint of an "accomplishment" has been his claim that he >self-published some paperback novels - um, that nobody bought.
He's found so little purpose in life that he spends hours watching for
every post I make here,
and stupidly snarking at nearly every one. What
a miserable old man.
On 10/18/2024 11:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at >>>> his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even >>>> acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he
has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
<LOL> Krygowski thinks he's earned respect....
You, of all people, have absolutely no qualifications that would make
you a good judge of who deserves respect or not.
He's probably envious that
I have courage to ride city streets and country roads with (gasp!)
actual hills, both alone and among (wow!) actual friends, and (gasp!)
without needing a handgun for "security."
Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to the
pedals. Nowdays,I always truck my bike to where I start my ride. I
tried and found riding a bike to the grocery store and other routine
trips to be boring. I hope I am never reduced to riding like that. I
am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments.
His only hint of an "accomplishment" has been his claim that he
self-published some paperback novels - um, that nobody bought.
At least, unlike you, I backed it up when you challenged it.
I don't recall you listing where anyone could buy your novels.
Krygowski's well known "friend," he refuses to name.
Yes, that's called respect.
"I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
almost entirely his design."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/tk2Zbzx1BgAJ >>
He's found so little purpose in life that he spends hours watching for
every post I make here,
I don't have to watch for them....
Oh, you went through the trouble of creating a filter that pops his
messages to the top of your feed? Gee, that's not obsessive at all.
OK, maybe you didn't, which means you lied and you _do_ haunt the group >looking specifically for his messages so you can comment on
each
and
every
fucking
one.
And yet you claim not to care about him or his opinions.
You have an obsession for him. It's disturbing.
and stupidly snarking at nearly every one. What
a miserable old man.
I am pretty old...
and by the way
"The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you.
You are such a little, little man."
Q.E.D.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at
his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even
acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he
has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
<LOL> Krygowski thinks he's earned respect....
He's probably envious that
I have courage to ride city streets and country roads with (gasp!)
actual hills, both alone and among (wow!) actual friends, and (gasp!)
without needing a handgun for "security."
Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to the
pedals. Nowdays,I always truck my bike to where I start my ride. I
tried and found riding a bike to the grocery store and other routine
trips to be boring. I hope I am never reduced to riding like that. I
am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments.
His only hint of an "accomplishment" has been his claim that he
self-published some paperback novels - um, that nobody bought.
At least, unlike you, I backed it up when you challenged it.
Krygowski's well known "friend," he refuses to name.
"I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
almost entirely his design."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/tk2Zbzx1BgAJ
He's found so little purpose in life that he spends hours watching for
every post I make here,
I don't have to watch for them....
and stupidly snarking at nearly every one. What
a miserable old man.
I am pretty old...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:45:20 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/18/2024 11:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at >>>>> his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even >>>>> acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the >>>>> fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he
has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
<LOL> Krygowski thinks he's earned respect....
You, of all people, have absolutely no qualifications that would make
you a good judge of who deserves respect or not.
He's probably envious that
I have courage to ride city streets and country roads with (gasp!)
actual hills, both alone and among (wow!) actual friends, and (gasp!)
without needing a handgun for "security."
Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to the
pedals. Nowdays,I always truck my bike to where I start my ride. I
tried and found riding a bike to the grocery store and other routine
trips to be boring. I hope I am never reduced to riding like that. I
am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments.
His only hint of an "accomplishment" has been his claim that he
self-published some paperback novels - um, that nobody bought.
At least, unlike you, I backed it up when you challenged it.
I don't recall you listing where anyone could buy your novels.
It's called Amazon, or I sell them myself.
Krygowski's well known "friend," he refuses to name.
Yes, that's called respect.
"I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
almost entirely his design."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/tk2Zbzx1BgAJ >>>
He's found so little purpose in life that he spends hours watching for >>>> every post I make here,
I don't have to watch for them....
Oh, you went through the trouble of creating a filter that pops his
messages to the top of your feed? Gee, that's not obsessive at all.
<lol> Don't be ridiculous.
OK, maybe you didn't, which means you lied and you _do_ haunt the group
looking specifically for his messages so you can comment on
My Usenet reader (Forte Agent) downloads and displays all the unread
posts when I open it. There's usually only a half dozen or so.
each
and
every
fucking
one.
And yet you claim not to care about him or his opinions.
Oh no, I really enjoy seeing his opinions.
You have an obsession for him. It's disturbing.
Don't be disturbed... Relax... life is good.. or will be again next
year.
and stupidly snarking at nearly every one. What
a miserable old man.
I am pretty old...
and by the way
"The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you.
I'm actually proud of that. I do my best to earn his disrespect and
hatred. It seems to be working with you too.
You are such a little, little man."
Q.E.D.
Apparently, Junior doesn't like it when I call him a little man. He
thinks it bothers me as much as it bothers him.
On 10/18/2024 12:03 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:45:20 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/18/2024 11:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he >>>>> has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at >>>>>> his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even >>>>>> acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the >>>>>> fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man. >>>>>
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
<LOL> Krygowski thinks he's earned respect....
You, of all people, have absolutely no qualifications that would make
you a good judge of who deserves respect or not.
He's probably envious that
I have courage to ride city streets and country roads with (gasp!)
actual hills, both alone and among (wow!) actual friends, and (gasp!) >>>>> without needing a handgun for "security."
Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to the
pedals. Nowdays,I always truck my bike to where I start my ride. I
tried and found riding a bike to the grocery store and other routine
trips to be boring. I hope I am never reduced to riding like that. I
am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments.
His only hint of an "accomplishment" has been his claim that he
self-published some paperback novels - um, that nobody bought.
At least, unlike you, I backed it up when you challenged it.
I don't recall you listing where anyone could buy your novels.
It's called Amazon, or I sell them myself.
So you've claimed. 'soloman' shows a few authors, none of which seem to
align with your descriptions of your "work".
IOW, you haven't backed up your claims with anything but claims.
Krygowski's well known "friend," he refuses to name.
Yes, that's called respect.
"I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
almost entirely his design."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/tk2Zbzx1BgAJ >>>>
He's found so little purpose in life that he spends hours watching for >>>>> every post I make here,
I don't have to watch for them....
Oh, you went through the trouble of creating a filter that pops his
messages to the top of your feed? Gee, that's not obsessive at all.
<lol> Don't be ridiculous.
OK, maybe you didn't, which means you lied and you _do_ haunt the group
looking specifically for his messages so you can comment on
My Usenet reader (Forte Agent) downloads and displays all the unread
posts when I open it. There's usually only a half dozen or so.
Which you're compelled to read due to your disturbing obsession with him.
each
and
every
fucking
one.
And yet you claim not to care about him or his opinions.
Oh no, I really enjoy seeing his opinions.
Yes, we know. It's what you live for.
You have an obsession for him. It's disturbing.
Don't be disturbed... Relax... life is good.. or will be again next
year.
I forgot, you're into that wholes censoring of free speech thing. Too
bad for you there are actually people in floriduh who understand your
fascist agenda.
""To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it's the First
Amendment, stupid," wrote U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker in an
October 17 opinion"
and stupidly snarking at nearly every one. What
a miserable old man.
I am pretty old...
and by the way
"The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you.
I'm actually proud of that. I do my best to earn his disrespect and
hatred. It seems to be working with you too.
Good to see you're finally admitting your obsession with Frank.
But it's a pretty pathetic individual whose goal is to earn hatred and >disrespect. Says a lot about you, much less than those whose disrespect
and hatred you're proud to earn.
You are such a little, little man."
Q.E.D.
Apparently, Junior doesn't like it when I call him a little man. He
thinks it bothers me as much as it bothers him.
Your attempts at insults and name calling have as much effect as a nerf
ball on concrete. That fact that you're acknowledging my
characterizations of your demented personality traits confirms it's
affecting you.
On 10/18/2024 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at >>>> his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even >>>> acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the
fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he
has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Well, yes that is what you claim but then you claim many things...
With out evidence.
So perhaps a little proof of this "respect" that you have gained?
Some of it has been linked here, mostly by others who took the time to >search. One example was an article by the editor of the local newspaper, >reporting on the day I honored his request to help him bike commute into
the city center. Another was when someone tracked down my Professional >Engineer certification, in at least one state.
I could point to much more, but then I'd get complaints about
"bragging." We've seen that here before: I've been called a liar because
I didn't post documentation. Then when I posted documentation I was told
I was "bragging."
I suppose you've forgotten all that, John. You do seem to forget quite a
lot.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 00:01:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/18/2024 8:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Frank wouldn't pay any attention to you if you didn't constantly yap at >>>>> his heels.
Don't believe me? try not responding to him for a week. See if he even >>>>> acknowledges your existence.
The truth is he lives rent-free in your head, and you can't stand the >>>>> fact that he doesn't respect you. You are such a little, little man.
He also can't stand the fact that I'm earned far more respect than he
has from other people, employers, state and national organizations,
licensing boards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Well, yes that is what you claim but then you claim many things...
With out evidence.
So perhaps a little proof of this "respect" that you have gained?
Some of it has been linked here, mostly by others who took the time to >>search. One example was an article by the editor of the local newspaper, >>reporting on the day I honored his request to help him bike commute into >>the city center. Another was when someone tracked down my Professional >>Engineer certification, in at least one state.
I could point to much more, but then I'd get complaints about
"bragging." We've seen that here before: I've been called a liar because
I didn't post documentation. Then when I posted documentation I was told
I was "bragging."
I suppose you've forgotten all that, John. You do seem to forget quite a >>lot.
You can't be serious. Someone respects you for telling him what road
to take? It also says a lot about the bloke asking for help.
I ride in traffic with no help.... I must be Super Man. >https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1229588471/photo/vehicles-are-seen-in-a-traffic-jam-on-lat-phrao-road-which-is-one-of-the-busiest-roads-in.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=zrdsnSXDP_Z4nHhdzCIFafXgzUrGqmdtvTUzdw7GqgI=
O,K, Strike 1. Now tell us how it can be that the mere fact that you
have a state Engineer license means that some one adores you.
Good Lord! When I lived in the U.S. I had several U.S. Government
licenses. Not, fuzzy little state licenses but real live U.S.
Government licenses.
Two strikes. One more and you are out.
It (relatively) isn't dangerous in a macro or aggregate sense.
But (specifically) can be in particular incidents.
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous* and also thatTrue. There are proven ways of mitigating the risks. Sadly, it often
the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
On 10/9/2024 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous* and also thatTrue. There are proven ways of mitigating the risks. Sadly, it often
the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
takes a tragedy for some of that risk mitigation to occur, because it
often costs a lot of money.
Mitigating the risk also requires political will. Some drivers see it as
an affront when they can no longer drive, park, or drift where a
protected bike lane is installed, even though their lanes are no
narrower than before.
When the city I live in installed its first protected bike lane, which
is along a road used by students to ride to school, some drivers were
very upset. There were complaints like "I hit the concrete divider and
two tires were destroyed!" One unexpected result of the protected bike
lanes was that it reduced speeding by vehicles because they now had to
be more careful to stay in their lane. Also, no more passing
left-turning vehicles by going into the bike lane.
On 10/9/2024 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous*True. There are proven ways of mitigating the risks. Sadly,
and also that the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
it often takes a tragedy for some of that risk mitigation to
occur, because it often costs a lot of money.
Mitigating the risk also requires political will. Some
drivers see it as an affront when they can no longer drive,
park, or drift where a protected bike lane is installed,
even though their lanes are no narrower than before.
When the city I live in installed its first protected bike
lane, which is along a road used by students to ride to
school, some drivers were very upset. There were complaints
like "I hit the concrete divider and two tires were
destroyed!" One unexpected result of the protected bike
lanes was that it reduced speeding by vehicles because they
now had to be more careful to stay in their lane. Also, no
more passing left-turning vehicles by going into the bike lane.
It’s one of the useful products of at the time london Mayor Boris Johnson was he’s prepared to be unpopular or rather to take the initial heat from as these things tend to have predictable curve ie initial outcry setting to we like this do more of this!
On 10/19/2024 8:16 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous*True. There are proven ways of mitigating the risks. Sadly,
and also that the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
it often takes a tragedy for some of that risk mitigation to
occur, because it often costs a lot of money.
Mitigating the risk also requires political will. Some
drivers see it as an affront when they can no longer drive,
park, or drift where a protected bike lane is installed,
even though their lanes are no narrower than before.
When the city I live in installed its first protected bike
lane, which is along a road used by students to ride to
school, some drivers were very upset. There were complaints
like "I hit the concrete divider and two tires were
destroyed!" One unexpected result of the protected bike
lanes was that it reduced speeding by vehicles because they
now had to be more careful to stay in their lane. Also, no
more passing left-turning vehicles by going into the bike lane.
A difference of viewpoint there. By 'mitigation' I meant
careful attention to traffic flow, looking ahead for texting
meandering pedestrians at the curbside, taking the lane
where appropriate and so on.
Bicycle Death Chutes, such as the one in which my daughter
was narrowly spared after being doored on the way to work
last month, have positive and negative aspects. When thrown
out into the adjacent lane, the next auto squealed to a stop
inches from her head.
On 10/19/2024 6:51 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
It’s one of the useful products of at the time london Mayor Boris Johnson >> was he’s prepared to be unpopular or rather to take the initial heat from >> as these things tend to have predictable curve ie initial outcry setting to >> we like this do more of this!
Personally, I spend my political capital advocating for a short trail
along a creek <https://walkbikecupertino.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/RCT-image.png>.
Extremely popular now that it's completed, but a few people whose houses backed up to the creek, many of whom were using the existing Water
District access road as their own private trail, were very upset,
claiming all sorts of terrible things would occur like vultures picking
up toddlers, teenagers engaging in "hanky-panky," burglars coming on
bicycles and climbing the fence to rob them, excessive noise, etc.. None
of that happened of course.
