Recumbent bicycles · Public discussion

California news article

Started by alan · · Last activity · 34 posts · 2,716 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Recumbent bicycles
Published
20 April 2004
Last activity
25 April 2004
Original author
alan
Posts
34
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,716
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 34
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This is a long introduction to the news item excerpted below. I apologize
    for the length, but this one got me a little agitated. As you can see, it
    will be finalized as a letter-to-the-editor of the Press Democrat newspaper.

    Here's a classic case of 'blame the victim.' There are several misleading
    statements in this report. Several times it states that riding abreast is
    illegal in California, despite the fact that there is no prohibition in CA
    bicycle law against the practice. A cursory Google search takes the reader
    to this page: http://www.vcbike.org/bikelaw/bikelaw.htm#_C._Riding_Single by
    Alan Watchtel. Now I freely admit that I am not a lawyer, but I've always
    thought that if the law didn't specifically exclude some action, it was
    legal and allowable. Have any CA cyclists been successfully prosecuted for
    riding abreast?

    Some excerpts:

    "...many crashes are caused by the cyclists themselves, according to the
    California Highway Patrol."
    "...the greatest danger lies in cars attempting to pass on narrow roads,
    forcing bikes to shoulders or hitting them from the rear..." ( Martin
    Clinton, president of the Santa Rosa Cycling Club.)
    "The CHP...said right-of-way violations are among the most common bike
    traffic offenses."
    "...cyclists should "control" lanes so cars don't try to squeeze by..."
    "...drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part of the problem."

    OK, one at a time. First, 'many crashes are caused by the cyclists
    themselves.' It's true that the majority of cyclists treated in emergency
    rooms are there due to simple falls. Falls are responsible for 50% of all
    cycling injuries. Collisions with motor vehicles comprise 17% and
    collisions with other cyclists are another 17%. But it's implied that most
    crashes with motor vehicles are the cyclist's fault.

    Martin Clinton, president of the Santa Rosa Cycling Club, says that the
    greatest danger is getting hit from the rear. Mr. Clinton is misinformed,
    as hit-from-the-rear collisions comprise less than 10% of all bicycle/motor
    vehicle collisions. CHP has a better grasp on the cause of most crashes -
    right-of-way violations - and those occur at intersections.

    Cyclist failure to yield to crossing traffic (25%)
    Wrong-way cycling (17%)
    Cyclist failure to yield when changing lanes (13%)
    Motorist's left turn (8%)
    Sidewalk cycling (7%)
    Motorist's right turn (5%)
    Motorist's restart from stop sign (4%)
    (Source: Effective Cycling by J. Forester)

    With two exceptions, wrong-way cycling and a cyclist failing to yield when
    changing lanes, all of these crashes involve one vehicle crossing another
    vehicle's path, i.e. an intersection, regardless of whether that's on the
    roadway itself or on an adjacent sidewalk. Every driveway or parking lot
    ramp represents an intersection, particularly to a sidewalk cyclist. When
    compared to the less than 10% figure for hit-from-behind crashes, it's
    obvious that intersections are a much higher risk.

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a valid sample consists
    of no less than 32 scores. It's hardly scientific to base such broad
    statements as the 'cyclists are largely at fault' on such tiny samples as is
    done in this article. It's bad science. Further, if it's true that in 22
    of the 33 accidents in 2003, the rider was at fault, and that in 2002 riders
    were blamed in nine of the 22 crashes, the evidence would seem to indicate
    that the results are inconclusive. Regardless, the sample size is too small
    to offer good predictions.

    Two contradictory thoughts: A cyclist should take the lane, thereby
    controlling traffic to some extent, and motorists see such actions as
    daredevil stunts performed by people who are oblivious of other road users.
    This article misses an opportunity to educate motorists about a cyclist
    taking the lane for his own safety, preferring to pander to the
    fear-mongering tactics of some motorists who see themselves as the only
    legitimate road users.

    This article merely fuels the animosity on the road, giving motorists the
    false impression that cyclists are somehow at fault for most accidents, and
    implying that motorists are blameless. Please, before printing something
    this irresponsible again, pry the doughnut out of your journalist's fist and
    enroll him in an League of American Bicyclists Road 1 course. Would you
    accept an article from a sportswriter who knew nothing about sports? Why
    then accept a column on cycling from a writer whose last experience of a
    bicycle was in the 4th grade?

