Basson on doping, life & the Universe
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Bassons says that, while the public, media and authorities view doping in
terms of "legal" and "illegal", an athlete will often superimpose his own
ideas of what is legitimate and what is not. Landis, for example, told
Kimmage that, for him, doping was a means - the only means in a sport
allegedly riddled with corruption - to realize a Tour de France dream.
"I don't know why Landis had that dream, why he needed that, or indeed why
he lied for all those years - you'd have to look at his upbringing, his
values - but there's always something behind it," Bassons argued.
"Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is
different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it's
legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means
that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad.
For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he
needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern
Europe it's legitimate because they need money for their families - which is
hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump
iron because he's uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves
his need - it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it
solves his particular problem.""
I like this guy. Very logical, almost dispassionate way of viewing doping.
He makes some conclusions about Lance that support widely-held beliefs
without proof, but other than that, I'd say he's got it very much together.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Choppy Warburton
Very European but the "truth comes out" means Armstrong suffers.
Phil H
The average Joe thinks this is OK, an innocuous 10 over the limit;
except that 37 000 a year in the US never get to go home again from
similarly perceived innocuous transgressions. A bad analogy to sports
doping.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
He might be running for office - therefore we can trust none of this
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:994c8964-1960-47bb...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
"For example, I might think it's legitimate to drive my car at 90kph
in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out
into the school playground and not see his dad."
The average Joe thinks this is OK, an innocuous 10 over the limit;
except that 37 000 a year in the US never get to go home again from
similarly perceived innocuous transgressions. A bad analogy to sports
doping.
Phil H
======
You make a valid point, but perhaps they have differing priorities. I would
personally trade a bit of tolerance for speed limits vs the
generally-much-lower blood alchohol limits found in Europe. If we're talking
US vs France, it's .08 vs .05. An interesting chart may be found here-
http://www.ourthinkingaboutdrinking.com/drinking-driving-issues.aspx?id=202
Curiously, it's far more difficult to find out what the actual death rate
for DUIs is in the various countries. Regardless, I think it reasonable to
split out the impaired driving deaths from those due to driving 13% over the
speed limit if you're going to question the analogy. It could very well be
that driving 90kph in an 80kph zone is in fact responsible for many deaths.
I don't know.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
DirtRoadie
I suppose this could blow up into a prolonged debate but I like the
speeding analogy. A friend who works as a paramedic once described to
me that (from her fairly extensive experience responding to vehicle
accidents) speed alone is rarely the sole or even primary factor in
causing an accident. The big factors are things like alcohol,
inattentiveness, misjudging or ignoring traffic signals and other
similar poor behavior, even though speed may be involved. And, no,
we're not talking about speeding in school zones.
DR
ilan
wrote:
> "Phil H" <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Curiously, it's far more difficult to find out what the actual death rate
> for DUIs is in the various countries. Regardless, I think it reasonable to
> split out the impaired driving deaths from those due to driving 13% over the
> speed limit if you're going to question the analogy. It could very well be
> that driving 90kph in an 80kph zone is in fact responsible for many deaths.
> I don't know.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
In France, at least, the speed limits are already too high, for
example 50kph in urban areas, including villages where it's extremely
unsafe, compare to 40kph in the US and Canada. Despite aggressive and
intolerant French driving habits, death rates are much lower than in
the US. I'm not sure why that is, I suspect it reflects very poor
driving in certain areas compensating sensible habits in others, I
developed this theory as I drove from Vermont to Massachusetts.
-ilan
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:92ad5ef6-0496-4983...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
He might be running for office - therefore we can trust none of this
Didn't know that. He should do well; he certainly speaks well. Ironically,
the person he would never win against would be Virenque. The guy's a
national hero in France. Here's what I wrote about him after my first
encounter, in 2007-
---
"Then I try to locate the start area for tomorrow's time trial and figure I
might have found it when I see a whole lot of official Tour de France
vehicles. Not quite. What I'd found was something even more interesting.
I found the hotel the teams were staying at! Now this was a new Tour
experience for me, so I park the car, get out the camera, and start taking
photos of all the kids waiting for an autograph. And waiting. And waiting.
Waiting for someone to come out, hoping that many might. Finally a couple
CSC guys give the kids a few autographs, but the crowd isn't all that
interested in them... they want one person. One person who I never quite
understood his popularity. Richard Virenque. What's with that, I've always
wondered?
Well, wonder no more. Eventually Virenque did come out, and what a
crowd-pleaser. He doesn't just sign autographs, he kisses babies, poses
with the wives, chats a bit... it's like he's running for President! And he
comes off as being totally charming. OK, Bruno, now I understand the
attraction (Bruno's our service manager in Redwood City and also the token
French National on our staff... everybody needs one Frenchman to keep them
in line, and Bruno's the best)."
---
What I later learned was the heroic nature of the fallen hero in France. The
fact that Virenque had failed, had disgraced himself in such a huge way, and
risen back up from the ashes... it's literally the stuff of heroes. The
sports pages in France are likely to give more space to the 2nd place
finisher who suffered mightily than the guy who wins. The everyman can
relate to suffering and coming up short, and even better to see that the guy
who hits bottom can come back.
Of course, this gives Americans ammunition for getting on the French for
being well-practiced at being good at losing, never mind the fact that some
guy named Lafayette bailed our butts out at a most-critical time in history.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
ilan
Even if speed is not the cause of the accident, the point is that it
is always an aggravating factor once an accident occurs. Apparently,
your paramedic friend failed to grasp this simple but essential
observation.