We paid for replacement, sound-deadening fences, for residents that
wanted them, but explained that they would no longer be allowed to have
a gate from their back yard onto the trail if they opted for a new
fence, since the Water District forbid it─some residents opted to not
have their existing fence replaced so they could retain their gate.
Now residents want more creek side multi-use trails.
On 10/19/2024 5:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I've not aeen much documentation from Krygowski.
Others have posted only a tiny portion of documentation regarding what
I've done.
What exactly have you done and documented?
So far, you've offered only
links alleging that you were the author of a few paperback books that
failed to sell.
We've seen nothing else.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 09:52:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 8:16 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous*True. There are proven ways of mitigating the risks. Sadly,
and also that the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
it often takes a tragedy for some of that risk mitigation to
occur, because it often costs a lot of money.
Mitigating the risk also requires political will. Some
drivers see it as an affront when they can no longer drive,
park, or drift where a protected bike lane is installed,
even though their lanes are no narrower than before.
When the city I live in installed its first protected bike
lane, which is along a road used by students to ride to
school, some drivers were very upset. There were complaints
like "I hit the concrete divider and two tires were
destroyed!" One unexpected result of the protected bike
lanes was that it reduced speeding by vehicles because they
now had to be more careful to stay in their lane. Also, no
more passing left-turning vehicles by going into the bike lane.
A difference of viewpoint there. By 'mitigation' I meant
careful attention to traffic flow, looking ahead for texting
meandering pedestrians at the curbside, taking the lane
where appropriate and so on.
Bicycle Death Chutes, such as the one in which my daughter
was narrowly spared after being doored on the way to work
last month, have positive and negative aspects. When thrown
out into the adjacent lane, the next auto squealed to a stop
inches from her head.
Out of curiosity how is the "door zone" defined in the U.S. Only on
the drive's side or on both sides?
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes >> dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at
least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me, >> ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just
poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few >> parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that
introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in
a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone.
Of course, we refused to ride in them.
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes >> dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at
least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me, >> ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just
poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few >> parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that
introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in
a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike >friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone.
Of course, we refused to ride in them.
Am Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:50:35 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at >>> least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me, >>> ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just >>> poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few >>> parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that >>> introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
Unfortunately, they are common in Germany, too.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/fahrten/radwege/dreckwege/IMG-4316.jpeg>
2008-01-17, on my commute,
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20001121/DSCF0072.JPG>
2000-11-21, same road, on my commute
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/rwA1hxBrywb2zTNJA>
2022-10, same road, picture taken by Google
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of that stuff, for
example a few meters around the edge <https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in
a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike
friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone.
Of course, we refused to ride in them.
Problem here is, there are a lot of segregation activists who would
agree with that statement. These people consider a city like Münster, a small city in the part of Germany that is as flat as it gets, a city
where cyclists are mostly confined to the sidewalk as the admired "Fahrradhauptstadt" (bicycle capital) of Germany.
Have a look at
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/JXdYQnD8Ee2d14dn8> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/WoNneCikG6PTsm7j7> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/umbZa8xzviN3WRoh8>
From my point of view as an experienced and competent cyclist, this is a nightmare. In theory, I could and would ride much faster on those roads
than in and around my city, where it is quite hilly, on both sides of
the Rhine. I would simply do, if it wasn't forbidden because of that ridiculous “infrastructure”, to be precise.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 09:52:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 8:16 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/9/2024 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
I happen to agree that cycling is not all that dangerous*True. There are proven ways of mitigating the risks. Sadly,
and also that the risks can be mitigated to some extent.
it often takes a tragedy for some of that risk mitigation to
occur, because it often costs a lot of money.
Mitigating the risk also requires political will. Some
drivers see it as an affront when they can no longer drive,
park, or drift where a protected bike lane is installed,
even though their lanes are no narrower than before.
When the city I live in installed its first protected bike
lane, which is along a road used by students to ride to
school, some drivers were very upset. There were complaints
like "I hit the concrete divider and two tires were
destroyed!" One unexpected result of the protected bike
lanes was that it reduced speeding by vehicles because they
now had to be more careful to stay in their lane. Also, no
more passing left-turning vehicles by going into the bike lane.
A difference of viewpoint there. By 'mitigation' I meant
careful attention to traffic flow, looking ahead for texting
meandering pedestrians at the curbside, taking the lane
where appropriate and so on.
Bicycle Death Chutes, such as the one in which my daughter
was narrowly spared after being doored on the way to work
last month, have positive and negative aspects. When thrown
out into the adjacent lane, the next auto squealed to a stop
inches from her head.
Out of curiosity how is the "door zone" defined in the U.S. Only on
the drive's side or on both sides?
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at >>> least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me, >>> ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just >>> poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few >>> parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that >>> introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
I think the concept of parked cars as bike infrastructure is American, ie don’t need a kerb as the parked cars will keep you safe…
I’m somewhat cynical of that idea! I suspect it’s born out of compromise ie
don’t upset the drivers!
This said
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in
a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike
friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone.
Of course, we refused to ride in them.
As ever I tend to take things on a case by case basis so I sometimes use
that bike lane sometimes not. Unless your cycling organisation are any different I’d be cautious about recommendations!
Certainly number of uk ones realised that well they where assuming cyclists where like them, and got totally blindsided by the growth of cycling certainly leisure and utility within the big cities. And they very
different bikes such as mums and kids on cargo bikes.
Roger Merriman
On 10/20/2024 4:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t
stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended
purpose, or at
least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike
death chute near me,
ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck
between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m
sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass
it as it’s just
poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is
worrying about a few
parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally
encountered that
introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of
door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
I think the concept of parked cars as bike infrastructure
is American, ie
don’t need a kerb as the parked cars will keep you safe…
I’m somewhat cynical of that idea! I suspect it’s born out
of compromise ie
don’t upset the drivers!
This said
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S.,
we bicycled in
a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for
being "bike
friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in
the door zone.
Of course, we refused to ride in them.
As ever I tend to take things on a case by case basis so I
sometimes use
that bike lane sometimes not. Unless your cycling
organisation are any
different I’d be cautious about recommendations!
Certainly number of uk ones realised that well they where
assuming cyclists
where like them, and got totally blindsided by the growth
of cycling
certainly leisure and utility within the big cities. And
they very
different bikes such as mums and kids on cargo bikes.
Roger Merriman
These are UK cyclists.
Same problem just the 'other side'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWJioMfIuLQ
On 10/20/2024 5:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:50:35 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t
stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended
purpose, or at
least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike
death chute near me,
ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck
between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m
sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass
it as it’s just
poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is
worrying about a few
parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally
encountered that
introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of
door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of thatAnd yet the most timid cyclists like them, saying things
stuff, for
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
like "At least they've done something for cyclists."
On 10/20/2024 12:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2024 5:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:50:35 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesnt
stop or even makes
dooring more likely then its kinda failing its intended
purpose, or at
least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike
death chute near me,
ie they didnt want to remove parking so your stuck
between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if Im
sure its clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass
it as its just
poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is
worrying about a few
parking spaces.
Its the only cycling infrastructure Ive personally
encountered that
introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of
door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of thatAnd yet the most timid cyclists like them, saying things
stuff, for
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
like "At least they've done something for cyclists."
Oh my, our very own Death Chute!
Please, sir, may I have another?
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane" ><https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane: ><https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
(Back to repairing my broken stairs and deck).
On 10/20/2024 4:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at >>>> least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me, >>>> ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just >>>> poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few >>>> parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that >>>> introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
I think the concept of parked cars as bike infrastructure is American, ie
don’t need a kerb as the parked cars will keep you safe…
I’m somewhat cynical of that idea! I suspect it’s born out of compromise ie
don’t upset the drivers!
This said
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in
a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike
friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone.
Of course, we refused to ride in them.
As ever I tend to take things on a case by case basis so I sometimes use
that bike lane sometimes not. Unless your cycling organisation are any
different I’d be cautious about recommendations!
Certainly number of uk ones realised that well they where assuming cyclists >> where like them, and got totally blindsided by the growth of cycling
certainly leisure and utility within the big cities. And they very
different bikes such as mums and kids on cargo bikes.
Roger Merriman
These are UK cyclists.
Same problem just the 'other side'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWJioMfIuLQ
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/20/2024 4:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Seems to be a video of cyclist getting doored? You’ve rather lost me!
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at >>>>> least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me,
ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just >>>>> poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few
parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that >>>>> introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike
lanes. They are common in the U.S.
I think the concept of parked cars as bike infrastructure is American, ie >>> don’t need a kerb as the parked cars will keep you safe…
I’m somewhat cynical of that idea! I suspect it’s born out of compromise ie
don’t upset the drivers!
This said
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in >>>> a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike
friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone. >>>> Of course, we refused to ride in them.
As ever I tend to take things on a case by case basis so I sometimes use >>> that bike lane sometimes not. Unless your cycling organisation are any
different I’d be cautious about recommendations!
Certainly number of uk ones realised that well they where assuming cyclists >>> where like them, and got totally blindsided by the growth of cycling
certainly leisure and utility within the big cities. And they very
different bikes such as mums and kids on cargo bikes.
Roger Merriman
These are UK cyclists.
Same problem just the 'other side'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWJioMfIuLQ
Roger Merriman
On 10/20/2024 3:47 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/20/2024 4:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Seems to be a video of cyclist getting doored? You’ve rather lost me!
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/19/2024 1:29 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I personally feel that if a bike infrastructure doesn’t stop or even makes
dooring more likely then it’s kinda failing its intended purpose, or at
least one of them.
There is one short cyclelane/bus stop that has a bike death chute near me,
ie they didn’t want to remove parking so your stuck between kerb and parked
cars, if only briefly.
I treat it with caution or rather I only use it if I’m sure it’s clear ie
no pedestrians or folks in the cars, ie I often bypass it as it’s just >>>>>> poorly designed or rather a compromise, ie council is worrying about a few
parking spaces.
It’s the only cycling infrastructure I’ve personally encountered that
introduced that risk...
Another forum that I read has had dozens of photos of door zone bike >>>>> lanes. They are common in the U.S.
I think the concept of parked cars as bike infrastructure is American, ie >>>> don’t need a kerb as the parked cars will keep you safe…
I’m somewhat cynical of that idea! I suspect it’s born out of compromise ie
don’t upset the drivers!
This said
Some years ago, on one of our trips to the western U.S., we bicycled in >>>>> a city that had earned "Silver" (i.e. 2nd from the highest)
certification from the League of American Bicyclists for being "bike >>>>> friendly." Every bike lane we encountered was firmly in the door zone. >>>>> Of course, we refused to ride in them.
As ever I tend to take things on a case by case basis so I sometimes use >>>> that bike lane sometimes not. Unless your cycling organisation are any >>>> different I’d be cautious about recommendations!
Certainly number of uk ones realised that well they where assuming cyclists
where like them, and got totally blindsided by the growth of cycling
certainly leisure and utility within the big cities. And they very
different bikes such as mums and kids on cargo bikes.
Roger Merriman
These are UK cyclists.
Same problem just the 'other side'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWJioMfIuLQ
Roger Merriman
The comment above seemed to intimate that dooring was an
uniquely USA problem.
(video shows both UK and USA 'action videos' of cyclists.
On 10/12/2024 5:52 AM, John B. wrote:
:-) That's the point, John. Those who are even dimly competent at mathematical probability do know what will happen. They know that in the
Based on my and my wife's (two totally different social,religious and
financial backgrounds) is that "What the heck, its only pocket change
and who knows, it might happen?
long run, you will lose money.
How often have you or your wife won enough to cover your bets?
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
On 10/20/2024 8:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
People that gamble simply do not have much understanding of statistics.
That's been my point all along. At least, regarding lottery tickets.
But I'll note that there have been (rare) exceptions, statisticians who
did figure out how to win.
https://www.independent.com/2022/07/06/how-a-santa-barbara-mathematician-beat-the-casinos/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnavin/2017/01/06/the-new-book-by-the-math-professor-who-beat-las-vegas-wall-street/
Note, however, that those people did not bet on the lottery.
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing?
Unfortunately, the magazine is now out of print and I haven't been able
to locate the article online. Maybe Jeff can help?
Also, the study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that
found over ten times as many bike crashes in some "protected" lanes
included data from some Washington DC bike lanes. Perhaps that included
the same facility.
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the >League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing?
Unfortunately, the magazine is now out of print and I haven't been able
to locate the article online. Maybe Jeff can help?
Also, the study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that
found over ten times as many bike crashes in some "protected" lanes
included data from some Washington DC bike lanes. Perhaps that included
the same facility.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get you.
Drivers try very hard to avoid hitting things,
and even harder to avoid hitting people.
Riding on a sidewalk doesn't give them a fair chance to miss.
Twice a bike has suddenly appeared in the space where I would have
been had I started to set my vehicle in motion one nanosecond sooner.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of that stuff, forThat’s not quite the same thing, ie your not in a “death chute” ie between
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
the kerb and a parked car, a painted bike lane or at least one can move out >and so on.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 21:18:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/20/2024 8:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
People that gamble simply do not have much understanding of statistics.
That's been my point all along. At least, regarding lottery tickets.
But I'll note that there have been (rare) exceptions, statisticians who
did figure out how to win.
https://www.independent.com/2022/07/06/how-a-santa-barbara-mathematician-beat-the-casinos/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnavin/2017/01/06/the-new-book-by-the-math-professor-who-beat-las-vegas-wall-street/
Note, however, that those people did not bet on the lottery.
You might enjoy reading the book "The Eudaemonic Pie". For the UK
readers, the book was renamed "The Newtonian Casino": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie> <https://www.google.com/search?q=Eudaemonic+Pie>
"...by capturing the state of the ball and wheel and taking into
account peculiarities of the particular wheels being played they could increase their odds of selecting a winning number to gain a 44 percent advantage over the casinos."
The participants were mostly students at the local university (UCSC).
I knew a few of the players, but that was a few years after the events described in the book.