    ========Article Excerpts Follow=============

    Taking risks on the road

    CHP says crashes like last week's fatality happen regularly -- and it's
    often not the driver's fault
    April 18, 2004

    By PAUL PAYNE
    THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

    ....The clash between cyclists and drivers came into focus Easter Sunday when
    two people riding scenic Highway 12 near Oakmont were hit by a suspected
    drunken driver. One cyclist was killed and another seriously injured,
    raising fears about whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    Although many cyclists recount tales of bad driving on perilous stretches of
    road, many crashes are caused by the cyclists themselves, according to the
    California Highway Patrol.

    ....In 2002, there were 22 crashes involving bicycles, including one
    fatality, which was deemed the fault of the rider. The number of crashes
    rose to 33 in 2003 with one death. The rider who was killed was ruled to be
    intoxicated, King said. And in 22 of the 33 accidents, the rider was at
    fault, she said. In 2002, riders were blamed in nine of the 22 crashes.

    "Obviously, a collision of this type is more serious for the rider," King
    said. "And more often the bicyclists are at fault."

    That wasn't the case a week ago. South Bay triathletes Alan Liu, 31, and
    Jill Mason, 26, were riding through the Valley of the Moon when they were
    struck from behind by Harvey Hereford, 69, of Santa Rosa.

    Liu was killed and Mason was critically injured. Hereford was arrested on
    suspicion of drunken driving and vehicular manslaughter.

    ....Bikers can get in trouble when they break traffic laws, like riding on
    the wrong side of the street, but the greatest danger lies in cars
    attempting to pass on narrow roads, forcing bikes to shoulders or hitting
    them from the rear, Clinton said.

    Instead, cyclists should "control" lanes so cars don't try to squeeze by, he
    said.

    That technique maddens some motorists but makes bikes more visible and can
    save lives, Santa Rosa cyclist Gary Segraves said.

    ....But drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part of the problem.

    ....In fact, it's illegal for bikes to ride side-by-side, CHP officers said.

    According to the state vehicle code, the only times bicycles can leave the
    right-hand side of a lane is to pass, turn left or avoid a road hazard.

    Groups of bicycles should always be riding single-file.

    And they must obey all traffic laws, like stopping at stop signs.

    ....The CHP, which handles bike accident outside cities, said right-of-way
    violations are among the most common bike traffic offenses.

    ...."We certainly don't want motorists thinking they can run people off the
    road," King said. "But at same time bicyclists need to realize they can't be
    two or three abreast."

    Staff Writer Randi Rossmann contributed to this report.

    You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 521-5250 or
    [email hidden].

    http://tinyurl.com/272zs

    or

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news/18bicycle_b1empireb.html

    --

    alan

    Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

  2. "alan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    [...]

    Quoted message said:


    Two contradictory thoughts: A cyclist should take the lane, thereby
    controlling traffic to some extent, and motorists see such actions as
    daredevil stunts performed by people who are oblivious of other road


    users.

    Quoted message said:

    This article misses an opportunity to educate motorists about a cyclist
    taking the lane for his own safety, preferring to pander to the
    fear-mongering tactics of some motorists who see themselves as the only
    legitimate road users.

    So, you are going to trust your life to an "educated" motorist. Lots of luck
    on that kind of stupid trust. But I am fed up with trying to educate either
    cyclists or motorists, They are both equally stupid and there is no solution
    to the problem. Cyclists will continue to get themselves killed forever as
    long as they are on the road with motor vehicles. But have fun arguing about
    it. Your issue is nothing but a dead end - literally!

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  3. Educated motorist? In California?? Few and far betweem. I am about
    the only person in this area who learned from the 1974 gas lines; and
    now enjoy this $2.20, oops. $2.30., oops, $2.50. oh the Hell with it
    (!) imaginary gas crisis; while on my Sunday recumbent drive with 'No
    Particular Place To Go' (song).

    We will sit around and pay $6 - 10. a gallon before doing a darn
    thing. Embarrassing that velomobiles, commuting with human power,
    errands (mail, shopping, laundromat, etc.) as well as mass transit
    (pedal power or otherwise) come from European history usually.