-ilan
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:f1649412-2b3c-4d37...@k32g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
In France, at least, the speed limits are already too high, for
example 50kph in urban areas, including villages where it's extremely
unsafe, compare to 40kph in the US and Canada. Despite aggressive and
intolerant French driving habits, death rates are much lower than in
the US. I'm not sure why that is, I suspect it reflects very poor
driving in certain areas compensating sensible habits in others, I
developed this theory as I drove from Vermont to Massachusetts.
-ilan
=========
I wonder how much of the lower death rate in France is due to the max legal
blood alchohol being .05 in France vs .08 in the US? I've also read
anecdotal evidence that it's easier to pull people over in France to check
sobriety vs the US (fewer legal issues regarding entrapment etc).
Could you elaborate on "aggessive and intolerant" French driving habits?
Cycling in France I've felt very safe, although driving took a bit of time.
Had to get used to roundabouts... never, ever make eye contact since that's
yielding right-of-way (not the case in the US), and mirror clipping. Scary
how close cars pass one another, and indeed you do see quite a few broken or
missing mirrors. Ironic given how much space cars give bikes. But overall I
don't mind driving in France. At least once I learn where the control to
roll down the window is when I get to the toll booth in the car just rented.
:-)
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
ilan
wrote:
> "ilan" <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
OK, here goes :). I suppose that the basic point is that the French
have no conception of obeying laws because they are laws, or in the
case of the vehicle code, because they make absolute sense. For
example, when I challenge someone, e.g., the old guy in an expensive
BMW who parked on crosswalk forcing pedestrians to go around him into
traffic, he basically implied that this was some kind of Ghandi or
Martin Luther Kind "civil disobedience" against state authority.
Worse, the prevalent attitude is to get away with as much as you can,
and the law is just there to punish you if you're not careful enough.
This is deeply ingrained, a good demonstration are the illegally
parked driving school cars in bus lanes (which never get ticketed,
most likely because of payoffs to the police). So, driving ends up
being the law of the jungle, though there seems to be a taboo about
running red lights (laughable, as they think it's preferable to go
double the speed limit to get through a yellow light, than to stop at
the red light look both ways then cross when it's safe). In Paris,
this leads to the extremely unpleasant situation where it's the law of
the strongest, when the vehicle code which is based on common sense
dictates the exact opposite. In order for you to understand how
barbaric this becomes, basically every interaction comes down to who
can beat up who in hand to hand combat, that is, if I force my right
of way at a pedestrian crosswalk this evaluation dictates whether the
car will yield or not. Pretty pathetic for the "capital of culture."
Actually, it's so ridiculous that I have to laugh, on two occasions
last month I had to run for it when the confronter evaluated me as
weaker, this while crossing the Place de Furstenberg, the most
luxurious square in Paris.
-ilan
DirtRoadie
Not at all (and note my initial comment). The point being that
speeding (exceeding the posted limit - I should have specified that
originally) is NOT the cause. Generally doing something stupid needs
to be added to the mix. Now, something stupid could include driving
too fast for conditions, but merely exceeding the posted limit doesn't
generally do it.
DR
Barry
> 2nd place finisher who suffered mightily than the guy who wins.
Like the beloved "Poupou" (Raymond Poulidor).
Scott
Really bad joke alert:
'say what you will about pedophiles, at least they slow down in school
zones.'
ilan
Sorry, but this Bassons guy is an ignorant self-righteous non-entity.
Check out this quote: "The one thing I would add about Armstrong is
that I’m not sure he’s as proud of the person he is today as I am of
myself." Compare Armstrong's CV: "World Champion, beating cancer,
destroying the Tour de France record, coming back from retirement to
finish on the podium, and last year's disastrous Tour better than
anything Bassons ever did as a professional," to Bassons CV: "Spoke up
to Armstrong one time, maybe a stage win in Paris-Camembert or
something equivalent, left cycling because...." I think Bassons
should reflect on the following: in life, you should know where you
stand relative to others.
-ilan
Anton Berlin
> OK, here goes :). I suppose that the basic point is that the French
> have no conception of obeying laws because they are laws, or in the
> case of the vehicle code, because they make absolute sense. For
> example, when I challenge someone, e.g., the old guy in an expensive
> BMW who parked on crosswalk forcing pedestrians to go around him into
> traffic, he basically implied that this was some kind of Ghandi or
> Martin Luther Kind "civil disobedience" against state authority.
I have done this one at least 7 occasions - do a vertical jump on to
the hood and walk across the hood of the car. I guess I appear so
insane that no one yet has challenged me after doing this. ( I am
getting a little old for these antics now but did it without fear when
I was young)
ilan
Yes, that is tempting but doing this means disregarding the (in this
case) sensible legal system. I think in this case it is better to
follow Nimzovich's advice that the threat is stronger than the
execution.
Also, it is a bad idea to escalate to physical damage, at least in
Paris. I was just watching the violence in Cairo on TV, and my feeling
is that such behavior is not so far from what can randomly explode in
Paris. In fact, in 2005, about 2 miles from my house insane violent
demonstrators and (insane) police were charging each other in an open
field like in some battle from Antiquity while other people were
stealing mobile phones from onlookers.
-ilan
Anton Berlin
I like the fact that others in this world still fight for justice.
People riot in Europe for freedoms they take away from us with a shrug
in America. I don't think it's because we're more reasonable - we're
not. We've just become too satiated by McDonalds, Super Bowls, porn,
beer, 153 channels and prozac to get off our ass and do anything.
Steve Freides
They've been running ads on the radio here in metro NYC, explaining why
the speed limit is 30 mph. Their explanation is that a car and
pedestrian collision is fatal roughly 1/4 of the time at 30 mph but 3/4
of the time at 40 mph. Seems like reason enough to keep the urban speed
limit to 30 mph to me.
OTOH, an NYC policeman once gave me a ticket for running a red light at
215th St. and Broadway, which is about as "miles from nowwhere" as one
can get and still be in borough of Manhattan. I had stopped completely,
put a foot down, looked both ways twice, before going through the
intersection, and, well, whatever ...