Unfortunately, I'm cursed with a relative who seems to be a compulsive gambler. I also have a compulsive urge to gamble, which is why I
don't take or make bets. When I used to visit the family in Smog
Angeles, I was forced to endure his recitations of his latest schemes
to beat the odds. His schemes rarely succeeded. Oddly, he did
contrive a few schemes that gave him a winning edge over the house,
but the percentage advantage was so small, that he would need to play
far too many games to justify the tiny financial benefits.
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:42:24 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
...
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of that stuff, forThat’s not quite the same thing, ie your not in a “death chute” ie between
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
the kerb and a parked car, a painted bike lane or at least one can move out >> and so on.
Sure. But that's why some cyclist organizations propagate so called "protected bike lanes", where a kerb or tripping hazard protects the
cyclist by preventing them from avoiding an obstacle by leaving the
cycle path. We have that here in my home town, Bonn, too. <https://maps.app.goo.gl/RFPVomJ6ERSUerzMA>
Getting segregation fans to agree on their design of a safe and usable
path for cyclists is like nailing jelly to the wall.
That design is like the the urban spaceman from the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah
Band. But unfortunately, a lot less funny.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGXtohOs7c>
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:29:48 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>> and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get you.
Nonsense....
Drivers try very hard to avoid hitting things,
and even harder to avoid hitting people.
Of course, they do. I never said or insinuated otherwise.
Fact is that vehicles do accidentally collide with other vehicles
quite often with serious injuries. Many are just "fender-benders,"
but even that kind a collision involving a bicyclist can be serious.
I do not declare that riding where motor vehicles are present is a
great danger, as was suggested. I do however, think it's better for me
not to ride on streets and roads when I don't need to.
I offer no suggestions about where, how, when, or why other people
ride their bikes.
Riding on a sidewalk doesn't give them a fair chance to miss.
Twice a bike has suddenly appeared in the space where I would have
been had I started to set my vehicle in motion one nanosecond sooner.
Bicyclists and pedestrians do tend to appear without being announced.
Most motor vehicles are more noticeable and their movements tend to
catch the eye easier.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:42:24 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
...
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of that stuff, forThat’s not quite the same thing, ie your not in a “death chute” ie between
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
the kerb and a parked car, a painted bike lane or at least one can move out >>> and so on.
Sure. But that's why some cyclist organizations propagate so called
"protected bike lanes", where a kerb or tripping hazard protects the
cyclist by preventing them from avoiding an obstacle by leaving the
cycle path. We have that here in my home town, Bonn, too.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/RFPVomJ6ERSUerzMA>
That again is political than technical, london councils in particular have >got better though not perfect about not blocking bike infrastructure >particularly with signs for the roadway! Does require someone to
essentially keep on at them and complain.
Germany does seem certainly by the legislation to be rather more car
centric than the uk, which is more liberal ie attempts to legislate that >cyclists use bike lanes or helmets or even lights which is fairly loose!
Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:18:47 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:42:24 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
...
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of that stuff, forThat’s not quite the same thing, ie your not in a “death chute” ie between
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
the kerb and a parked car, a painted bike lane or at least one can move out
and so on.
Sure. But that's why some cyclist organizations propagate so called
"protected bike lanes", where a kerb or tripping hazard protects the
cyclist by preventing them from avoiding an obstacle by leaving the
cycle path. We have that here in my home town, Bonn, too.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/RFPVomJ6ERSUerzMA>
That again is political than technical, london councils in particular have >> got better though not perfect about not blocking bike infrastructure
particularly with signs for the roadway! Does require someone to
essentially keep on at them and complain.
This is more of a distraction from the topic than an answer to the
question: what is it supposed to become, a traversable line or a
tripping hazard? Both variants are obviously bad. So why not just
remove that line or obstacle? It's safer that way, it does not create
the illusion of being safe even in the event of carelessness, while not giving any protection against some heavier vehicle.
Germany does seem certainly by the legislation to be rather more car
centric than the uk, which is more liberal ie attempts to legislate that
cyclists use bike lanes or helmets or even lights which is fairly loose!
Great, if it works that way, over there. Where I've got experience
(Germany of course, France, Italy), it did not.
Unfortunately, after bicycle lanes have been added to the law (StVO)a
few years ago, where cyclist have the right to leave these lanes, we
learned that these where even worse. Fewer quality requirements (e.g.
width), but de facto obligatory to use through a legal back door, via
the right-hand driving requirement (would be left hand-driving, in the
UK, of course).
On 10/20/2024 10:07 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/19/2024 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
Out of curiosity how is the "door zone" defined in the U.S. Only on
the drive's side or on both sides?
To a cyclist it's both sides. I don't believe that 'door zone' is a term
in statute or ordinance.
I agree. I've never seen it in a legal document. It's a warning term
used in cycling education and advocacy, generally with the advice to
never ride there. Or to ride there only if absolutely necessary, and not >exceeding walking speed.
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:27:42 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 10/20/2024 10:07 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/19/2024 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
Out of curiosity how is the "door zone" defined in the U.S. Only on
the drive's side or on both sides?
To a cyclist it's both sides. I don't believe that 'door zone' is a term >>> in statute or ordinance.
I agree. I've never seen it in a legal document. It's a warning term
used in cycling education and advocacy, generally with the advice to
never ride there. Or to ride there only if absolutely necessary, and not
exceeding walking speed.
I haven't seen this term in any legal document (law or administrative regulation) either. But the German StVO (called Verwaltungsordnung == administrative regulation, but in fact a law) has a construct that from
all practical points of view _is_ defining a dooring zone.
It is called "Schutzstreifen" (protective stripe), it looks like this
one near my home
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220814/P1066916a.jpg>
I theory, these miniature lanes should be at least 1.40 meters wide, but
I've seen a lot of those that are not much wider than about 1 meter -
not counting that a SUV parked on a narrow parking stripe necessarily consumes 20 cm or more from that already narrow stripe. Narrower
vehicles, as shown here, can do that too, of course - and their drivers *never* get fined for that.
My wife, riding in front of me here, avoids riding in that dooring zone,
for her own protection, but risking to get fined for not riding in the dooring zone, anyway.
How can this be when their use is not mandatory in theory and these
narrow lanes have been cheered by a large but naive German bicycle association out of this conviction?
In simple terms, vehicles, including bicycles, _must_ drive as far as possible to the right, like in most of Europe. A second rule has been
added for those dooring zones : Vehicles _may_ drive on a protective
stripe ("Schutzstreifen"), "when necessary, in particular to avoid
oncoming traffic". The implicit meaning of vehicle in the first rule
is "every vehicle, including bicycles", the second rule says “any
vehicle except a bicycle” - anyone *can* if necessary, but bicycles
must, even if it is not necessary or advisable.
IMO, these rules are somewhat contradictory, but police has fined
cyclists not using such a narrow stripe, because the German
Bußgeldkatalog (catalog of fines) has a fine for it, from 15 € to 30 €, depending on the phase of the moon or the mood of the finer.
"3.4 Gegen das Rechtsfahrgebot verstoßen durch Nichtbenutzen eines markierten Schutzstreifens als Radfahrer"
(Violating the right-hand traffic regulations by not using a marked protective lane as a cyclist)
Finally, in order to answer the question "why have these overly narrow
lanes been added to the law at all?", the answer is that many German
roads are not wide enough to allow adding regular bicycle lane, without violating existing rules about clear width, distances and such, even by exploiting all loopholes. What this means for the remaining lane width
and the resulting overtaking distances is left as an exercies to the
reader.
On 10/20/2024 10:29 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make
bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get you.
He'll deny that, and he'll claim he's not really afraid.
Just like a little kid who's afraid to go into a dark room,
he'll say he can do it; he just doesn't want to. So he'll
continue just riding back and forth on a bike path.
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But
at least it keeps him moving.
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the
median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-
foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane
implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane,
Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane
that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications
Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling
how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title
was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own
really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep
watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians
jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait
patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next
to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If
you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane
and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a
facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to
avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldn’t and it’s notable that bidirectional
cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some
are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few
others. Which are wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are
the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide
enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an
American thing ie car
centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as
don’t want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question
is more if it’s
not being done in America why not?
and fails only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of
Denmark is one of the world's most prominent promoters of
segregated bike facilities. Here's his take on bi-
directional on-road bike paths: https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-
cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why
on-street, bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being
promoted and implemented." He explains how they don't meet
current European standards, and that they're twice as
dangerous as single direction facilities. "In Denmark, the
on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from Best
Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago."
That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a
park or other areas free of motorised vehicles." You
regularly tout the London Embankment, but with IIRC no clear
description, links or photos explaining exactly what it is.
Perhaps it's something like what Colville-Andersen describes
in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has
proven to tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll
continue to speak out against them until evidence clearly
shows they are safer than normal roads.
On 10/21/2024 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Some years ago, in Portland, Oregon (America's most famous
My wife, riding in front of me here, avoids riding in that
dooring zone,
for her own protection, but risking to get fined for not
riding in the
dooring zone, anyway.
"bike facility" where I've done quite a bit of riding) a
rider was ticketed for just that reason. There was quite a
lot of discussion of the incident in bike advocacy circles.
As I recall, the cyclist fought the ticket and did not get
fined, but only because a local law said that every bike
lane proposal had to be approved at some sort of local
meeting, and the lane in question had not gotten that
approval. But its design was hardly unique. I came across
many door zone bike lanes in Portland. Again, naive bike
advocates thought they were just fine. They imagined they
could somehow stop instantaneously if a door popped open.
Some riders believe that myth.
On 10/20/2024 10:29 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>> and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get you.
He'll deny that, and he'll claim he's not really afraid. Just like a
little kid who's afraid to go into a dark room, he'll say he can do it;
he just doesn't want to. So he'll continue just riding back and forth on
a bike path.
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But at least it >keeps him moving.
On 10/21/2024 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the
median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-
foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane
implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane,
Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane
that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications
Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling
how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title
was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own
really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep
watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians
jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait
patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next
to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If
you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane
and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a
facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to
avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldnt and its notable that bidirectional
cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some
are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few
others. Which are wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are
the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide
enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an
American thing ie car
centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as
dont want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question
is more if its
not being done in America why not?
and fails only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of
Denmark is one of the world's most prominent promoters of
segregated bike facilities. Here's his take on bi-
directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-
cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why
on-street, bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being
promoted and implemented." He explains how they don't meet
current European standards, and that they're twice as
dangerous as single direction facilities. "In Denmark, the
on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from Best
Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago."
That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a
park or other areas free of motorised vehicles." You
regularly tout the London Embankment, but with IIRC no clear
description, links or photos explaining exactly what it is.
Perhaps it's something like what Colville-Andersen describes
in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has
proven to tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll
continue to speak out against them until evidence clearly
shows they are safer than normal roads.
It's said that for every room in heaven, there's another
just like it in hell for someone else.
5-1/2 minutes of cycling London's Embankment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRX9Dm2-_c
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the >>>> bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldnt and its notable that bidirectional cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few others. Which are wide >> and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide enough to take fire >> trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an American thing ie car >> centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as dont want to upset >> car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question is more if its >> not being done in America why not?
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's
his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths: >https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades
ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or
other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what >Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
On 10/21/2024 9:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/21/2024 7:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2024 10:29 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:There's plenty of latitude for taste. Mr Merriman also rides the bike
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>>>> and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get you.
He'll deny that, and he'll claim he's not really afraid. Just like a
little kid who's afraid to go into a dark room, he'll say he can do
it; he just doesn't want to. So he'll continue just riding back and
forth on a bike path.
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But at least
it keeps him moving.
paths while Mr Strobl and I do not. meh.
I do have a beef with paying for crappy infrastructure but cyclists are
a broad group who agree on nothing, so why should this be different?
Regarding where to ride, I'm just stating my preference.
But I think it's reasonable to discuss reasons for preferences, and
point out mistaken statements. Like ""Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic safe."
That's obviously wrong, and it's a source of problems for those of us
who want to retain the right to use normal roads. That concept has been
used to justify mandatory sidepath laws.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:19:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/20/2024 11:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 21:11:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the >>>>> bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a >>>> Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the >>>> League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for >>>> your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a >>>> green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing? >>>>
Unfortunately, the magazine is now out of print and I haven't been able >>>> to locate the article online. Maybe Jeff can help?
Also, the study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that
found over ten times as many bike crashes in some "protected" lanes
included data from some Washington DC bike lanes. Perhaps that included >>>> the same facility.
The implications of the above is frightening. I have to assume from
what I read that U.S. cyclist do not watch front, back, right, and
left continuously and aren't aware of their surrounds.
I would bet that no cyclists watch their full 360 degrees continuously. >>That's a practical impossibility. How do you watch in front of you and >>behind you simultaneously? How do you watch left and right simultaneously
A little short on common English use Frank.:
"watch front, back, right, and left" continuously>
One of the main functions of traffic laws is to remove the need for
being as alert as a fighter pilot in a dogfight. A vehicle operator with >>right-of-way should remain alert, of course, but he's got a very strong >>assurance that, for example, no vehicle at a stop sign is going to
suddenly accelerate into him as he passes. No vehicle is going to
suddenly be coming at him head-on.
Yup... traffic laws. Are you telling us that in the U.S. people never,
ever, break the traffic laws? Never run a red light, try to beat the
yellow, etc.?
Those promises are absent for a "wrong-way" rider, even if he's on an >>official bike facility. I've posted a video of a Columbus, Ohio facility >>proving that, and the studies I've referred to confirm it.
As for obeying or not obeying the traffic light that applies to them
as well as any others in the same vicinity? Again that seems like a
special form of foolishness.
The point about the special red lights for bikes is that the facility in >>question, supposedly installed for the convenience of bicyclists,
imposes extra waiting time through extra red light time. A cyclist in
the normal roadway would get to proceed on the same green light as the >>motorists. On this facility, they are expected to stand and wait - even
if the way is clear.