    I pay through the nose for a gas hog I cannot afford to drive with
    high gas, but no loss- I feel that I *do* own the whole damn road!
    Two abreast or otherwuse. I paid for it!!

    Chris Jordan
    Santa Cruz, CA.

    "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:


    So, you are going to trust your life to an "educated" motorist. Lots of luck
    on that kind of stupid trust. But I am fed up with trying to educate either
    cyclists or motorists, They are both equally stupid and there is no solution
    to the problem. Cyclists will continue to get themselves killed forever as
    long as they are on the road with motor vehicles. But have fun arguing about
    it. Your issue is nothing but a dead end - literally!

  4. Quoted message said:

    <snip> were hit by a suspected drunken driver.
    One cyclist was killed and another seriously
    injured, raising fears about whether cars and
    bikes can safely co-exist.

    AAaarrgg! If this was a pedestrian or another car hit by the drunk
    driver, they would focus on the dangers of drunk-driving. Here they
    ignore it!

    Quoted message said:

    whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    They should have said whether drunk-drivers and bikes can safely
    co-exist.

    Quoted message said:

    Falls are responsible for 50% of all
    cycling injuries.

    You might want to point out that we principally ride in the most
    hazardous part of the road, the shoulder or far right. There are
    sharp objects, puncture vines, etc that can cause us to fall. The
    shoulder commonly has dirt and gravel on it which gives our narrow
    road bike tires a lot of trouble... again we go down. Rain gutters,
    branches, pot holes, broken pavement edges... you know what I mean.

    And I bet most of the 50% is due to simple terror driving us into
    obstacles or hazards when the cars play games with our lives. I, too,
    would rather fall down than be struck by a car.

    Quoted message said:

    "The CHP...said right-of-way violations are among the most common bike
    traffic offenses."

    I'd like to be able to review details about these right-of-way
    violations. I'll bet they roll in 4 year olds on tricycles here too.
    I think it tends to skew the conclusions. Maybe they should make sure
    that these deaths included only persons of driving age. I'll bet that
    we bicyclists wouldn't agree with a good number of the causes.. but
    that is a wild guess. I know that many cops have no idea what the
    laws are concerning bicycles.

    Quoted message said:

    "...drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part of the problem."

    Grrrrrrrr.... they mean simply being on the road with them is
    evidence of a dare-devil attitude, so whatever happens to us is our
    fault!

    Quoted message said:

    Cyclist failure to yield to crossing traffic (25%)

    Well... yeah... I have been almost creamed a few times by motorists
    that could have factually stated the same thing. However, I don't
    mean in a legal sense!
    How many times have you had to stand your bike on the front wheel
    trying to avoid someone who comes from behind, who then whips into a
    right-hand turn in front of you? I suppose that could be construed as
    failing to yield. I know I may sound the teensiest bit cynical, but
    I'd like to know the details in these cases.

    Quoted message said:

    With two exceptions, wrong-way cycling

    Wrong-way cycling *can* cause accidents... and it can also be cited in
    cases where it was present but had nothing to do with causing the
    accident.

    I also take to the sidewalk on occasion, not often. I do it
    intelligently, being aware of the dangers there. I do it to avoid an
    even greater danger in the street.

    Quoted message said:

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a valid sample consists
    of no less than 32 scores.

    This doesn't seem like a big enough base to me either.

    Quoted message said:

    Would you accept an article from a sportswriter who
    knew nothing about sports? Why then accept a column
    on cycling from a writer whose last experience of a
    bicycle was in the 4th grade?

    While this is a good point, your letter may more effectively represent
    cycling interests if you simply stuck to the issues and didn't attack
    the person.

    GeoB

  5. "GeoB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    <snip> were hit by a suspected drunken driver.
    One cyclist was killed and another seriously
    injured, raising fears about whether cars and
    bikes can safely co-exist.

    AAaarrgg! If this was a pedestrian or another car hit by the drunk
    driver, they would focus on the dangers of drunk-driving. Here they
    ignore it!

    Quoted message said:

    whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    They should have said whether drunk-drivers and bikes can safely
    co-exist.