-S-
-S-
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
From my original comment I implied speeding was one of many
transgressions which costs 37 000 lives per year in the US yet there
has never been a "real" assault on that statistic. Its been that
number for decades. While speeding on its own may not contribute much
and not paying attention on its own may not contribute much but
speeding and not paying attention........
If your local metropolitan population is 1million, statistically 2
people die every week as the result of traffic "accidents".
Phil H
Dave Lee
"Phil H" wrote in message
news:994c8964-1960-47bb...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>"For example, I might think it's legitimate to drive my car at 90kph
>in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out
>into the school playground and not see his dad."
>The average Joe thinks this is OK, an innocuous 10 over the limit;
>except that 37 000 a year in the US never get to go home again from
>similarly perceived innocuous transgressions. A bad analogy to sports
>doping.
Phil H>
Just curious - where does data that shows that driving 10 kph (6'ish mph)
over the speed limit causes 37000 deaths per year? How would one determine
that? How could anyone know this? Maybe somebody figured this out, but is
seems like a tough assessment to me.
In my experience 5 mph over the speed limit is pretty much 'the typical
traffic flow' outside of residential areas. IMHO (I have no facts to back
this up) drivers who insist on going more than 5 mph faster OR slower than
the basic traffic speed are a serious problem.
dave
Anton Berlin
Phil - you're just plain stupid. 1. Traffic deaths have gone down
YoY for some time now. You seem to be getting your facts from the
same place where Armstrong gets his 18 million cancer fightin people
from. 2. In as much that 'speed' as in velocity is an element in
most every collision one can imagine. It's like saying something true
and silly like "life is the 100% root cause of death" as it's hard to
imagine a traffic related fatality when 2 cars are parked next to each
other and neither moves. Lastly according to stats the number is
actually closer to 33%.
Now go and sin no more.
Anton Berlin
One more thing I always do this when fully clothed. Being naked while
jumping on cars leads to complications
Amit Ghosh
> I like this guy. Very logical, almost dispassionate way of viewing doping.
> He makes some conclusions about Lance that support widely-held beliefs
> without proof, but other than that, I'd say he's got it very much together.
dumbass,
basically he's not a kool-aid drinker, unlike 95% of the people who
race of follow bike racing.
DirtRoadie
> From my original comment I implied speeding was one of many
> transgressions which costs 37 000 lives per year in the US yet there
> has never been a "real" assault on that statistic. Its been that
> number for decades.
That does not seem to be true.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-09-1Aroaddeaths09_ST_N.htm
And try sorting the chart at the following link by "fatalities per 100
million v.m.t":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
> While speeding on its own may not contribute much
> and not paying attention on its own may not contribute much but
> speeding and not paying attention........
Yes, but hypothetically compare NOT speeding and not paying attention
or simply compare speeding to not paying attention It's the "not
paying attention" part that creates the problem.
I should also note that the paramedic friend who commented about the
(ir)relevance of speeding was adamant about the benefit of seatbelt
use. I think her comment was that, of traffic fatalities in her
personal experience, not one had been wearing a seatbelt.
In essence, her experience reflected the marketing adage that "seat
belts save lives."
> If your local metropolitan population is 1 million, statistically 2
> people die every week as the result of traffic "accidents".
That does appear to be true (~2.13) even using the low 2009 "fraction
of population" figure from the Wikipedia table.
DR
RicodJour
Right - damage people's property to make a point. Banging on the hood
sends the same message, but they're both over-the-top, unnecessary and
there are simpler and more effective ways of tweaking a driver's
nose. Look blandly at the guy and hockey sneeze on his hood or
window. The guy will drive around knowing he's got your nasal loogie
on his car and at some point he'll have to clean it off.
The best messages are the ones that are around long enough for the
point to sink it.
The insane part is certainly effective in some situations. Acting
like you're hearing voices, having an argument with imaginary people
and making sudden jerky moves makes you into a total unknown and
potentially dangerous. Easier targets abound.
R
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-wont-judge-landis-and-armstrong
> "Bassons says that, while the public, media and authorities view doping in
> terms of "legal" and "illegal", an athlete will often superimpose his own
> ideas of what is legitimate and what is not. Landis, for example, told
> Kimmage that, for him, doping was a means - the only means in a sport
> allegedly riddled with corruption - to realize a Tour de France dream.
>
> "I don't know why Landis had that dream, why he needed that, or indeed why
> he lied for all those years - you'd have to look at his upbringing, his
> values - but there's always something behind it," Bassons argued.
> "Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is
> different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it's
> legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means
> that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad.
> For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he
> needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern
> Europe it's legitimate because they need money for their families - which is
> hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump
> iron because he's uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves
> his need - it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it
> solves his particular problem.""
>
> I like this guy. Very logical, almost dispassionate way of viewing doping.
> He makes some conclusions about Lance that support widely-held beliefs
> without proof, but other than that, I'd say he's got it very much together.
I do not see him as dispassionate. He sits in judgement.
What does he know about how different people think?
Particularly people he does not see all the time, people he
never met, people he does not even know they exist, but
makes up fictional lives for. He's just another bloviator
making up stuff that he hopes will make people feel good so
he can sell more of his bloviating.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
<04e9067b-57d4-4d78...@d17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Do people attempt to equalize the difference through main force?
--
Michael Press
ilan
As I seem to recall, California had to make a special law on
"exhibition of speed" because people in expensive sports cars could
prove that their very high speed was perfectly safe for the
conditions, no traffic, good road, visibility, and car constructed for
such speeds.