BTW, I saw that same situation riding in Stockholm. Ordinary, single >>direction bike lanes had their own traffic signals. Cyclists were
expected to wait even if the motorists were not, and the way was clear.
As tourists, we tended to obey the lights. I assume most of the cyclists >>ignoring them were local Swedes.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:27:42 -0400 schrieb Frank KrygowskiThat again is a political choice, ie that the roadway can’t be narrowed or a lane taken away, ie it’s a car centric excuse it’s perfectly possible to
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 10/20/2024 10:07 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/19/2024 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
Out of curiosity how is the "door zone" defined in the U.S. Only on
the drive's side or on both sides?
To a cyclist it's both sides. I don't believe that 'door zone' is a term >>>> in statute or ordinance.
I agree. I've never seen it in a legal document. It's a warning term
used in cycling education and advocacy, generally with the advice to
never ride there. Or to ride there only if absolutely necessary, and not >>> exceeding walking speed.
I haven't seen this term in any legal document (law or administrative
regulation) either. But the German StVO (called Verwaltungsordnung ==
administrative regulation, but in fact a law) has a construct that from
all practical points of view _is_ defining a dooring zone.
It is called "Schutzstreifen" (protective stripe), it looks like this
one near my home
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220814/P1066916a.jpg>
I theory, these miniature lanes should be at least 1.40 meters wide, but
I've seen a lot of those that are not much wider than about 1 meter -
not counting that a SUV parked on a narrow parking stripe necessarily
consumes 20 cm or more from that already narrow stripe. Narrower
vehicles, as shown here, can do that too, of course - and their drivers
*never* get fined for that.
My wife, riding in front of me here, avoids riding in that dooring zone,
for her own protection, but risking to get fined for not riding in the
dooring zone, anyway.
How can this be when their use is not mandatory in theory and these
narrow lanes have been cheered by a large but naive German bicycle
association out of this conviction?
In simple terms, vehicles, including bicycles, _must_ drive as far as
possible to the right, like in most of Europe. A second rule has been
added for those dooring zones : Vehicles _may_ drive on a protective
stripe ("Schutzstreifen"), "when necessary, in particular to avoid
oncoming traffic". The implicit meaning of vehicle in the first rule
is "every vehicle, including bicycles", the second rule says “any
vehicle except a bicycle” - anyone *can* if necessary, but bicycles
must, even if it is not necessary or advisable.
IMO, these rules are somewhat contradictory, but police has fined
cyclists not using such a narrow stripe, because the German
Bußgeldkatalog (catalog of fines) has a fine for it, from 15 € to 30 €, >> depending on the phase of the moon or the mood of the finer.
"3.4 Gegen das Rechtsfahrgebot verstoßen durch Nichtbenutzen eines
markierten Schutzstreifens als Radfahrer"
(Violating the right-hand traffic regulations by not using a marked
protective lane as a cyclist)
Finally, in order to answer the question "why have these overly narrow
lanes been added to the law at all?", the answer is that many German
roads are not wide enough to allow adding regular bicycle lane, without
violating existing rules about clear width, distances and such, even by
exploiting all loopholes. What this means for the remaining lane width
and the resulting overtaking distances is left as an exercies to the
reader.
narrow roads cars cope just fine.
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-
center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the >>>> bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldn’t and it’s notable that bidirectional cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few others. Which are
wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide enough to take
fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an American thing ie
car
centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as don’t want to
upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question is more if
it’s
not being done in America why not?
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's
his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths: https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-
track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades
ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or
other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
On 10/21/2024 7:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2024 10:29 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:There's plenty of latitude for taste. Mr Merriman also rides
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make
bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get you.
He'll deny that, and he'll claim he's not really afraid.
Just like a little kid who's afraid to go into a dark room,
he'll say he can do it; he just doesn't want to. So he'll
continue just riding back and forth on a bike path.
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But
at least it keeps him moving.
the bike paths while Mr Strobl and I do not. meh.
I do have a beef with paying for crappy infrastructure but
cyclists are a broad group who agree on nothing, so why
should this be different?
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:13:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/21/2024 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the
median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-
foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane
implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane,
Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane
that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications
Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling
how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title
was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own
really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep
watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians
jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait
patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next
to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If
you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane
and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a
facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to
avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldnt and its notable that bidirectional
cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some
are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few
others. Which are wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are
the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide
enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an
American thing ie car
centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as
dont want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question
is more if its
not being done in America why not?
and fails only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of
Denmark is one of the world's most prominent promoters of
segregated bike facilities. Here's his take on bi-
directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-
cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why
on-street, bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being
promoted and implemented." He explains how they don't meet
current European standards, and that they're twice as
dangerous as single direction facilities. "In Denmark, the
on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from Best
Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago."
That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a
park or other areas free of motorised vehicles." You
regularly tout the London Embankment, but with IIRC no clear
description, links or photos explaining exactly what it is.
Perhaps it's something like what Colville-Andersen describes
in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has
proven to tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll
continue to speak out against them until evidence clearly
shows they are safer than normal roads.
It's said that for every room in heaven, there's another
just like it in hell for someone else.
5-1/2 minutes of cycling London's Embankment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRX9Dm2-_c
Much more crowded than the bidirectional paths I ride, but I didn't
see any problems. I'd not hesitate to ride there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 21.10.2024 um 18:42 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:27:42 -0400 schrieb Frank KrygowskiThat again is a political choice, ie that the roadway can’t be narrowed or >> a lane taken away, ie it’s a car centric excuse it’s perfectly possible to
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 10/20/2024 10:07 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/19/2024 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
Out of curiosity how is the "door zone" defined in the U.S. Only on >>>>>> the drive's side or on both sides?
To a cyclist it's both sides. I don't believe that 'door zone' is a term >>>>> in statute or ordinance.
I agree. I've never seen it in a legal document. It's a warning term
used in cycling education and advocacy, generally with the advice to
never ride there. Or to ride there only if absolutely necessary, and not >>>> exceeding walking speed.
I haven't seen this term in any legal document (law or administrative
regulation) either. But the German StVO (called Verwaltungsordnung ==
administrative regulation, but in fact a law) has a construct that from
all practical points of view _is_ defining a dooring zone.
It is called "Schutzstreifen" (protective stripe), it looks like this
one near my home
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220814/P1066916a.jpg>
I theory, these miniature lanes should be at least 1.40 meters wide, but >>> I've seen a lot of those that are not much wider than about 1 meter -
not counting that a SUV parked on a narrow parking stripe necessarily
consumes 20 cm or more from that already narrow stripe. Narrower
vehicles, as shown here, can do that too, of course - and their drivers
*never* get fined for that.
My wife, riding in front of me here, avoids riding in that dooring zone, >>> for her own protection, but risking to get fined for not riding in the
dooring zone, anyway.
How can this be when their use is not mandatory in theory and these
narrow lanes have been cheered by a large but naive German bicycle
association out of this conviction?
In simple terms, vehicles, including bicycles, _must_ drive as far as
possible to the right, like in most of Europe. A second rule has been
added for those dooring zones : Vehicles _may_ drive on a protective
stripe ("Schutzstreifen"), "when necessary, in particular to avoid
oncoming traffic". The implicit meaning of vehicle in the first rule
is "every vehicle, including bicycles", the second rule says “any
vehicle except a bicycle” - anyone *can* if necessary, but bicycles
must, even if it is not necessary or advisable.
IMO, these rules are somewhat contradictory, but police has fined
cyclists not using such a narrow stripe, because the German
Bußgeldkatalog (catalog of fines) has a fine for it, from 15 € to 30 €,
depending on the phase of the moon or the mood of the finer.
"3.4 Gegen das Rechtsfahrgebot verstoßen durch Nichtbenutzen eines
markierten Schutzstreifens als Radfahrer"
(Violating the right-hand traffic regulations by not using a marked
protective lane as a cyclist)
Finally, in order to answer the question "why have these overly narrow
lanes been added to the law at all?", the answer is that many German
roads are not wide enough to allow adding regular bicycle lane, without
violating existing rules about clear width, distances and such, even by
exploiting all loopholes. What this means for the remaining lane width
and the resulting overtaking distances is left as an exercies to the
reader.
narrow roads cars cope just fine.
I do not see a way to take a lane away from here <https://maps.app.goo.gl/WB7NQrmroFeHpbLA6>
when the total roadway is something around 6m and is being used by
busses 2.5m wide. When the bridge was built in 2002, cyclists were
expected to use the pavement/sidewalk which they soon realized is
extremely dangerous.
Rolf
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:13:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/21/2024 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the
median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-
foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane
implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane,
Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane
that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications
Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling
how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title
was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own
really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep
watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians
jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait
patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next
to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If
you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane
and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a
facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to
avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldn?t and it?s notable that bidirectional
cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some
are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few
others. Which are wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are
the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide
enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an
American thing ie car
centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as
don?t want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question
is more if it?s
not being done in America why not?
and fails only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of
Denmark is one of the world's most prominent promoters of
segregated bike facilities. Here's his take on bi-
directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-
cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why
on-street, bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being
promoted and implemented." He explains how they don't meet
current European standards, and that they're twice as
dangerous as single direction facilities. "In Denmark, the
on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from Best
Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago."
That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a
park or other areas free of motorised vehicles." You
regularly tout the London Embankment, but with IIRC no clear
description, links or photos explaining exactly what it is.
Perhaps it's something like what Colville-Andersen describes
in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has
proven to tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll
continue to speak out against them until evidence clearly
shows they are safer than normal roads.
It's said that for every room in heaven, there's another
just like it in hell for someone else.
5-1/2 minutes of cycling London's Embankment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRX9Dm2-_c
Much more crowded than the bidirectional paths I ride, but I didn't
see any problems. I'd not hesitate to ride there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed thats not even busy! It carrys more traffic than the road does!
And certainly 8:30 ish will be traveling rapidly ie folks who have commuted >15/20 miles away at high teens to low twenties will be cycling down at
20ish mph.
In the middle of day get more variety.
Roger Merriman
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your "speaking out" against bike paths is no more effective than your >>"speaking out" against guns, so have at it. I enjoy seeing you rant
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:Clearly they shouldnt and its notable that bidirectional cycleways work >>>> elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some are faster if >>>> they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few others. Which are wide
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the >>>>>> bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a >>>>> Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the >>>>> League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay >>>>> safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying >>>>> Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad >>>>> crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in >>>>> front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for >>>>> your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a >>>>> green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to >>>>> ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built >>>>> for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing? >>>>
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are the sort of >>>> folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an American thing ie car >>>> centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as dont want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question is more if its >>>> not being done in America why not?
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the >>>world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths: >>>https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html >>>
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >>>facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was >>>removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos >>>explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what >>>Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>>against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads. >>
and rave about things you have no control over.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to
Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:03:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:13:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/21/2024 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the
median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-
foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane
implementations near the
bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane,
Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane
that caused a
Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications
Director for the
League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling
how to stay
safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title
was "Staying
Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own
really bad
crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep
watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians
jumping out in
front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait
patiently for
your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next
to you have a
green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If
you want to
ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane
and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a
facility built
for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to
avoid crashing?
Clearly they shouldn?t and it?s notable that bidirectional
cycleways work
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some
are faster if
they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few
others. Which are wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are
the sort of
folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide
enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an
American thing ie car
centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as
don?t want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question
is more if it?s
not being done in America why not?
and fails only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of
Denmark is one of the world's most prominent promoters of
segregated bike facilities. Here's his take on bi-
directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-
cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why
on-street, bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being
promoted and implemented." He explains how they don't meet
current European standards, and that they're twice as
dangerous as single direction facilities. "In Denmark, the
on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from Best
Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago."
That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a
park or other areas free of motorised vehicles." You
regularly tout the London Embankment, but with IIRC no clear
description, links or photos explaining exactly what it is.
Perhaps it's something like what Colville-Andersen describes
in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has
proven to tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll
continue to speak out against them until evidence clearly
shows they are safer than normal roads.
It's said that for every room in heaven, there's another
just like it in hell for someone else.
5-1/2 minutes of cycling London's Embankment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRX9Dm2-_c
Much more crowded than the bidirectional paths I ride, but I didn't
see any problems. I'd not hesitate to ride there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed thats not even busy! It carrys more traffic than the road does! >> And certainly 8:30 ish will be traveling rapidly ie folks who have commuted >> 15/20 miles away at high teens to low twenties will be cycling down at
20ish mph.
In the middle of day get more variety.
Roger Merriman
I much prefer riding among lots of cyclists, skate boarders, scooters, walkers, etc, than riding among lots of motor vehicles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/21/2024 9:01 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:18:47 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:42:24 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
...
Just by looking around, you'll find a lot more of that stuff, forThat’s not quite the same thing, ie your not in a “death chute” ie between
example a few meters around the edge
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/pT5ThNSp8i8Whjtn6>
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gVqbhYj2Lr6AFZcNA>
etc. pp. ad infinitum
the kerb and a parked car, a painted bike lane or at least one can move out
and so on.
Sure. But that's why some cyclist organizations propagate so called
"protected bike lanes", where a kerb or tripping hazard protects the
cyclist by preventing them from avoiding an obstacle by leaving the
cycle path. We have that here in my home town, Bonn, too.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/RFPVomJ6ERSUerzMA>
That again is political than technical, london councils in particular have >>> got better though not perfect about not blocking bike infrastructure
particularly with signs for the roadway! Does require someone to
essentially keep on at them and complain.
This is more of a distraction from the topic than an answer to the
question: what is it supposed to become, a traversable line or a
tripping hazard? Both variants are obviously bad. So why not just
remove that line or obstacle?
At its root, the answer to "why not just remove that line or obstacle?"
is fundamental ignorance and fear about normal traffic interactions.