    GeoB, you have really got that right. Drunken drivers are almost the heart
    of the problem. We have been waging a war against drunken drivers like
    forever just like we have been waging a war against drugs like forever and
    we are no more succeeding at one than we are the other. Drunken drivers we
    will always have with us and they are the main menace on the road for us
    cyclists.

    I have been told that if you get stopped for drunken driving you will end up
    with a fine of well over a thousands dollars. I think there are just as many
    drunken drivers on the road now as there ever was. It is a fact of life we
    will just have to live (die) with.

    There are several elderly folks here who have had their bicycle riding
    privileges revoked for being drunk on their bicycles. Have you ever hear of
    anything so crazy - I mean riding your bike drunk? Sometimes I think I have
    lived long enough and I won't mind leaving this crazy world when my time is
    up. But I would like to do it at home in my own bed and not out on the road
    being run over by a drunken driver.
    [...]

    Quoted message said:

    Wrong-way cycling *can* cause accidents... and it can also be cited in
    cases where it was present but had nothing to do with causing the
    accident.

    Wrong way cycling is really quite dangerous. It seems to have a very
    confusing effect on motorists. And then there is the effect of other
    cyclists riding the right way encountering you when you are riding the wrong
    way. It is a total mess. Pedestrians should always walk facing traffic, but
    cyclists should always ride with traffic. The police do not seem to enforce
    these road rules like they used to when I was a kid.

    Quoted message said:

    I also take to the sidewalk on occasion, not often. I do it
    intelligently, being aware of the dangers there. I do it to avoid an
    even greater danger in the street.

    When traffic becomes totally impossible I take to the sidewalk and go very
    slowly always giving pedestrians every courtesy. If necessary I will quite
    often walk my bicycle on the sidewalk.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  6. "Christopher Jordan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    [...]

    Quoted message said:

    I pay through the nose for a gas hog I cannot afford to drive with
    high gas, but no loss- I feel that I *do* own the whole damn road!
    Two abreast or otherwuse. I paid for it!!

    It is perfectly OK to ride two or even three abreast on the highway as long
    as there is no traffic coming behind you, but when there is traffic it is
    just common courtesy to ride single file so as to facilitate the traffic.
    What often happens is that cyclists get talking to one another and do not
    keep track of traffic developments. When I am riding on the highway, whether
    alone or with others, I am checking my rear view mirror almost constantly. I
    want to be out of the traffic lane as much as possible when traffic is
    approaching me from behind.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  7. On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:49:09 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Drunken drivers we will always have with us

    Not if we grow a pair and actually punish them.

    First offense: your new title for life becomes "Pedestrian" or
    "Passenger". Not "Cyclist". Get a DUI-brid if you must, but stay on
    the MUP.

    Second offense: your eyes are poked out of your head and you get a
    white cane for a souvenir. Damn few recidivists, I'd say.

  8. On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:00:21 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    It is perfectly OK to ride two or even three abreast on the highway as long
    as there is no traffic coming behind you,

    I ALWAYS ride single file.

    Of course, I always ride alone, for reasons that would become apparent
    if you really got to know me.

  9. Hmmm...I used to to work with a guy with a nickname of "Zippy". That
    you, PZ? If so...I'm sure you recognize my name...

    rr

    Zippy the Pinhead said:

    On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:00:21 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    It is perfectly OK to ride two or even three abreast on the highway as long
    as there is no traffic coming behind you,

    I ALWAYS ride single file.

    Of course, I always ride alone, for reasons that would become apparent
    if you really got to know me.

  10. On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:50:08 -0700, Randy Rhine <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Hmmm...I used to to work with a guy with a nickname of "Zippy". That
    you, PZ? If so...I'm sure you recognize my name...

    No, that was someone else.

  11. Quoted message said:

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class,
    a valid sample consists of no less than 32 scores.

    Depends upon the magnitude of the effect you're testing: if that
    magnitude is large, then a small sample will reveal it; but if it's
    small, you need a big sample to detect it. This falls under the topic of
    "statistical power of a test", which is the probability that you'll find
    what you're testing for.