-ilan
RicodJour
>
> I should also note that the paramedic friend who commented about the
> (ir)relevance of speeding was adamant about the benefit of seatbelt
> use. I think her comment was that, of traffic fatalities in her
> personal experience, not one had been wearing a seatbelt.
> In essence, her experience reflected the marketing adage that "seat
> belts save lives."
In a defensive driving course we had a highway patrol trooper stop
in. He said he'd never had to unbuckle a dead guy.
A few years later, at another defensive driving course (I'm big on
discounts), the instructor asked first thing who always wore
seatbelts - bunch of hands went up. Next question, who never wore
seatbelts - one woman raised her hand. The instructor asked why, and
she pointed to the ~18 yo kid next to her and said, "He wouldn't be an
orphan (sic) if it weren't for seatbelts!" WTF? The instructor asked
what had happened, and we all listened in horror as she described
being in an accident and her other son (orphan..?) was decapitated by
a shoulder belt. The instructor asked if he had been wearing the lap
belt (this is before they were joined with one buckle), and the answer
was of course no. She blamed the seatbelt. Felt bad for the lady,
felt worse for the kid sitting next to her.
R
Michael Press
<18f2daca-2cc8-43d8...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
Emotional trauma impairs people's driving---things like
fights with family, break ups, and job difficulties.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<723fe2bc-b383-4d3f...@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
Each bassoon having his big, fat say.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<bdf77ac5-e3c4-4426...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
Correct. He is a Kool-Aid dispenser.
--
Michael Press
DirtRoadie
At least with a posted speed limit there is a legal presumption that
it is the maximum prudent speed under normal conditions. Exceeding
that speed places the heavy burden on the speeder to prove that/he she
was driving safely (If that is allowable under the applicable law).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Prima_facie
Peripherally related - the main US highway here has a speed limit that
is lower (55 vs. 60) at night during the winter. The reason is
wildlife, deer and elk, that are more commonly encountered after dark
in the winter.
That may fall into the category of "It's not just the law, it's a good
idea,"although 5 mph seems like an insignificant step. Perhaps the
goal is just to make folks aware (especially out-of-staters) that the
risks of a surprise encounter are, in fact, greater during those
periods.
DR
Fred Fredburger
> The insane part is certainly effective in some situations. Acting
> like you're hearing voices, having an argument with imaginary people
> and making sudden jerky moves makes you into a total unknown and
> potentially dangerous. Easier targets abound.
This is RBR. That schtick comes natural to most of us.
Anton Berlin
There have been "exhibition of acceleration" violations since the 70s
on most states. I used to hot rod 60s Pontiacs and Chevrolets.
Anton Berlin
I used to get angry when I saw children standing in the seat and not
buckled in - not any more - Darwinism.
Brad Anders
> I used to get angry when I saw children standing in the seat and not
> buckled in - not any more - Darwinism.
Come visit AZ. Kids can ride, unsecured, in the back of a pickup truck
legally. Dogs, however, must be secured. We constantly see people
driving around with their kids clearly not buckled in. And the
funniest thing is, we probably have one of the lowest percentages of
any state of people who believe in natural selection.
RicodJour
>
> I used to get angry when I saw children standing in the seat and not
> buckled in - not any more - Darwinism.
I find it difficult to believe you need a reason to get angry.
R
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Yeh, its dropped the last couple of years but prior to that it was a
level 37 000. Stupid? While we may occupy different regions of the
bell curve, ...........no, never mind.
The 30 000 or so fatalities represent about 1% of traffic accidents
(above link). From my original premise, taking dope in sport has an
insignificant consequence when compared to driving transgressions.
That's my opinion.
Phil H
RicodJour
How many drivers on our nation's highways are held up as role models?
I agree with you in general, of course, but there's a larger effect.
I don't think this is due to doping alone. Worshiping people who ride
a bike, kick a ball and such is skewed.
Conversely, if someone does great work, I really don't care what they
do with their personal life. If Charlie Sheen started the LAF, I'd
still think he'd done some good work.
R
ilan
It's lucky for everyone there that I wasn't around - I usually don't
wear seat belts, and I can justify this with accident statistics, that
is my own, since I've never had an accident in over 30 years and
hundreds of thousands of miles, empirical evidence clearly shows that
I probably won't have one. Note that laws and insurance rates assume
that my accident probabilty is reflected by the statistics of the
general population, reasonable since a case by case study is not
viable. Moreover, I can
further argue that the is a deterministic mechanism which precludes
probabilistic analysis.
A slight rectification: the only two collisions I've had occured when
I was parked in a lot and someone drove into me, so I should probably
wear a seat bealt when in my parked vehicle.
-ilan
Fred Flintstein
> It's lucky for everyone there that I wasn't around - I usually don't
> wear seat belts, and I can justify this with accident statistics, that
> is my own, since I've never had an accident in over 30 years and
> hundreds of thousands of miles, empirical evidence clearly shows that
> I probably won't have one. Note that laws and insurance rates assume
> that my accident probabilty is reflected by the statistics of the
> general population, reasonable since a case by case study is not
> viable. Moreover, I can
> further argue that the is a deterministic mechanism which precludes
> probabilistic analysis.
>
> A slight rectification: the only two collisions I've had occured when
> I was parked in a lot and someone drove into me, so I should probably
> wear a seat bealt when in my parked vehicle.
>
> -ilan
Math != Statistics
Fred Flintstein
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> It's lucky for everyone there that I wasn't around - I usually don't
> wear seat belts, and I can justify this with accident statistics, that
> is my own, since I've never had an accident in over 30 years and
> hundreds of thousands of miles, empirical evidence clearly shows that
> I probably won't have one. Note that laws and insurance rates assume
> that my accident probabilty is reflected by the statistics of the
> general population, reasonable since a case by case study is not
> viable. Moreover, I can
> further argue that the is a deterministic mechanism which precludes
> probabilistic analysis.