They typical bicyclist seems to think the greatest hazard is getting run
over directly from behind. He doesn't realize that far more car-bike
crashes occur from the front or side direction - oncoming left crosses, passing right hooks, drive-outs, etc.
Bike lanes ("protected" or not) make all those sorts of crashes more
likely, not less likely.
Hits from behind are usually either unlit night cyclists on rural roads,
not city streets; or sideswipes when a motorist tries to squeeze by a
cyclist who is not controlling the lane.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:53:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But at least it
keeps him moving.
I understand that you need lots of social contact in order to keep
your fear, shame, and other insecurities from overwhelming you.
I tried riding to the grocery store like Krygowski does, and I soon
realized it was not for me. I hate riding in urban and suburban
locations, on the streets or a bike path. I also hate any kind of
shopping, so I want to get it over as quickly as I can.
Most of the protected cycle lanes I certainly use regularly it’s difficult >if not impossible to be left or right hooked, as they bypass junctions or >have only filters for turning traffic be that bikes and or cars and so on.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's
his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street,
bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction
facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades
ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or
other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London
Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>> against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads. >>
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to
Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:28:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But I think it's reasonable to discuss reasons for preferences, and
point out mistaken statements. Like ""Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic safe."
I do enjoy watching you rave and rant about that, but the fact is that nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
On 10/22/2024 4:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:53:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But at least it >>> keeps him moving.
I understand that you need lots of social contact in order to keep
your fear, shame, and other insecurities from overwhelming you.
:-) That brought a chuckle!
I tried riding to the grocery store like Krygowski does, and I soon
realized it was not for me. I hate riding in urban and suburban
locations, on the streets or a bike path. I also hate any kind of
shopping, so I want to get it over as quickly as I can.
Yes, we've heard quite a lot about all the things you hate! You've used
that word a lot.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They typical bicyclist seems to think the greatest hazard is getting run
over directly from behind. He doesn't realize that far more car-bike
crashes occur from the front or side direction - oncoming left crosses,
passing right hooks, drive-outs, etc.
Bike lanes ("protected" or not) make all those sorts of crashes more
likely, not less likely.
Most of the protected cycle lanes I certainly use regularly it’s difficult if not impossible to be left or right hooked, as they bypass junctions or have only filters for turning traffic be that bikes and or cars and so on.
On 10/22/2024 4:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:53:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day. But at least it >>> keeps him moving.
I understand that you need lots of social contact in order to keep
your fear, shame, and other insecurities from overwhelming you.
:-) That brought a chuckle!
I tried riding to the grocery store like Krygowski does, and I soon
realized it was not for me. I hate riding in urban and suburban
locations, on the streets or a bike path. I also hate any kind of
shopping, so I want to get it over as quickly as I can.
Yes, we've heard quite a lot about all the things you hate! You've used
that word a lot.
On 10/22/2024 4:09 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:28:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But I think it's reasonable to discuss reasons for preferences, and
point out mistaken statements. Like ""Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic safe."
I do enjoy watching you rave and rant about that, but the fact is that
nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
Is that why there's nobody left alive to post to this discussion group?
All but one of us have ridden among truck and car traffic for years.
Only one poster here is too afraid.
On 10/21/2024 9:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/21/2024 7:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2024 10:29 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:There's plenty of latitude for taste. Mr Merriman also
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:47:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As opposed to the guy who said "Nothing can make
bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe."
I stand by those words. And so do many others...
You appear to think that cars and trucks are out to get
you.
He'll deny that, and he'll claim he's not really afraid.
Just like a little kid who's afraid to go into a dark
room, he'll say he can do it; he just doesn't want to. So
he'll continue just riding back and forth on a bike path.
I would get bored of that riding style by the third day.
But at least it keeps him moving.
rides the bike paths while Mr Strobl and I do not. meh.
I do have a beef with paying for crappy infrastructure but
cyclists are a broad group who agree on nothing, so why
should this be different?
Regarding where to ride, I'm just stating my preference.
But I think it's reasonable to discuss reasons for
preferences, and point out mistaken statements. Like
""Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe."
That's obviously wrong, and it's a source of problems for
those of us who want to retain the right to use normal
roads. That concept has been used to justify mandatory
sidepath laws.
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction
facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or
other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>>> against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to
Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate."
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike >paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing
that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not
check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists -
or drive directly into them.
The key benefit of bicycling as a legal vehicle operator is that the
cyclist moves in normal directions and normal positions, where vehicle >operators are normally looking.
As a general suggestion: You might do well to read some information on
proper cycling on American roads. Your questions and statements often >demonstrate a lack of background knowledge.
On 10/22/2024 9:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They typical bicyclist seems to think the greatest hazard is getting run >>> over directly from behind. He doesn't realize that far more car-bike
crashes occur from the front or side direction - oncoming left crosses,
passing right hooks, drive-outs, etc.
Bike lanes ("protected" or not) make all those sorts of crashes more
likely, not less likely.
Most of the protected cycle lanes I certainly use regularly it’s difficult >> if not impossible to be left or right hooked, as they bypass junctions or
have only filters for turning traffic be that bikes and or cars and so on.
If the lanes you use bypass junctions - that is, don't have
intersections with normal streets and driveways - they are very, very unusual. That's normally possible only with completely separate bike
paths, and especially ones that are rural and/or running aside a body of water or similar feature.
Isolated recreational paths, like our tricycle rider uses, are actually linear parks. They are a different matter than on-street bike lanes.
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe" is actually true.
found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the >statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other >common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example)
I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very different idea.
On 10/22/2024 1:04 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
You're the one whose afraid to ride on bidirectional bike paths where
I ride.
Absolutely false!
Heck, I'd ride your kiddy path without even carrying a loaded gun! That
makes me far braver than you! ;-)
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/21/2024 5:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your "speaking out" against bike paths is no more effective than your
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails
On 10/20/2024 3:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:Clearly they shouldn’t and it’s notable that bidirectional cycleways work
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:02:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
How about putting a bidirectional bike lane in the median. All
cyclists would have to watch out for is left turners.
(June 12, 2013)
"New idea for Foster Road: A center median bike lane"
<https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/12/new-idea-for-foster-road-a-center-median-bike-lane-88227>
There are photos of other center bicycle lane implementations near the >>>>>> bottom of the article.
That was 11 years ago. Instead of a center bike lane, Foster Rd
appears to now have a more conventional bicycle lane:
<https://bikeportland.org/tag/se-foster-rd>
As I recall, it was a bidirectional road-center bike lane that caused a >>>>> Ms. Szepanski, the woman who was (then) Communications Director for the >>>>> League of American Bicyclists to write an article telling how to stay >>>>> safe in a "protected" bike lane. As I recall, the title was "Staying >>>>> Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." Her motivation was her own really bad >>>>> crash in one, in Washington DC.
She had many specific recommendations - like keep watching in all
directions all the time, be very alert for pedestrians jumping out in >>>>> front of you (IIRC, that contributed to her crash), wait patiently for >>>>> your own bike-specific green light even if the cars next to you have a >>>>> green light, etc. And her most important tip was last: If you want to >>>>> ride at a normal speed, avoid the "protected" bike lane and choose
another route. But a reader should wonder, why would a facility built >>>>> for cyclists' safety require extensive advice on how to avoid crashing? >>>>
elsewhere, ie increasing numbers and lower risks, and some are faster if >>>> they can avoid some junctions aka Embankment and few others. Which are wide
and designed for speed as the commuters using the road are the sort of >>>> folks that average 20mph across london, plus being wide enough to take fire
trucks/ambulances.
Now maybe your cherry picking or possibly this is an American thing ie car >>>> centric design ie leave compromises in to the design as don’t want to upset
car drivers and so on, such as using a cycling death chute!
In short it can be done and is done elsewhere the question is more if it’s
not being done in America why not?
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's
his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street,
bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction
facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades
ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or
other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London
Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>> against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads. >>
"speaking out" against guns, so have at it. I enjoy seeing you rant
and rave about things you have no control over.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to
Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer
than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the tricyclist's
statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very
different idea.
On 10/22/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
If the lanes you use bypass junctions - that is, don't have
intersections with normal streets and driveways - they are very, very
unusual. That's normally possible only with completely separate bike
paths, and especially ones that are rural and/or running aside a body of >>> water or similar feature....
The Embankment is built on well a embankment and thus is lower and much
newer than other roads, ie number of bridges etc cross over it, so traffic >> on it is traveling W-E for few miles, the road does have some junctions and >> the cycleway but there it’s handled as filter ie the cyclists travelling >> W-E can carry on, folks turning have to wait at the filter lights.
Lots of cities have similar areas ie large multi lane roads next to the
river, Paris, New York etc what they choose to do with them but it’s quite >> a common type of area for a city.
So the embankment is running aside a body of water. Yes, bodies of water
like rivers are a quite common type of area for a city. Many, many
cities are built on rivers. But it should be obvious that the area
adjacent to a river is only a tiny portion of the area of almost all
cities.
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer
than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the tricyclist's
statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very
different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of their
own personal evaluation.
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer
than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the tricyclist's
statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very
different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of their
own personal evaluation.
On 10/22/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Small proportion absolutely but a fairly vital route/location I believe
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
If the lanes you use bypass junctions - that is, don't have
intersections with normal streets and driveways - they are very, very >>>>> unusual. That's normally possible only with completely separate bike >>>>> paths, and especially ones that are rural and/or running aside a body of >>>>> water or similar feature....
The Embankment is built on well a embankment and thus is lower and much >>>> newer than other roads, ie number of bridges etc cross over it, so traffic >>>> on it is traveling W-E for few miles, the road does have some junctions and
the cycleway but there it’s handled as filter ie the cyclists travelling >>>> W-E can carry on, folks turning have to wait at the filter lights.
Lots of cities have similar areas ie large multi lane roads next to the >>>> river, Paris, New York etc what they choose to do with them but it’s quite
a common type of area for a city.
So the embankment is running aside a body of water. Yes, bodies of water >>> like rivers are a quite common type of area for a city. Many, many
cities are built on rivers. But it should be obvious that the area
adjacent to a river is only a tiny portion of the area of almost all
cities.
Paris has done something similar and I think some other cities as well,
tends to be the central part of the city.
Which is why such things work, requires political will and bravery but it’s
by any measure better now.
My point is, if you're going to advocate bi-directional bike lanes,
please add the phrase "... along bodies of water" or something similar. They've been shown to be dangerous at intersections.
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>> car traffic safe" is actually true.
found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the
statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other
common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example) >>> I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but certainly not
safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be higher for walking
than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for the U.S.. Look at
data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen the same thing in Australian data.
On 10/22/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Small proportion absolutely but a fairly vital route/location I believe
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
If the lanes you use bypass junctions - that is, don't have
intersections with normal streets and driveways - they are very, very >>>>> unusual. That's normally possible only with completely separate bike >>>>> paths, and especially ones that are rural and/or running aside a body of >>>>> water or similar feature....
The Embankment is built on well a embankment and thus is lower and much >>>> newer than other roads, ie number of bridges etc cross over it, so traffic >>>> on it is traveling W-E for few miles, the road does have some junctions and
the cycleway but there its handled as filter ie the cyclists travelling >>>> W-E can carry on, folks turning have to wait at the filter lights.
Lots of cities have similar areas ie large multi lane roads next to the >>>> river, Paris, New York etc what they choose to do with them but its quite >>>> a common type of area for a city.
So the embankment is running aside a body of water. Yes, bodies of water >>> like rivers are a quite common type of area for a city. Many, many
cities are built on rivers. But it should be obvious that the area
adjacent to a river is only a tiny portion of the area of almost all
cities.
Paris has done something similar and I think some other cities as well,
tends to be the central part of the city.
Which is why such things work, requires political will and bravery but its >> by any measure better now.
My point is, if you're going to advocate bi-directional bike lanes,
please add the phrase "... along bodies of water" or something similar. >They've been shown to be dangerous at intersections.
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic safe" is actually true.
found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think
the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than
other common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for
example) I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and
car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable annoyance. They can
both be right in the context of their own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid of. Those >emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful to the fearful.
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>> car traffic safe" is actually true.
found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the
statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other
common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example) >>> I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but certainly not
safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be higher for walking
than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for the U.S.. Look at
data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen the same thing in >Australian data.
On 10/22/2024 9:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails >>>>>> only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the >>>>>> world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >>>>>> facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was >>>>>> removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>>>> other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>>>>> against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to >>>> Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate."
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike >>> paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing
that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not
check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists -
or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
No, you've got it backwards - yet again. Here's an example crash, a
video I've posted before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
It's not the cyclist entering a stream of traffic. It's a motorist
pulling into the path of a cyclist who has the legal right of way.
Why did the motorist do that? Because almost all motorists look to the
left to see if things are clear. They do that because in all other
traffic situations, any traffic will be coming from the left. But this
type of facility tells cyclists they're perfectly safe entering the >intersection from the right.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:13:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 9:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails >>>>>>> only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the >>>>>>> world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>>>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >>>>>>> facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was >>>>>>> removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>>>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to >>>>>>> watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>>>>> other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>>>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>>>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out
against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to >>>>> Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks >>>>> has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that >>>>> danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when >>>>> riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes >>>>> the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate." >>>>
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike >>>> paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing
that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not >>>> check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists - >>>> or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
No, you've got it backwards - yet again. Here's an example crash, a
video I've posted before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
It's not the cyclist entering a stream of traffic. It's a motorist
pulling into the path of a cyclist who has the legal right of way.
Why did the motorist do that? Because almost all motorists look to the
left to see if things are clear. They do that because in all other
traffic situations, any traffic will be coming from the left. But this
type of facility tells cyclists they're perfectly safe entering the >>intersection from the right.
So, you are prepared to depend on someone else to keep you sake? I
prefer to depend on myself to determine whether a situation is safe or
not rather then to depend on a "right of way" which in my experience
many drivers ignore.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:53:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as >>>> found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the >>>> statement is not true.