    Quoted message said:

    if it's true that in 22 of the 33 accidents in 2003,
    the rider was at fault, and that in 2002 riders were blamed
    in nine of the 22 crashes, the evidence would seem to indicate
    that the results are inconclusive.

    Not entirely. Here's what the data display looks like:

    year . rider blamed . rider not blamed
    2002 . . . 9 . . . . . . . 13
    2003 . . . 22 . . . . . . . 11

    Over the two years displayed, "rider blamed" went up by more than
    double, and "rider not blamed" went down only slightly, which does look
    like a non-random effect.

    A two-by-two table of categorical data from a small sample like this is
    amenable to the Fisher Exact Test, which in this case yields a p-value
    of 0.054 , not quite significant at the magic 0.05 level, but suggestive
    that the data pattern may be a time-dependent effect. A statistician
    would want more data about the history and details of such accidents
    before deciding whether this is true.

  12. "LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message news:uSmhc.65832$U83.6388@fed1read03...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class,
    a valid sample consists of no less than 32 scores.

    Depends upon the magnitude of the effect you're testing: if that
    magnitude is large, then a small sample will reveal it; but if it's
    small, you need a big sample to detect it. This falls under the topic of
    "statistical power of a test", which is the probability that you'll find
    what you're testing for.

    Quoted message said:

    if it's true that in 22 of the 33 accidents in 2003,
    the rider was at fault, and that in 2002 riders were blamed
    in nine of the 22 crashes, the evidence would seem to indicate
    that the results are inconclusive.

    Not entirely. Here's what the data display looks like:

    year . rider blamed . rider not blamed
    2002 . . . 9 . . . . . . . 13
    2003 . . . 22 . . . . . . . 11

    Over the two years displayed, "rider blamed" went up by more than
    double, and "rider not blamed" went down only slightly, which does look
    like a non-random effect.

    A two-by-two table of categorical data from a small sample like this is
    amenable to the Fisher Exact Test, which in this case yields a p-value
    of 0.054 , not quite significant at the magic 0.05 level, but suggestive
    that the data pattern may be a time-dependent effect. A statistician
    would want more data about the history and details of such accidents
    before deciding whether this is true.

    I have come to the conclusion after a lifetime of having to make sense out
    of statistics that there is not one person in a thousand who understands
    what the hell statisticians are talking about. This is due primarily to the
    fact that statisticians can't explain anything so that an ordinary person of
    average intelligence can understand what it is they are talking about. Much
    of science falls into this same dilemma, but there are popularizers of
    science that can explain it to the rest of us so that we can understand it.
    But there is no one who will bother to do this yeoman duty for the
    statisticians. As a result, no one ever thinks statistics is valid. Is it
    science or is it magic? Who knows?

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  13. On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:04:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    This is due primarily to the
    fact that statisticians can't explain anything so that an ordinary person of
    average intelligence can understand what it is they are talking about. Much
    of science falls into this same dilemma, but there are popularizers of
    science that can explain it to the rest of us so that we can understand it.

    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. They
    just launched another satellite to try further to understand another
    utterance of the man who said this.

    Quoted message said:

    But there is no one who will bother to do this yeoman duty for the
    statisticians. As a result, no one ever thinks statistics is valid. Is it
    science or is it magic? Who knows?

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to cling to
    magical thinking and to reject probabilistic thinking and risk
    assessment. Scared [censored] about radium in the basement, with a
    cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

  14. "Zippy the Pinhead" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:04:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    This is due primarily to the
    fact that statisticians can't explain anything so that an ordinary person


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    average intelligence can understand what it is they are talking about.


    Much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    of science falls into this same dilemma, but there are popularizers of
    science that can explain it to the rest of us so that we can understand


    it.

    Quoted message said:


    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. They
    just launched another satellite to try further to understand another
    utterance of the man who said this.

    Quoted message said:

    But there is no one who will bother to do this yeoman duty for the
    statisticians. As a result, no one ever thinks statistics is valid. Is it
    science or is it magic? Who knows?