>
> A slight rectification: the only two collisions I've had occured when
> I was parked in a lot and someone drove into me, so I should probably
> wear a seat bealt when in my parked vehicle.
Dumbass,
This is also known as the NASA theory of risk
management.
That is, "It hasn't blown up the last 50 times we
launched it, so the probability of its blowing up
must be very small."
Best of luck,
Fredmaster Ben
ilan
Yes, and that is a good theory, in fact the only one possible. The
scientific method is to analyze the experimental data and find an
explanatory theory consistent with it. In my case, the explanatory
theory is that my driving skill gives a deterministic model which
means that probabilistic reasoning is no longer relevant, e.g.,
applying probabilistic reasoning would be like analyzing chess moves
by statistical analysis. Now, I did once have a captive audience, as I
presented this argument to a class I was teaching. It was funny when
they ran out of arguments contradicting me, just stating "you're
wrong, even though we can't explain why," and then probably going to
the dean to make sure that I would never get tenure.
Concerning your NASA example, one fallacy in your argument is that
it's not just probability that matters, but expectation, that is
probability multiplied by resulting situation. So, even though the
probability of blowing up is small, the consequences are disastrous.
So one should attempt to eliminate any possibility of error. None of
my students thought of this, by the way.
-ilan
RicodJour
That goes without saying. :)~
> I usually don't
> wear seat belts, and I can justify
you meant rationalize, but please continue
> this with accident statistics, that
> is my own, since I've never had an accident in over 30 years and
> hundreds of thousands of miles, empirical evidence clearly shows that
> I probably won't have one. Note that laws and insurance rates assume
> that my accident probabilty is reflected by the statistics of the
> general population, reasonable since a case by case study is not
> viable. Moreover, I can
> further argue that the is a deterministic mechanism which precludes
> probabilistic analysis.
I could argue any position at any time, but that really has no bearing
on random chance.
> A slight rectification: the only two collisions I've had occured when
> I was parked in a lot and someone drove into me, so I should probably
> wear a seat bealt when in my parked vehicle.
I had a car coming in the opposite direction cross the double yellow
lines spinning. 17 year old kid in a brand new one day old sports car
his mom leased for him. Combined speed was ~70+ and I T-boned the
driver's door. He paid the hardest way, I walked away. Cars were
both totaled. Even wearing the seatbelt my head banged the windshield
hard enough to shatter it. Without the seatbelt I would have been
launched into an Anton's Special Road Pizza.
The common misconception is that risk is solely something that you are
in control of accepting, and not a factor of the idiots behind the
wheels of other cars.
Here's to hoping we both follow our paths to a ripe old age, and die
quickly without ever see it coming. Like that guy in Vanishing Point.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7dtzr_vanishing-point-finale_news
You can skip to 2 minutes in (if you're a Philistine).
R
Phil H
> On Feb 3, 8:05 am, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From my original comment I implied speeding was one of many
> > transgressions which costs 37 000 lives per year in the US yet there
> > has never been a "real" assault on that statistic. Its been that
> > number for decades.
>
>
>
> And try sorting the chart at the following link by "fatalities per 100
>
> > While speeding on its own may not contribute much
> > and not paying attention on its own may not contribute much but
> > speeding and not paying attention........
>
> Yes, but hypothetically compare NOT speeding and not paying attention
> or simply compare speeding to not paying attention It's the "not
> paying attention" part that creates the problem.
>
> I should also note that the paramedic friend who commented about the
> (ir)relevance of speeding was adamant about the benefit of seatbelt
> use. I think her comment was that, of traffic fatalities in her
> personal experience, not one had been wearing a seatbelt.
> In essence, her experience reflected the marketing adage that "seat
> belts save lives."
>
> > If your local metropolitan population is 1 million, statistically 2
> > people die every week as the result of traffic "accidents".
>
> That does appear to be true (~2.13) even using the low 2009 "fraction
> of population" figure from the Wikipedia table.
>
> DR
"That does not seem to be true."
I admit that it does not seem true also. But if you investigate a
little closer, that report you hold up is someone (executive director
of the Governors Highway Safety Association) taking advantage of the
situation and justifying their position. The reason quoted in many
articles is the recession, gas prices and folks not driving as far and
staying closer to home. Expect it to return to normal when the economy
picks back up.
Phil H
ilan
> You can skip to 2 minutes in (if you're a Philistine).
>
> R
I think that I have an extremely good understanding of risk factors on
the open highway. In particular, any bicycle ride is much riskier than
any car trip, on my bicycle I'm basically an open target to any drunk
guy or person changing his CD, 8-track, ipod to plow right into me
with absolutely nothing I can do about it. I particularly recall the
Oklahoma truck which passed close by scaring me and the the boat
trailer which reduces clearance to zero leading to a real double
whammy. Strangely enough, I've had cars cross the double yellow twice
right in front of me, both times I was on my bicycle, maybe the
collision was avoided due to a smaller profile. I'll get killed or
maimed riding my bicycle long before any car accident, and I'll also
probably have a while to see it coming too.
-ilan
DirtRoadie
That's why I suggested sorting and viewing the chart by "fatalities
per 100 million v.m.t." (which has declined steadily) so as to not be
stuck on just the total "annual fatality" figure, which is variable .
You cited 37K as the magic fatality number. I recall having thought
(erroneously) for years that 50K was the figure. I didn't look very
hard but I was (out of curiosity) also trying to find data going back
to the 50's.
DR
DirtRoadie
Here's a more complete compilation of data:
http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf
The steady decline in the "fatal rate" from to ~24 to ~1.5 is
remarkable.
DR
Phil H
The fatal rate from 1982-2003 went from 2.7 --> 1.5. Impressive no?