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>>> car traffic safe" is actually true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other >>>> common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example) >>>> I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but certainly not
safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be higher for walking
than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for the U.S.. Look at
data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen the same thing in
Australian data.
<eyeroll at Krygowki's half-witted nonsense> Only a person with no
sense of logic would post a comparison of miles ridden on a bicycle at
speeds of ten to twenty-something MPH to miles walked at three MPH.
A more logical comparison would be to look at the amount of time a
person was walking vs cycling.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:13:21 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:13:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 9:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails >>>>>>>> only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the >>>>>>>> world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>>>>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European >>>>>>>> standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >>>>>>>> facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was >>>>>>>> removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>>>>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to >>>>>>>> watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>>>>>> other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>>>>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos >>>>>>>> explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what >>>>>>>> Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>>>>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out
against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to >>>>>> Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks >>>>>> has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would >>>>>> seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that >>>>>> danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when >>>>>> riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes >>>>>> the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate." >>>>>
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike >>>>> paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing >>>>> that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not >>>>> check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists - >>>>> or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
No, you've got it backwards - yet again. Here's an example crash, a
video I've posted before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
It's not the cyclist entering a stream of traffic. It's a motorist
pulling into the path of a cyclist who has the legal right of way.
Why did the motorist do that? Because almost all motorists look to the
left to see if things are clear. They do that because in all other
traffic situations, any traffic will be coming from the left. But this
type of facility tells cyclists they're perfectly safe entering the
intersection from the right.
So, you are prepared to depend on someone else to keep you sake? I
prefer to depend on myself to determine whether a situation is safe or
not rather then to depend on a "right of way" which in my experience
many drivers ignore.
A person is very vulnerable on a bicycle in traffic, especially riding
slower than the traffic wants to go. That means that they *must*
depend on the motorists watching out for them.
To do that on suburban streets where motorists are only going 25 MPH,
or on a road with minimum traffic is one thing (I do that regularly),
but to ride where the speeds are 55+ and traffic is speeding and
changing lanes is something else. I'll avoid having to trust the
driver to watch out for me in that last situation unless I really need
to go there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 23.10.2024 um 11:27 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:53:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as >>>>> found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the >>>>> statement is not true.
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>>>> car traffic safe" is actually true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other >>>>> common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example) >>>>> I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but certainly not
safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be higher for walking >>> than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for the U.S.. Look at
data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen the same thing in >>> Australian data.
<eyeroll at Krygowki's half-witted nonsense> Only a person with no
sense of logic would post a comparison of miles ridden on a bicycle at
speeds of ten to twenty-something MPH to miles walked at three MPH.
A more logical comparison would be to look at the amount of time a
person was walking vs cycling.
Only a person with no sense of logic would claim it's always correct or >always wrong to compare apples with pears.
Depending on the aim of your comparison, sometimes "risk per mile" is
best, sometimes "riks per hour" is best and sometimes "risk per trip" is >correct.
On the question "is it safer to cycle or walk to this coffe shop up the >street?", you must take "risk per trip" or "risk per mile" (which is the
same for a fixed coffee shop).
On the question "is it safer to walk to this coffee shop up the street
or to cycle to the really nice coffee shop 3 miles away?" you need to
take into account the difference in distance.
If your question is "Should I go hiking, cycling or rock climbing on
this very nice Sunday afternoon?" the risk per hour of activity would be
most appropriate.
Rolf
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:45:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 23.10.2024 um 11:27 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:53:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as >>>>>> found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the >>>>>> statement is not true.
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>>>>> car traffic safe" is actually true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other >>>>>> common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example) >>>>>> I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but certainly not >>>>> safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be higher for walking >>>> than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for the U.S.. Look at >>>> data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen the same thing in >>>> Australian data.
<eyeroll at Krygowki's half-witted nonsense> Only a person with no
sense of logic would post a comparison of miles ridden on a bicycle at
speeds of ten to twenty-something MPH to miles walked at three MPH.
A more logical comparison would be to look at the amount of time a
person was walking vs cycling.
Only a person with no sense of logic would claim it's always correct or
always wrong to compare apples with pears.
Depending on the aim of your comparison, sometimes "risk per mile" is
best, sometimes "riks per hour" is best and sometimes "risk per trip" is
correct.
On the question "is it safer to cycle or walk to this coffe shop up the
street?", you must take "risk per trip" or "risk per mile" (which is the
same for a fixed coffee shop).
On the question "is it safer to walk to this coffee shop up the street
or to cycle to the really nice coffee shop 3 miles away?" you need to
take into account the difference in distance.
If your question is "Should I go hiking, cycling or rock climbing on
this very nice Sunday afternoon?" the risk per hour of activity would be
most appropriate.
Rolf
You'll notice the carefully worded "Fatality per mile" rates have consistently found to be higher for walking than for bicycling".-
What he leaves out is that if you change the "mile" and substitute
Trip" the fatalities number for bicycles suddenly becomes higher then
that for walking. https://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/08/cycling-has-a-higher-risk-of-fatality-than-driving-or-walking-mostly-because-of-men.html
One can only speculate what bicycle rides aren't in reality "trips.
Trip to the grocery, trip up Mt. High, trip with the Bike group.
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be
safer than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the
tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a
very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of their
own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid
of. Those emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful
to the fearful.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails >>>>> only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction
facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>>> other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>>>> against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to
Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate."
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike
paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing
that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not
check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists -
or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:13:21 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:13:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 9:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails >>>>>>>> only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the >>>>>>>> world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>>>>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European >>>>>>>> standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >>>>>>>> facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was >>>>>>>> removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>>>>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to >>>>>>>> watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>>>>>> other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>>>>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos >>>>>>>> explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what >>>>>>>> Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>>>>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out
against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to >>>>>> Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks >>>>>> has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would >>>>>> seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that >>>>>> danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when >>>>>> riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes >>>>>> the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate." >>>>>
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike >>>>> paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing >>>>> that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not >>>>> check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists - >>>>> or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
No, you've got it backwards - yet again. Here's an example crash, a
video I've posted before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
It's not the cyclist entering a stream of traffic. It's a motorist
pulling into the path of a cyclist who has the legal right of way.
Why did the motorist do that? Because almost all motorists look to the
left to see if things are clear. They do that because in all other
traffic situations, any traffic will be coming from the left. But this
type of facility tells cyclists they're perfectly safe entering the
intersection from the right.
So, you are prepared to depend on someone else to keep you sake? I
prefer to depend on myself to determine whether a situation is safe or
not rather then to depend on a "right of way" which in my experience
many drivers ignore.
A person is very vulnerable on a bicycle in traffic, especially riding
slower than the traffic wants to go. That means that they *must*
depend on the motorists watching out for them.
To do that on suburban streets where motorists are only going 25 MPH,
or on a road with minimum traffic is one thing (I do that regularly),
but to ride where the speeds are 55+ and traffic is speeding and
changing lanes is something else. I'll avoid having to trust the
driver to watch out for me in that last situation unless I really need
to go there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:25:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:54:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as >>>>> found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>>>> and car traffic safe" is actually true.
the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than
other common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for >>>>> example) I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>>> car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable annoyance. They can >>>> both be right in the context of their own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid of. Those
emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful to the fearful.
Some very fearful people even claim that it's dangerous to have a gun
in their homes, or to bicycle on bidirectional bike paths where school
children ride their bikes.
Perhaps Frankie should contact one or two or two of the senior Florida
police officers that are advocating gun ownership and explain to them
how they are just cowards..
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:58:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be
safer than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the
tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a
very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of their
own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid
of. Those emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful
to the fearful.
Well, you might say that. I'd say 'safe' is an inherently
relative term and leads to subjective personal evaluations.
We all know people who avoid commercial air travel (despite
very low death rate), firearms, riding in traffic and so on.
For example my girlfriend is in deathly fear of water. She
won't go on a boat and is hesitant at a pier.
But hopefully not in the shower or tub :-)
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:53:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if (as >>>> found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I think the >>>> statement is not true.
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and >>>>> car traffic safe" is actually true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than other >>>> common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking, for example) >>>> I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but certainly not
safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be higher for walking
than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for the U.S.. Look at
data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen the same thing in
Australian data.
<eyeroll at Krygowki's half-witted nonsense> Only a person with no
sense of logic would post a comparison of miles ridden on a bicycle at
speeds of ten to twenty-something MPH to miles walked at three MPH.
A more logical comparison would be to look at the amount of time a
person was walking vs cycling.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:21:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer
than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the tricyclist's
statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among
truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very
different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of their
own personal evaluation.
It's not really a discussion, it's more like one of those TV
commercials with phony actors that plays over an over.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/22/2024 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well elsewhere and fails >>>>>> only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark is one of the >>>>>> world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike facilities. Here's >>>>>> his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however, is why on-street, >>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as single direction >>>>>> facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was >>>>>> removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades >>>>>> ago." That's even in European cities where motorists are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path through a park or >>>>>> other areas free of motorised vehicles." You regularly tout the London >>>>>> Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that design has proven to >>>>>> tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll continue to speak out >>>>>> against them until evidence clearly shows they are safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S." Apparently referring to >>>> Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars, busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes, where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you meant "originate."
First, please understand that at the moment, we're discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-directional bike >>> paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists not realizing
that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently motorists tend to not
check in that direction, and they pull into the path of the cyclists -
or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
The cyclist has spent some time pleasantly riding on a
narrow asphalt strip between view-blocking vegetation in a
quiet near idyllic setting. At the intersection there are
often poor sight lines and a smallish stop sign before
highway speed traffic on what was once a sparsely traveled
country road but is now a suburban race course.
https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/cghmkb/tragic_end_result_of_running_stop_signs/
(the original news reports are no longer extant)
"An incident report said the bicyclist failed to stop
southbound at the stop sign on Military Ridge State Trail at
the intersection of Highway PD just west of Timber Lane.
Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene."
As I mentioned yesterday, riding in traffic has risks not
present on paths- Stoned, homicidal or distracted sudden
lane changes, right hooks, hit from behind etc. Both have
distracted or stoned pedestrians stepping across one's lane.
Paths have their own unique risks as above plus assaults
in the secluded areas.
https://www.wmtv15news.com/2024/07/30/suspect-identified-arrested-sexual-assault-madison-bike-path/
https://www.wkow.com/news/crime/man-sentenced-to-20-years-in-prison-for-2005-sexual-assault-on-madison-bike-path/article_9fabcc72-1fa1-11ef-a903-9ba53641c7de.html
https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/deputies-investigate-unprovoked-attack-on-pinellas-trail/
Neither is assuredly 'safe' so make your choice with
whichever criteria you like best.
On 10/23/2024 8:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:58:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is safer
than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be
safer than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the
tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a
very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of their
own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid
of. Those emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful
to the fearful.
Well, you might say that. I'd say 'safe' is an inherently
relative term and leads to subjective personal evaluations.
We all know people who avoid commercial air travel (despite
very low death rate), firearms, riding in traffic and so on.
For example my girlfriend is in deathly fear of water. She
won't go on a boat and is hesitant at a pier.
But hopefully not in the shower or tub :-)
Right, more correctly fear of drowning rather than rabid
hydrophobia.
She's too skinny to float and can't swim.
On 10/23/2024 9:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:24:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 5:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:06:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:06:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sorry, it's not true that this design works well
elsewhere and fails
only in the U.S. Mikael Colville-Andersen of Denmark
is one of the
world's most prominent promoters of segregated bike
facilities. Here's
his take on bi-directional on-road bike paths:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-
directional-cycle- track.html
His position is "One thing that baffles me, however,
is why on- street,
bi-directional cycle tracks are actually being
promoted and
implemented." He explains how they don't meet current
European
standards, and that they're twice as dangerous as
single direction
facilities. "In Denmark, the on-street, bi-
directional facility was
removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure
over two decades
ago." That's even in European cities where motorists
are used to
watching for cyclists.
He also says "I am not referring to a two-way path
through a park or
other areas free of motorised vehicles." You
regularly tout the London
Embankment, but with IIRC no clear description, links
or photos
explaining exactly what it is. Perhaps it's something
like what
Colville-Andersen describes in this paragraph?
In any case, I ride (mostly) in the U.S. And that
design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S. I'll
continue to speak out
against them until evidence clearly shows they are
safer than normal roads.
The statement above, "And that design has proven to
tremendously increase crash rates in the U.S."
Apparently referring to
Bike Lanes should make someone stop and think.
Now we know that riding on a public road with cars,
busses and trucks
has some danger involved. And now we are told that bike
lanes
"increase crash rates". The question then becomes,
where does the
danger ordinate? As there no dangerious busses and cars
there would
seem to be only one other source... Which might make
one ask, if that
danger source exists on the bike path does it somehow
disappear when
riding on the hide way? Or a substantial number of
auto-bike crashes
the fault of the Cyclist?
OK, John, I'm going to assume that by "ordinate" you
meant "originate."
First, please understand that at the moment, we're
discussing a
particular type of segregated bike facility: On road bi-
directional bike
paths.
As to where the danger originates: It's from motorists
not realizing
that cyclists may appear from a direction that bicycles
or other
vehicles otherwise never come from. Consequently
motorists tend to not
check in that direction, and they pull into the path of
the cyclists -
or drive directly into them.
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that
are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road
that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough
to look both
ways?
The cyclist has spent some time pleasantly riding on a
narrow asphalt strip between view-blocking vegetation in a
quiet near idyllic setting. At the intersection there are
often poor sight lines and a smallish stop sign before
highway speed traffic on what was once a sparsely traveled
country road but is now a suburban race course.
https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/cghmkb/
tragic_end_result_of_running_stop_signs/
(the original news reports are no longer extant)
"An incident report said the bicyclist failed to stop
southbound at the stop sign on Military Ridge State Trail
at the intersection of Highway PD just west of Timber Lane.
Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene."
As I mentioned yesterday, riding in traffic has risks not
present on paths- Stoned, homicidal or distracted sudden
lane changes, right hooks, hit from behind etc. Both have
distracted or stoned pedestrians stepping across one's
lane. Paths have their own unique risks as above plus
assaults in the secluded areas.
https://www.wmtv15news.com/2024/07/30/suspect-identified-
arrested- sexual-assault-madison-bike-path/
https://www.wkow.com/news/crime/man-sentenced-to-20-years-
in-prison- for-2005-sexual-assault-on-madison-bike-path/
article_9fabcc72-1fa1-11ef- a903-9ba53641c7de.html
https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/deputies-
investigate- unprovoked-attack-on-pinellas-trail/
Neither is assuredly 'safe' so make your choice with
whichever criteria you like best.
Let me try yet again to make clear: I'm talking about on-
street bike facilities. Some people are very dedicated to
defending their own favorite linear parks, i.e. paths with
very infrequent intersections. That's a very different type
of facility than the on-street ones that send wrong way
cyclists into frequent intersections.
On 10/23/2024 6:45 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 23.10.2024 um 11:27 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:53:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 3:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:36:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make
bicycling among truck and
car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as
found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_
cycling, I think the
statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be
safer than other
common activities normally considered "safe" (like
walking, for example)
I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
Cycling might be safer than walking on a tightrope, but
certainly not
safer than walking to the cofee shop up the street.
Fatality per mile rates have consistently found to be
higher for walking
than for bicycling. Look at John Pucher's studies for
the U.S.. Look at
data from Britain's transportation agencies. I've seen
the same thing in
Australian data.
<eyeroll at Krygowki's half-witted nonsense> Only a
person with no
sense of logic would post a comparison of miles ridden on
a bicycle at
speeds of ten to twenty-something MPH to miles walked at
three MPH.
A more logical comparison would be to look at the amount
of time a
person was walking vs cycling.
Only a person with no sense of logic would claim it's
always correct or always wrong to compare apples with pears.
Depending on the aim of your comparison, sometimes "risk
per mile" is best, sometimes "riks per hour" is best and
sometimes "risk per trip" is correct.
On the question "is it safer to cycle or walk to this
coffe shop up the street?", you must take "risk per trip"
or "risk per mile" (which is the same for a fixed coffee
shop).
On the question "is it safer to walk to this coffee shop
up the street or to cycle to the really nice coffee shop 3
miles away?" you need to take into account the difference
in distance.
If your question is "Should I go hiking, cycling or rock
climbing on this very nice Sunday afternoon?" the risk per
hour of activity would be most appropriate.
Well said. But some will not be capable of understanding.
Some will be blinded by their prejudices and refuse to
understand.
On 10/23/2024 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic safe" is actually true.
relative, if (as found by many studies) cycling is
safer than _not_ cycling, I think the statement is not
true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be
safer than other common activities normally considered
"safe" (like walking, for example) I think the
tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling
among truck and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a
very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable
annoyance. They can both be right in the context of
their own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're
afraid of. Those emotions don't have to be accurate to
meaningful to the fearful.
Well, you might say that. I'd say 'safe' is an inherently
relative term and leads to subjective personal evaluations.
We all know people who avoid commercial air travel
(despite very low death rate), firearms, riding in traffic
and so on. For example my girlfriend is in deathly fear of
water. She won't go on a boat and is hesitant at a pier.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge that any of those people
may be wrong. As usual, my judgments of danger are based on
data; and I'm willing to say if all available data indicates
a person is wrong, they are almost certainly wrong.
Which does not mean they should be forced to fly commercial
airlines. It does not mean you should force your girlfriend
to swim.
But can't we stop pushing erroneous messages out to the public?
On 10/23/2024 2:13 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:13:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2024 9:55 PM, John B. wrote:
O.K. so the added danger is a result of cyclists that are so stupid
that when he reach a place where they must enter the road that autos
and trucks are using that they aren't intelligent enough to look both
ways?
No, you've got it backwards - yet again. Here's an example crash, a
video I've posted before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
It's not the cyclist entering a stream of traffic. It's a motorist
pulling into the path of a cyclist who has the legal right of way.
Why did the motorist do that? Because almost all motorists look to the
left to see if things are clear. They do that because in all other
traffic situations, any traffic will be coming from the left. But this
type of facility tells cyclists they're perfectly safe entering the
intersection from the right.
So, you are prepared to depend on someone else to keep you sake? I
prefer to depend on myself to determine whether a situation is safe or
not rather then to depend on a "right of way" which in my experience
many drivers ignore.
You haven't told us much about your riding, John. When you ride - or
back when you used to ride - if you had the legal right of way riding
along a normal street and a motorist pulled up to a stop sign from a
side street, did you slam on your brakes and stop, just in case he
ignored his stop sign?
I doubt it. You might have been a bit more alert, which is normal. But
I'm betting you used your right of way, depending on the motorist to
obey the law.
The problem with wrong-way bike lanes is both the cyclists and the
motorists are unknowingly put in a situation that's contrary to normal >traffic interactions. Mistakes happen frequently.
On 10/23/2024 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>>>> and car traffic safe" is actually true.
(as found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I
think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than
other common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking,
for example) I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable annoyance. They
can both be right in the context of their own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid of. Those
emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful to the fearful.
Well, you might say that. I'd say 'safe' is an inherently relative term
and leads to subjective personal evaluations.
We all know people who avoid commercial air travel (despite very low
death rate), firearms, riding in traffic and so on. For example my
girlfriend is in deathly fear of water. She won't go on a boat and is
hesitant at a pier.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge that any of those people may be
wrong. As usual, my judgments of danger are based on data; and I'm
willing to say if all available data indicates a person is wrong, they
are almost certainly wrong.
Which does not mean they should be forced to fly commercial airlines. It
does not mean you should force your girlfriend to swim.
But can't we stop pushing erroneous messages out to the public?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:24:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if >>>>>> (as found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>>>>> and car traffic safe" is actually true.
think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than
other common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking,
for example) I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable annoyance. They >>>>> can both be right in the context of their own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid of. Those
emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful to the fearful.
Well, you might say that. I'd say 'safe' is an inherently relative term >>> and leads to subjective personal evaluations.
We all know people who avoid commercial air travel (despite very low
death rate), firearms, riding in traffic and so on. For example my
girlfriend is in deathly fear of water. She won't go on a boat and is
hesitant at a pier.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge that any of those people may be
wrong. As usual, my judgments of danger are based on data; and I'm
willing to say if all available data indicates a person is wrong, they
are almost certainly wrong.
You're willing to say a lot of things that don't matter to anyone but >yourself.
Which does not mean they should be forced to fly commercial airlines. It >>does not mean you should force your girlfriend to swim.
But can't we stop pushing erroneous messages out to the public?
You can most everything you do.
Steven, you should know better than to losten to stuff like
that without the slightest basis in fact. There are a LOT
of dangers in the Santa Cruz mountains because there is more
and more human impingment on open lands containing apex predators.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking
and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for
bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https://
cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and-
driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling,
and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so
different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different
metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it.
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think
it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive
their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted
in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group
populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in
bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually
dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying
it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or
other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be
acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality.
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries
were reduced by 4 percent."
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use,
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking >>>>> and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and- >>>>> driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different >>>> metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it.
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think
it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted >>>> in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group
populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually
dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying >>>> it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or >>>> other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality.
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries
were reduced by 4 percent."
its comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no
effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria.
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda
of whoever is financing the "study."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use,
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking >>>> and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https://
cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and- >>>> driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling,
and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different >>> metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it.
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think
it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive
their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted >>> in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group
populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in
bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually
dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying >>> it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or >>> other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be
acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality.
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries
were reduced by 4 percent."
its comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no
effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria.
Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use,
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking >>>>>> and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and- >>>>>> driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different >>>>> metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it. >>>>>
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think >>>>> it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted >>>>> in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group >>>>> populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually
dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying >>>>> it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or >>>>> other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality. >>>>
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries
were reduced by 4 percent."
it?s comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no
effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria. >>>
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda
of whoever is financing the "study."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It can be done if one is selective and cherry picks facts. Though if the
data is large enough ie populations then what ever spin one might try the >data will be there.
Hence Im confident in the zero effect claim for populations
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:39:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use, >>>its comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no >>>effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking >>>>>> and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and- >>>>>> driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different >>>>> metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it. >>>>>
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think >>>>> it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted >>>>> in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group >>>>> populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually
dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying >>>>> it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or >>>>> other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality. >>>>
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries
were reduced by 4 percent."
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria.
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda
of whoever is financing the "study."
So...smoking is safe? Drunken driving is safe? Jabbering on your hand
phone while driving is safe? And many others defined by studies :-)
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:33:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:30:45 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:39:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>>wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use, >>>>>its comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no >>>>>effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking
and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and-
driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different
metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it. >>>>>>>
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think >>>>>>> it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>>>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted
in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group >>>>>>> populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>>>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually >>>>>>> dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying
it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or
other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment >>>>>>> (Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>>>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality. >>>>>>
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet >>>>>> usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries >>>>>> were reduced by 4 percent."
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria. >>>>>
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda >>>>of whoever is financing the "study."
So...smoking is safe? Drunken driving is safe? Jabbering on your hand >>>phone while driving is safe? And many others defined by studies :-)
What???? That's not what I said or insinuated.
Sorry, I thought you were the one that wrote ""studies" will be biased
to favor the agenda..."
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:39:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use,
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking >>>>>> and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and- >>>>>> driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different >>>>> metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it. >>>>>
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think >>>>> it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted >>>>> in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group >>>>> populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually
dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying >>>>> it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or >>>>> other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality. >>>>
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries
were reduced by 4 percent."
it’s comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no >>> effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria. >>>
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda
of whoever is financing the "study."
So...smoking is safe? Drunken driving is safe? Jabbering on your hand
phone while driving is safe? And many others defined by studies :-)
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:45:31 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use, >>>> it?s comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no >>>> effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking >>>>>>> and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and- >>>>>>> driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different >>>>>> metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it. >>>>>>
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think >>>>>> it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted >>>>>> in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group >>>>>> populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually >>>>>> dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying >>>>>> it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or >>>>>> other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment
(Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality. >>>>>
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet
usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries >>>>> were reduced by 4 percent."
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria. >>>>
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda
of whoever is financing the "study."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It can be done if one is selective and cherry picks facts. Though if the
data is large enough ie populations then what ever spin one might try the
data will be there.
Hence I’m confident in the zero effect claim for populations
Roger Merriman
Every "study" has an agenda. I'm not convinced there has ever been a
"study" anywhere, anytime that was/is/will be unbiased.
Often, I need advice, and I know how to find people who, when asked,
can give advice I can trust. I generally ignore and avoid unsolicted
advice. I assume unsolicted advice will be biased towards the advice
giver's agenda. Generally, "studies" are simply unsolicted advice.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:00:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 4:30 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:39:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:07:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:19:28 -0400, Frank KrygowskiThese will not be population studies, ie despite widespread helmet use, >>>>> its comparatively rare to see someone without certainly in the uk, no >>>>> effect to the best of my knowledge can be gleaned from statistics.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 10:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2024 7:08 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
A 2013 study in BC showed:
Per trip: 14 deaths per 100 million trips for bicycling, 15 for walking
and 10 for driving.
Per distance: 100 million kilometers traveled, there were 3 deaths for >>>>>>>> bicycling, 7 for walking and 1 for driving.
I have no link to the study, just a report on the study at <https:// >>>>>>>> cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/files/2013/11/Risks-of-cycling-walking-and-
driving-put-in-context.pdf>.
Obviously, using distance to compare safety between driving, cycling, >>>>>>>> and walking is absurd, considering the average distance per trip is so >>>>>>>> different. Per trip is a much more logical measurement to use.
That's not obvious at all. Rolf's explanation of the merits of different
metrics was good. Perhaps everyone here needs to go back and read it. >>>>>>>
But the document linked above is also good. We have posters who think >>>>>>> it's "obvious" that bicycling is very dangerous, and they are positive >>>>>>> their favorite metric will show that. Except actual data, such as quoted
in that document, says otherwise.
Here's what strikes me as the most weird: We're in a discussion group >>>>>>> populated by avid cyclists, people who one would assume see benefit in >>>>>>> bicycling.
Yet so many members of this group are so intensely dedicated to
portraying bicycling as something to be feared, something unusually >>>>>>> dangerous, something more dangerous than its alternatives. And to saying
it absolutely requires very special places to ride, very special hats or
other clothing items to reduce the danger, very special equipment >>>>>>> (Daytime lights? Really?), and in one case, even deadly armament to be >>>>>>> acceptably safe.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone that ignores reality. >>>>>>
very special hats
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
A number of studies showed
" Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet >>>>>> usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries >>>>>> were reduced by 4 percent."
Such studies tend to be either trying to model or using narrow criteria. >>>>>
Roger Merriman
I assume most, maybe all "studies" will be biased to favor the agenda
of whoever is financing the "study."
So...smoking is safe? Drunken driving is safe? Jabbering on your hand
phone while driving is safe? And many others defined by studies :-)
Good point. Each has an overall probability of untoward results.
But none are 100%. I especially eschew drunk driving,
having been close to too many dead victims and perps over
the years, but smoking, riding a bicycle in traffic or
eating sushi* doesn't bother me. YMMV and likely does.
*My brother the scientist just goes bonkers at the mention
of putting nematode eggs in one's body willfully.
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
Which is not to say that "some studies...."
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be
biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of
ignoring facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have
grievous mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue
addressed by a study, it's sensible to dive into the study's
procedure and data, instead of relying on a brief summary
plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science.