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to cling to
    magical thinking and to reject probabilistic thinking and risk
    assessment. Scared [censored] about radium in the basement, with a
    cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

    Zippy, when I was at University many years ago in my long lost youth I
    wanted to study science (geology), but I was totally turned off by the
    science professors. I knew that they knew their subjects, but they came
    across as almost illiterate. They could not seem to explain the simplest
    things. And they could never make any of it the least bit interesting, let
    alone exciting. So I fled to the liberal arts and science (and statistics)
    has forever remained a mystery to me. I blame the scientists for not being
    better teachers. I love reading popular science but I have hardly ever
    enjoyed reading a real scientist.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  15. Quoted message said:

    First offense: your new title for life becomes "Pedestrian" or
    "Passenger". Not "Cyclist". Get a DUI-brid if you must, but stay on
    the MUP.

    An irate motorist who had been ticketed was facing the judge in a
    small-town courthouse. After being found guilty and being fined, he
    stalked over to the side, to the cashier's window and paid his fine.
    He was handed a receipt. He loudly snarled, "And what am I supposed
    to do with THIS??". The judge calmly amswered, "Save it, get three of
    them, you get a bicycle".

  16. Quoted message said:

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to cling to
    magical thinking and to reject probabilistic thinking and risk
    assessment.

    Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in
    hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal
    quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions.
    Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not
    saying there should be a capital punishment for
    stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety
    labels off of everything and let the problem
    solve itself?"

    Quoted message said:

    Scared [censored] about radium in the basement,
    with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

    That would be Radon gas I think.

  17. "GeoB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    First offense: your new title for life becomes "Pedestrian" or
    "Passenger". Not "Cyclist". Get a DUI-brid if you must, but stay on
    the MUP.

    An irate motorist who had been ticketed was facing the judge in a
    small-town courthouse. After being found guilty and being fined, he
    stalked over to the side, to the cashier's window and paid his fine.
    He was handed a receipt. He loudly snarled, "And what am I supposed
    to do with THIS??". The judge calmly amswered, "Save it, get three of
    them, you get a bicycle".

    GeoB, it is really funny here in my town. Most of the cyclists I see about
    the town are Hispanics who have lost their driver's license due to drunken
    driving. They would never in a million years be on a bicycle otherwise. But
    biking beats walking - which we all discovered very early in life when we
    were paper boys delivering newspapers. The older I get, the more I realize
    there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human behavior.

    Apparently what is happening in China now is that everyone is chucking their
    bicycles for cars. Those still on bicycles are now claiming it is too
    dangerous to be biking on the roads with all those cars. I think this is
    where I came in several posts ago and I think this is where I will leave.
    Like I said, nothing new under the sun!

    --
    Regards,

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  18. (GeoB) said:
    Quoted message said:

    Scared [censored] about radium in the basement,
    with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

    That would be Radon gas I think.

    You're right, but the day before I read that, I had listened to an
    entire segment on a radio talk show about "radium" in the basement.

    "Iceberg, Weinberg, what's the difference?"

  19. "GeoB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to cling to
    magical thinking and to reject probabilistic thinking and risk
    assessment.

    Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in
    hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal
    quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions.
    Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    On the other hand, I greatly admire those who can cut the to the quick of a
    problem with only a few words. Those who can take a complex problem and then
    simplify it so it can be understood by one and all invariably turn out to be
    the smartest persons in the room. Those who only know how to complicate an
    issue are mostly obfuscating and do not really have a good grasp of the
    issue. I think Bush II, like Truman before him, knows how to cut to the
    quick of a problem and then state it simply so that all can understand
    (except dyed-in-the-wool liberals of course).

    Quoted message said:

    "The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not
    saying there should be a capital punishment for
    stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety
    labels off of everything and let the problem
    solve itself?"

    It is a universal problem where ever there are humans. Other nations are
    even more stupid than we are. All of Europe is more stupid and the second
    and third word are stupid beyond belief. Educating people out of their
    stupidity is the hardest thing we ever undertake to do - and we have to do
    it with every generation. It is an unending task.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  20. "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On the other hand, I greatly admire those who can cut the to the quick of


    a

    Quoted message said:

    problem with only a few words. Those who can take a complex problem and


    then

    Quoted message said:

    simplify it so it can be understood by one and all invariably turn out to


    be

    Quoted message said:

    the smartest persons in the room.

    That would NOT be you Ed!

    Perry B - Minnesota

    Oh my god, you're talking about Tom!

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.