The number of fatalities was flatlined. Statistics, the art or
presenting data in a favorable or not so favorable a light. Will the
real statistic please stand up. If you think about all the safety
precautions that have been put into place, seat belts, antilock
brakes, improved roads etc etc, I don't think that any fatal rate
improvement is anything to do with improved driving habits,
unfortunately. My 37 000 came from automobile statistics. If you add
in pedestrians, motorcycles, bicycles etc it would be well over 40
000. I hadn't looked at it for a couple of years so it was a bit of a
surprise to see the reduction. 20 000 a year gun associated homicides
is another I haven't looked at in a while.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
> You can skip to 2 minutes in (if you're a Philistine).
>
> R
Despite all the bullshit we toss at each other I'm glad you wore a
seatbelt.
Anton Berlin
> You can skip to 2 minutes in (if you're a Philistine).
>
> R
He should have been wearing a seatbelt or gone around the bulldozers.
At least that's how I was raised.
Anton Berlin
Bloody fucking hell mate - 1/3 is due to excessive speed and the
number is way lower than the one you've cited originally and danced
around ever since.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
1/3 of what? I quoted 37 000 automobile deaths for the last couple of
decades. Going back from 2009 the numbers are.......
30,797 34,172 37,435 38,648 39,252 38,444 38,477
38,491 37,862 37,526 37,140 37,107 37,324 37,494 37,241
36,254. Oh I get it, you thought I said these deaths were all due to
speeding. I said speeding was one of many transgressions which caused
the total number of deaths meaning speeding wasn't the only cause.
Thanks for supplying the 1/3 though that reinforces my original point
about sports doping and speeding.
Phil H
RicodJour
> seatbelt.
Thank you - me, too. Are we done with the hugging now?
Send me a fucking pizza, dumbass. You're a goddamned pizza-tease.
Mussolini was one and look what they did to him.
R
RicodJour
> At least that's how I was raised.
The Dukes of Hazard would have jumped the General Lee right over those
dozers.
R
RicodJour
I think they're saying that it's okay to speed if you only do it for
short distances. That's probably why drag racing is so safe.
R
DirtRoadie
I have to add my story, although it's a "near miss" tale regarding
"risks" completely beyond my control. I was in Denver heading west on
6th Avenue (an interstate-like freeway) on a rainy (this is important)
Saturday morning. Not much traffic. I was in the center lane. In my
side mirror I saw a vehicle coming up fast in the left
lane. Although its speed was notable, I hardly gave it a second
thought. Shortly thereafter my peripheral vision caught movement in
the windshield mounted rear-view mirror. The vehicle I had seen was
about 20 feet behind me traveling my speed in my lane BROADSIDE!
It eventually ended up coming to a stop on the right hand shoulder
without flipping or running off the road. It missed me, but there was
not a thing I could have done if it hadn't.
Anyhow, the simple point being that "risk" is not entirely
controllable.
DR
Frederick the Great
<d989c445-6673-4ace...@g11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> Like that guy in Vanishing Point.
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7dtzr_vanishing-point-finale_news
> You can skip to 2 minutes in (if you're a Philistine).
One of those movies that is lost on me;
probably because I am not cool.
_Joe_Dirt_ [2001] is about my speed.
--
Old Fritz
Mike
> Check out this quote: "The one thing I would add about Armstrong is
> that I’m not sure he’s as proud of the person he is today as I am of
> myself." Compare Armstrong's CV: "World Champion, beating cancer,
> destroying the Tour de France record, coming back from retirement to
> finish on the podium, and last year's disastrous Tour better than
> anything Bassons ever did as a professional," to Bassons CV: "Spoke up
> to Armstrong one time, maybe a stage win in Paris-Camembert or
> something equivalent, left cycling because...." I think Bassons
> should reflect on the following: in life, you should know where you
> stand relative to others.
>
> -ilan
What is their some kind of hierarchy involved when it comes to self-
respect?
Armstrong was a better cyclist.
Bassons is a better human being. I think this is about traditional
morals and ethics.
I think Basson is talking about respecting yourself as a human being
that can stand to look at yourself in the face in the mirror every
morning.
Lance Armstrong was a genetically talented athlete, a well trained
corporate spokesperson and the greatest dope taker of all time, how is
this better than anyone in the grand scheme of things?
He pedalled a bike fast, he took so much HGH in 95 and 96 that he
contracted cancer, thanks to superb medical care and a great deal of
luck he recovered to make millions and inspire retards to wear yellow
wristbands.
This is all impressive and materially successful, but Armstrong is a
total liar, who burnt everyone who was ever "friends" with him.
It's all very Fuastian - Bassons is saying that Armstrong sold his
soul to the devil and is paying the price. And not in a religious
way...
To say Armstrong is better than Bassons is reinforcing everything that
is wrong with sports in general, and probably can be expanded to an
condemnation of all of society.
Your thesis: that Armstrong is rich and successful, therefore he is
superior to Bassons, who is less rich and successful.
is practical and pragmatic, probably true from the perspective of most
people,
but Bassons does not agree - LA is morally bankrupt and therefore
inferior to Bassons, who raced clean and spoke out against doping,
which is rare in the pro peloton.
I'm not saying either perspective is right or wrong, but which side
you agree with says a lot about the type of person you are.
Lance is Machiavelli, Landis is St. Augustine and Bassons is
Dosteovsky (crime and punishment) I guess. That is the best way I
could explain it...
RicodJour
>
> What is their some kind of hierarchy involved when it comes to self-
> respect?
> Armstrong was a better cyclist.
> Bassons is a better human being. I think this is about traditional
> morals and ethics.
This from the doping dude whose brain is so scrambled he can't even
remember who his brother told him was a dick, and needed a bye to get
bumped up to a cat he shouldn't have been in.