It's just another way of championing ignorance. "All is
mystery. Nothing can be known. Ommmmm..."
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:35:23 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Steven, you should know better than to losten to stuff like
that without the slightest basis in fact. There are a LOT
of dangers in the Santa Cruz mountains because there is more
and more human impingment on open lands containing apex predators.
That's amazingly correct. The Santa Cruz mountains are full of
dangerous predators: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif> Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has blocked any rabies vaccination of werewolves because the vaccine has not been tested, approved, licensed
and taxed. Normally, there would violent demonstrations against such
racial discrimination, but that doesn't seem to be effective with
wolves. There is hope if werewolves and other hybrids were
reclassified as dogs.
<http://www.wolfdogproject.com/rabies.htm>
Until we gain approval and are properly vaccinated, I suggest you
avoid riding in the Santa Cruz mountains, especially on the night of
the full moon.
On 10/24/2024 12:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Yes, you make a good point but with the rampant and increasing incidence
of scientific fraud (concentrated in psychology and sociology), relying
on published paper data would be best with a time delay while waiting
for the retractions.
This is a very real and serious problem and it's becoming ever more prevalent.
https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling- research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983
(most of the really salacious and alarming reports are paywalled which
can sometimes be evaded with 'view page source' and extracting the text. tediously)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:24:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2024 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 4:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2024 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Given your wise acceptance of the fact that "safe" is relative, if >>>>>> (as found by many studies) cycling is safer than _not_ cycling, I
Yes, we both hate mandatory kiddie path laws.
But 'safe' is relative and "Nothing can make bicycling among truck >>>>>>> and car traffic safe" is actually true.
think the statement is not true.
And given that cycling has repeatedly been found to be safer than
other common activities normally considered "safe" (like walking,
for example) I think the tricyclist's statement is not true.
What he _really_ means is "Nothing can make bicycling among truck
and car traffic stop scaring me." That's a very different idea.
Sadly we loop this discussion with impressive frequency.
One man's unreasonable risk is another's manageable annoyance. They >>>>> can both be right in the context of their own personal evaluation.
Or in other words, people are afraid of what they're afraid of. Those
emotions don't have to be accurate to meaningful to the fearful.
Well, you might say that. I'd say 'safe' is an inherently relative term >>> and leads to subjective personal evaluations.
We all know people who avoid commercial air travel (despite very low
death rate), firearms, riding in traffic and so on. For example my
girlfriend is in deathly fear of water. She won't go on a boat and is
hesitant at a pier.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge that any of those people may be
wrong. As usual, my judgments of danger are based on data; and I'm
willing to say if all available data indicates a person is wrong, they
are almost certainly wrong.
You're willing to say a lot of things that don't matter to anyone but yourself.
Which does not mean they should be forced to fly commercial airlines. It
does not mean you should force your girlfriend to swim.
But can't we stop pushing erroneous messages out to the public?
You can most everything you do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 10/23/2024 6:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:35:23 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Steven, you should know better than to losten to stuff like
that without the slightest basis in fact. There are a LOT
of dangers in the Santa Cruz mountains because there is more
and more human impingment on open lands containing apex predators.
That's amazingly correct. The Santa Cruz mountains are full of
dangerous predators:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif>
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has blocked any rabies vaccination of
werewolves because the vaccine has not been tested, approved, licensed
and taxed. Normally, there would violent demonstrations against such
racial discrimination, but that doesn't seem to be effective with
wolves. There is hope if werewolves and other hybrids were
reclassified as dogs.
<http://www.wolfdogproject.com/rabies.htm>
Until we gain approval and are properly vaccinated, I suggest you
avoid riding in the Santa Cruz mountains, especially on the night of
the full moon.
lol...thanks for the chuckle Jeff....
On 10/24/2024 12:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be
biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of
ignoring facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have
grievous mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue
addressed by a study, it's sensible to dive into the study's
procedure and data, instead of relying on a brief summary
plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science.
It's just another way of championing ignorance. "All is
mystery. Nothing can be known. Ommmmm..."
Yes, you make a good point but with the rampant and
increasing incidence of scientific fraud (concentrated in
psychology and sociology), relying on published paper data
would be best with a time delay while waiting for the
retractions.
This is a very real and serious problem and it's becoming
ever more prevalent.
https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983
(most of the really salacious and alarming reports are
paywalled which can sometimes be evaded with 'view page
source' and extracting the text. tediously)
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Indeed! Assuming the data isnt flawed in some way, and if its peer
reviewed that will get flagged if it is.
Though sometimes stuff will persist, some of the older helmets show huge >benefits, do get referenced still from memory even if the original data is >well garbage!
But dismissing out of hand is somewhat lazy thinking.
Roger Merriman
On 10/24/2024 6:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Right. Peer review isn't perfect, of course. Nothing is.
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Indeed! Assuming the data isnt flawed in some way, and if its peer
reviewed that will get flagged if it is.
Though sometimes stuff will persist, some of the older helmets show huge
benefits, do get referenced still from memory even if the original data is >> well garbage!
But dismissing out of hand is somewhat lazy thinking.
But we have here one person who has said he discounts any study that has
been "thrown at him" - which doubtlessly means any study that someone
used to show his views to be wrong. Again, it's championing ignorance.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:24:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or
perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it
was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
Well... It is... providing that you live in a household where people
kill each other :-)
Another, similar "study" showed that in household where a gun is
available there are more "firearm suicides".
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:24:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring >>>facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study, >>>it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of >>>relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just >>>another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be >>>known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or
perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it
was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
Well... It is... providing that you live in a household where people
kill each other :-)
Another, similar "study" showed that in household where a gun is
available there are more "firearm suicides".
On 10/24/2024 8:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:24:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or
perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it
was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
Well... It is... providing that you live in a household where people
kill each other :-)
Another, similar "study" showed that in household where a gun is
available there are more "firearm suicides".
Which is someone else's business how exactly?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 04:36:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:19:00 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:24:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to >>>>>> favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring >>>>>facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous >>>>>mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study, >>>>>it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of >>>>>relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just >>>>>another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be >>>>>known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or >>>>perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it >>>>was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
Well... It is... providing that you live in a household where people
kill each other :-)
Another, similar "study" showed that in household where a gun is >>>available there are more "firearm suicides".
As opposed to suicides by hanging, cutting wrists, asphyxia, poison, >>drowning, jumping off a cliff, etc? A gun just makes it quick, sure,
and dirty.
That was the point. More firearm suicides? More then what?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:19:00 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:24:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or
perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it
was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
Well... It is... providing that you live in a household where people
kill each other :-)
Another, similar "study" showed that in household where a gun is
available there are more "firearm suicides".
As opposed to suicides by hanging, cutting wrists, asphyxia, poison, drowning, jumping off a cliff, etc? A gun just makes it quick, sure,
and dirty.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:19:53 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 04:36:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:19:00 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:24:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to >>>>>>> favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring >>>>>> facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study, >>>>>> it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of >>>>>> relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just >>>>>> another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be >>>>>> known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or
perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it >>>>> was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
Well... It is... providing that you live in a household where people
kill each other :-)
Another, similar "study" showed that in household where a gun is
available there are more "firearm suicides".
As opposed to suicides by hanging, cutting wrists, asphyxia, poison,
drowning, jumping off a cliff, etc? A gun just makes it quick, sure,
and dirty.
That was the point. More firearm suicides? More then what?
I suspect that "more" home invaders have been shot in households where
a gun is available, too. The answer to "more than what" could be more
than "Halloween trick or treaters," or more than "pizza delivery
guys." Please note, that's just speculation. I have no facts to back
that up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Of course, I didn't discount all studies, I just said that most, or
perhaps all studies were biased toward the agenda of the sponsor of
the study.
Some people, however, believe anything they've beeen told by people
who they believe to share their own agenda.
I rememeber a case where a fool bought onto a study that proclaimed it
was dangerous to merely have a gun in their home.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:54:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 6:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Right. Peer review isn't perfect, of course. Nothing is.
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to
favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring
facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study,
it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of
relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be
known. Ommmmm..."
Indeed! Assuming the data isn’t flawed in some way, and if it’s peer >>> reviewed that will get flagged if it is.
Though sometimes stuff will persist, some of the older helmets show huge >>> benefits, do get referenced still from memory even if the original data is >>> well garbage!
But dismissing out of hand is somewhat lazy thinking.
But we have here one person who has said he discounts any study that has
been "thrown at him" - which doubtlessly means any study that someone
used to show his views to be wrong. Again, it's championing ignorance.
As always, I'm delighted that rejecting unsolicited advice and making
my own decisions bothers you so. Judging from what my lifelong policy
of doing that has given me and taken me to where I'm at, compared to
your pathetic life, I'd say mine was the better policy.
On 10/25/2024 8:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
All day every day. This week:
https://hoodline.com/2024/10/sacramento-homeowner-shoots-suspected-
intruder-in-east-del-paso-heights-no-charges-filed/
https://www.timesvirginian.com/news/
article_ecb9c626-9257-11ef-9472-173b9843f9b3.html
https://news.yahoo.com/news/san-antonio-mom-4-suzanne-181655183.html
https://www.postandcourier.com/myrtle-beach/news/longs-intruder-shot-
killed-self-defense-prosecutor-sc/article_25dd6100-9146-11ef-96c4-
e78eb001d64e.html
a quick search "this week" shows many more.
More? More incidents where thugs with guns attempt to get into houses,
as in the one account? More incidents where women whose husbands have
illegal guns disappear without a trace? Is making guns even more
available is supposed to solve those problems?
You consistently portray America as a very, very scary place, and now a
place where (armed?) home invasions are rampant. ISTM that if that were
true, very solid doors with a very solid locks would be a better defense
than a person's guns and "shoot out" skills.
But that's just me. The only home invasion I've heard of within miles
was our own. We were invaded by a squirrel in search of bird seed.
On 10/24/2024 7:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:54:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 6:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Right. Peer review isn't perfect, of course. Nothing is.
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to >>>>>> favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring >>>>> facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study, >>>>> it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of >>>>> relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just
another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be >>>>> known. Ommmmm..."
Indeed! Assuming the data isnt flawed in some way, and if its peer
reviewed that will get flagged if it is.
Though sometimes stuff will persist, some of the older helmets show huge >>>> benefits, do get referenced still from memory even if the original data is >>>> well garbage!
But dismissing out of hand is somewhat lazy thinking.
But we have here one person who has said he discounts any study that has >>> been "thrown at him" - which doubtlessly means any study that someone
used to show his views to be wrong. Again, it's championing ignorance.
As always, I'm delighted that rejecting unsolicited advice and making
my own decisions bothers you so. Judging from what my lifelong policy
of doing that has given me and taken me to where I'm at, compared to
your pathetic life, I'd say mine was the better policy.
I'd say the old adage "sucks to be you" applies to you rather aptly.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:10:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/24/2024 7:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:54:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 6:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Right. Peer review isn't perfect, of course. Nothing is.
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to >>>>>>> favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring >>>>>> facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study, >>>>>> it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of >>>>>> relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just >>>>>> another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be >>>>>> known. Ommmmm..."
Indeed! Assuming the data isn’t flawed in some way, and if it’s peer >>>>> reviewed that will get flagged if it is.
Though sometimes stuff will persist, some of the older helmets show huge >>>>> benefits, do get referenced still from memory even if the original data is
well garbage!
But dismissing out of hand is somewhat lazy thinking.
But we have here one person who has said he discounts any study that has >>>> been "thrown at him" - which doubtlessly means any study that someone
used to show his views to be wrong. Again, it's championing ignorance.
As always, I'm delighted that rejecting unsolicited advice and making
my own decisions bothers you so. Judging from what my lifelong policy
of doing that has given me and taken me to where I'm at, compared to
your pathetic life, I'd say mine was the better policy.
I'd say the old adage "sucks to be you" applies to you rather aptly.
It kind of sucks to be 80 years old, but being retired for the last 27
years has been great.
--
Non, je ne regrette..
Soloman
(Appologies to Edith)
On 10/25/2024 4:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:10:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/24/2024 7:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:54:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2024 6:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Right. Peer review isn't perfect, of course. Nothing is.
On 10/24/2024 9:13 AM, John B. wrote:
I was just commenting That : maybe all "studies" will be biased to >>>>>>>> favor the agenda of whoever is financing the "study."
The claim that all studies are biased is just another way of ignoring >>>>>>> facts that the person making the claim doesn't like.
I assume all studies have imperfections, and some have grievous
mistakes. If a person is interested in an issue addressed by a study, >>>>>>> it's sensible to dive into the study's procedure and data, instead of >>>>>>> relying on a brief summary plus the author's conclusion.
But discounting _all_ studies as biased is anti-science. It's just >>>>>>> another way of championing ignorance. "All is mystery. Nothing can be >>>>>>> known. Ommmmm..."
Indeed! Assuming the data isnt flawed in some way, and if its peer >>>>>> reviewed that will get flagged if it is.
Though sometimes stuff will persist, some of the older helmets show huge >>>>>> benefits, do get referenced still from memory even if the original data is
well garbage!
But dismissing out of hand is somewhat lazy thinking.
But we have here one person who has said he discounts any study that has >>>>> been "thrown at him" - which doubtlessly means any study that someone >>>>> used to show his views to be wrong. Again, it's championing ignorance. >>>>
As always, I'm delighted that rejecting unsolicited advice and making
my own decisions bothers you so. Judging from what my lifelong policy
of doing that has given me and taken me to where I'm at, compared to
your pathetic life, I'd say mine was the better policy.
I'd say the old adage "sucks to be you" applies to you rather aptly.
It kind of sucks to be 80 years old, but being retired for the last 27
years has been great.
--
Non, je ne regrette..
Soloman
(Appologies to Edith)
nice reference to le petit moineau!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:23:39 |
| Calls: | 8,133 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,082 |
| Messages: | 5,856,155 |