You are priceless, Marty, don't ever change.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
For a mathematician you don't do error analysis very well.
That's because mathematicians are never wrong.
Those of us who are wrong sometimes as part of our
professional qualifications have to think about it.
What we determine from the fact that you haven't
been in an accident in 30 years is that the probability
of your getting in an accident per year is small.
Just like before one blew up, the probability of the shuttle
blowing up per launch was small. But statistically
consistent with small and not zero. Not
deterministic anything.
We have no data on the probability of your getting
hurt in an accident and whether it is reduced by
you wearing a seatbelt, since you have not been in
enough accidents with and without for us to measure
the difference. But we have plenty of data on other
people and whether the seatbelt makes a difference.
Even if your driving habits are such that they reduce
the chance of you getting in an accident, if an
accident occurs, your driving habits are unlikely to
make the seatbelt's statistical benefit for your corpus
different from its benefits for all the other people.
As you correctly point out, it's about expectation,
and that factors into the expectation value.
You're very important to RBR because you're the
only Robin Williams impersonator we've got, so I
don't want you to get hurt. Thus my concern.
Buckle down, Winsocki,
Fredmaster Ben
Mike
Rico,
Your posts are so predictable, stick to woodworking, where you seem
to know what you
are talking about.
My brain is not scrambled, I met hundreds and hundreds of cyclists
when I was racing, and
and I'm sure my brother told me
that both Brad and Bruce were not my kind of person, not gonna be my
best buddies, I'm sure they would feel the same way about me, and yeah
- Brad and Bruce - I'm a jerk, kill me.
I told everyone - to be honest - that I got an upgrade to 1, a few
points short, because I don't want to glorify my experiences, because
they were very modest - but I was gonna get the points in February in
Arizona, at Parker, and Usery and then in Fresno in March and many
other racers like that - you don't know anything about this kind of
stuff.
And I raced as a 1 for a few years and got results in pro/1 only
races.
What about you? Did you ever do Snelling? Then McClane Pacific and
then Parker and Usery and then VOS, and then
the really good riders - not me - got to do Redlands. Then Tucson,
Bisbee, Gila, States, Superweek, etc. That was the schedule. 60+ races
a year.
I really raced. Did you?
A bunch of Freds pontificating about a sport they know nothing about -
that is what RBR has become.
ilan
This reminds me of when me and my geek friends were very strong at
chess and we would regularly get confronted with weak amateurs whom we
would beat at speed chess for money telling us: "You may be better at
chess but I'm better at life."
More generally, there is a "loser mentality" in which you rationalize
losing by deciding that you are losing because you are a better
person. This behavior is described quite well and is the subject of
the book The Hustler by Walter Tevis (and to a lesser extent the
movie). I suggest you read it. Pool is somewhat similar to cycling in
that the strategic and psychological element plays an important role,
it's not just about strength, being clever and having a certain
emotional mindset helps a lot.
-ilan
RicodJour
> On Feb 4, 11:53 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > This from the doping dude whose brain is so scrambled he can't even
> > remember who his brother told him was a dick, and needed a bye to get
> > bumped up to a cat he shouldn't have been in.
>
> > You are priceless, Marty, don't ever change.
>
> that both Brad and Bruce were not my kind of person, not gonna be my
> best buddies
Does this brother of yours inhabit a separate body, or is he more like
a voice you hear telling you what to do?
R
Phil H
> On Feb 4, 9:33 pm, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:08 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bloody fucking hell mate - 1/3 is due to excessive speed and the
> > > number is way lower than the one you've cited originally and danced
> > > around ever since.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > 1/3 of what? I quoted 37 000 automobile deaths for the last couple of
> > decades. Going back from 2009 the numbers are.......
> > 30,797 34,172 37,435 38,648 39,252 38,444 38,477
> > 38,491 37,862 37,526 37,140 37,107 37,324 37,494 37,241
> > 36,254. Oh I get it, you thought I said these deaths were all due to
> > speeding. I said speeding was one of many transgressions which caused
> > the total number of deaths meaning speeding wasn't the only cause.
> > Thanks for supplying the 1/3 though that reinforces my original point
> > about sports doping and speeding.
>
>
> I think they're saying that it's okay to speed if you only do it for
> short distances. That's probably why drag racing is so safe.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I taught AP statistics for a couple of years and the US driving deaths
was one of the case studies in the course. There are lots of variables
but one thing that is obvious is the risk is not equal among drivers
even after correcting for miles driven and other confounding
variables. I've never seen so many multiple car accidents until I
moved to Tucson. But it's so obvious, they all drive one car length
apart at 60 mph.
Phil H
Fred
>I've never seen so many multiple car accidents until I
> moved to Tucson. But it's so obvious, they all drive one car length
> apart at 60 mph.
> Phil H
It's not a problem till they're no car lengths apart...
Anton Berlin
> On Feb 4, 9:33 pm, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:08 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bloody fucking hell mate - 1/3 is due to excessive speed and the
> > > number is way lower than the one you've cited originally and danced
> > > around ever since.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > 1/3 of what? I quoted 37 000 automobile deaths for the last couple of
> > decades. Going back from 2009 the numbers are.......
> > 30,797 34,172 37,435 38,648 39,252 38,444 38,477
> > 38,491 37,862 37,526 37,140 37,107 37,324 37,494 37,241
> > 36,254. Oh I get it, you thought I said these deaths were all due to
> > speeding. I said speeding was one of many transgressions which caused
> > the total number of deaths meaning speeding wasn't the only cause.
> > Thanks for supplying the 1/3 though that reinforces my original point
> > about sports doping and speeding.
>
>
> I think they're saying that it's okay to speed if you only do it for
> short distances. That's probably why drag racing is so safe.
>
> R
Remember that ass clown that ran over a bunch of people in Tenn ?
Phil H
On a good day your reaction time is ~.20 seconds. At 60mph you've
traveled 18ft before you even start to do anything. This is OK with
cars braking under normal circumstances as long as you are paying
attention. When someone cuts across a lane and is hit, the speed
reduction of the colliding car exceeds normal braking and the cars
behind......well, like I said, multiple car accidents.
Phil H
Frederick the Great
<8b6754d9-8b47-46d2...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Fred <fred....@yahoo.com> wrote:
You want a NASCAR thread on your hands?
--
Old Fritz
Fred
Quit trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper, dumbass...
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh sorry, three numbers in one post, a bit much huh! While we are at
it, 2 posts in one thread Fred, I suggest you take a knap.
Phil H
Fred
If you insist on missing the obvious humor in the comment about
crashing (IOW, 'no car lengths apart') and blathering on about
reaction times, blah, blah, blah... fine. So, the question is, is it
that I get bored by the math, or are you just humorless?
Fred
Anton Berlin
likely to hurt anyone. There should be a minimum amount of
intoxication instead of the pussy .08. Hell, a lot of drunk don't
even need to use headlights or drive on the streets 80% of the time.
Driving on sidewalks and in fields 20% of the time would reduce
roadway accidents by at least that much.
Theodore Heise
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
><723fe2bc-b383-4d3f...@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 9:43 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-wont-judge-landis-and-armstrong
>> > "Bassons says that, while the public, media and authorities
>> > view doping in terms of "legal" and "illegal", an athlete
>> > will often superimpose his own ideas of what is legitimate
>> > and what is not. Landis, for example, told Kimmage that, for
>> > him, doping was a means - the only means in a sport allegedly
>> > riddled with corruption - to realize a Tour de France dream.
>> > I like this guy. Very logical, almost dispassionate way of
>> > viewing doping. He makes some conclusions about Lance that
>> > support widely-held beliefs without proof, but other than
>> > that, I'd say he's got it very much together.
>> Sorry, but this Bassons guy is an ignorant self-righteous
>> non-entity. Check out this quote: "The one thing I would add
>> about Armstrong is that I’m not sure he’s as proud of the
>> person he is today as I am of myself." Compare Armstrong's CV:
>> "World Champion, beating cancer, destroying the Tour de France
>> record, coming back from retirement to finish on the podium,
>> and last year's disastrous Tour better than anything Bassons
>> ever did as a professional," to Bassons CV: "Spoke up to
>> Armstrong one time, maybe a stage win in Paris-Camembert or
>> something equivalent, left cycling because...." I think
>> Bassons should reflect on the following: in life, you should
>> know where you stand relative to others.
>
> Each bassoon having his big, fat say.
D'oh! That's too funny. Good thing I had no coffee in my mouth.
--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <th...@heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not really humorless, just ......well, funny you should bring this up,
I was at a friends for dinner last night and they had a guest from the
UK who had several jokes.
Prince Charles was driving over to the palace and had just pulled into
the grounds when he ran over one of his mother's corgis. Oh dear he
thought, mater is going to be really upset.
He picked up the corgi and walked over to the side of the driveway and
was going to hide it in the bushes when he noticed an unusual looking
bottle under the bush. He laid the dead corgi down and picked up the
bottle and pulled out the stopper and out pops a genie. The genie says
thank you for letting me out and I will grant you one wish. Charlie
boy thinks for a minute and picks up the corgi and holds it out and
says, please make the corgi come back to life. The genie looks at it
and says that's one thing I can't do. That's a life and death God
thing and something I don't have in my powers. Think of something
else. So Charles thinks again and says, please can you make Camilla
beautiful. The genie thinks for a minute and says, let me take another
look at that corgi.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
http://thepigeon.co.nz/national/pedophiles-keeping-children-safe-by-driving-slowly-around-schools/
New Zealand’s paedophiles are doing their bit for our childrens’
safety by driving slower around primary schools, according to a
statement made by the New Zealand Police Commisioner on Monday. Most
sex offenders have been clocked by speed cameras to be traveling well
below the special 40kmph speed limit imposed around school zones, and
their laudable efforts have not gone unnoticed by authorities and
school groups.
“These men have set a shining example for us all to follow in the area
of child safety,” Police Commisioner Charles Gordon said, speaking at
a ‘Keep Kids Safe’ event at Remuera Primary School. “Not only have
they endeavoured to reduce their own speeds around schools, but have
slowed down traffic flow in general by driving below 20, 10 sometimes
even zero kilometres per hour.”
“Simply exemplary.” Gordon extolled.
Principal James Sutton also expressed similar sentiments at the same
event, claiming. “The worst part of our job as teachers is looking
parents in the face and telling them that their precious little boy or
girl has been hurt because someone has been driving recklessly on the
roads surrounding school grounds. The actions of our nation’s
paedophiles are helping ensure that we don’t have to deliver that
terrifying news to parents in exactly those words.”
Parents’ associations too, have come out in support of New Zealand’s
perverts and their efforts, “I for one feel much safer, knowing that
there are weirdos out there looking out for my children – sometimes
even when they are out of school” PTA member and stay-at-home mum,
Susie McMillan revealed, beaming. “It gives me the freedom to enjoy my
day without having to worry about the kids getting run over all the
time.”
“And I am so much more at ease about leaving them poorly supervised
now,” the mother of two admitted, laughing in an overtly carefree
manner.
The Child Molester’s Society of New Zealand has expressed quivering
excitement at these developments and claim that because of the
positive response, some paedophiles even plan to offer children rides
home and help avoid what can be a dangerous walk home. Others intend
to incentivise child safety on roads by offering chocolate to children
who exercise proper traffic decorum, as long as the children are
willing to reach into their back pockets and get it themsleves.