Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

More infra promoters

107 views
Skip to first unread message

James

unread,
Jul 21, 2016, 8:53:30 PM7/21/16
to

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 21, 2016, 11:31:59 PM7/21/16
to
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
> http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-study-confirms-protected-bike-lanes-get-more-people-bikes-and-reduce-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

It was about that time that I stopped my membership in LAB. The
duplicity was too much to bear.


--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 10:31:34 AM7/22/16
to
I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic cyclists had
a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists, respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for pedestrians.'”

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics with no explanation.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in bicycle chutes).

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 11:01:54 AM7/22/16
to
> a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists, respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for pedestrians.'â€
>
> I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics with no explanation.
>
> I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in bicycle chutes).
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

Does the guy who decides get a better kickback from the
picket and paint suppliers or the actual mafia running the
asphalt racket?


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 1:27:24 PM7/22/16
to
Of course drivers do. Here's a study (done in Portland) that claims
racial bias in how often drivers stop for pedestrians.

http://web.natur.cuni.cz/~houdek3/papers/Goddard%20et%20al%202014.pdf

Abstract:

Racial minorities are disproportionately represented in pedestrian
traffic fatalities, indicating a significant public health and safety
issue. Psychological and social identity-related factors have previously
been shown to influence drivers’ behaviors toward pedestrians. If
drivers’ behavior reflects racial bias and results in differential
behavior toward Black and White pedestrians, this may lead to disparate
pedestrian crossing experiences based on race and potentially contribute
to disproportionate safety outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in a
controlled field experiment at an unsignalized midblock marked crosswalk
in downtown Portland, Oregon. Six trained male research team
confederates (3 White, 3 Black) simulated an individual pedestrian
crossing, while trained observers cataloged the number of cars that
passed and the time until a driver yielded. Results (90 pedestrian
trials, 168 driver-subjects) revealed that Black pedestrians were passed
by twice as many cars and experienced wait times that were 32% longer
than White pedestrians. Results support the hypothesis that minority
pedestrians experience discriminatory treatment by drivers.

I don't know how well the study was conducted (only read the abstract),
but the result seems plausible to me. It does not follow that building
bike paths in the ghetto will help.

> I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend
> it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes
> to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing
> bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in
> bicycle chutes).

That's because you selfishly want roads that work better for you, who
already rides. The goal of all the public policy hoo-haw about bike
infrastructure is not to make *cyclists* "feel safer", it's to make
*non-cyclists* feel like it might be safer for them to try cycling.

I'm not saying that's a laudable or even defensible goal, or that it
would have any actual effect on public health, or traffic congestion, or
whatever the ultimate goal actually is ...


--

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 2:21:23 PM7/22/16
to
First, that study doesn't show that racial minorities get hit more often. It shows (if anything) that racial minorities wait longer at crosswalks. Second, I don't believe the report, being that I ride downtown every day past endless pedestrian facilities, and the cars are constantly slamming on their brakes when someone does so much as a head feint toward a cross walk -- black, white, man, woman, etc., etc. Third, for driver behavior to affect fatality rates, you would have to conclude that drivers are consciously hitting (for example) black people but not white people. Fourth, there is no mention of driver color. For all we know, minorities are hitting minorities. It's another one of these dopey PSU studies done by a few guys who walked out the front of the campus down to the park blocks and ran some experiments over a lunch hour. It's right up there with their study on bicycle facilities in Portland -- and the dopey facility in front of the campus.

As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone -- being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is getting sucked dry by PERS payments. It's not like we have a lot of spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.

-- Jay Beattie.

Duane

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 3:17:02 PM7/22/16
to
Depends on what you mean by conflicts. We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

On top of all this, we have two seasons in Montreal. Winter and
construction season. The traffic is awful because of all the
construction and the driver's tempers reflect that. To my point, I
haven't had anyone yet pass me too closely so no conflict in that
respect. I have had a bunch burning rubber, yelling, hand gesturing
etc. So there IS conflict. These are mostly the ones that would have
buzzed me before the law anyway so I'll take that as a win.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 3:51:47 PM7/22/16
to
On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
> ... We have a new minimum passing
> law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
> it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
> change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
> intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
> it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

--
- Frank Krygowski

SMS

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 4:15:18 PM7/22/16
to
On 7/22/2016 11:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Second, I don't believe the report, being that I ride downtown every day past endless pedestrian facilities, and the cars are constantly slamming on their brakes when someone does so much as a head feint toward a cross walk -- black, white, man, woman, etc., etc.

I recall visiting southern California around 1979. My former college
roommate said "watch this" and he stepped off the curb in Huntington
Beach and the cars slammed on their brakes and stopped. I don't think
that works anymore down there, but apparently it's still the norm where
you are.

When I'm driving on a multi-lane road and a pedestrian enters the
crosswalk I stop. But I am worried that a vehicle in the adjacent lane
will zoom by and not see the pedestrian who is blocked by my vehicle.

On some multi-lane roads they've installed crosswalks with flashers
embedded in the pavement which are activated with a button. These make
it clear to all drivers in all lanes that a pedestrian is entering the road.

> As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone -- being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is getting sucked dry by PERS payments.

That needs to be fixed, especially as those communists in Teslas and
Leafs are paying zero gas taxes on their vehicles. It's like diesel car
owners that used to use heating oil in their cars by removing the red color.

> It's not like we have a lot of spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.

What I notice about most of the infrastructure projects in my area is
that they are done to bypass especially bad routes for bicycles, and to
create good routes. This generally involves new overpasses or
underpasses to go over or under freeways, waterways, or railways. Routes
to Google in Mountain View, and Oracle in Redwood Shores stand out.

"The trail extension is expected to be heavily used for both
transportation and recreational trips that were previously unsafe or
inconvenient for pedestrians and bicyclists trying to cross Highway 101
at Rengstorff Ave or Shoreline Blvd."

<https://transportationalternatives.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/permanente-creek-bikeped-bridge-opens/>

<Belmont US 101/Ralston Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge>

These small, though costly, pieces of infrastructure are often the
difference between cycling or driving.


Tim McNamara

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 5:14:11 PM7/22/16
to
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:31:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> It was about that time that I stopped my membership in LAB. The
> duplicity was too much to bear.

I quit probably 20 years ago when LAB was taken over by people who
waantd to be paid Washington lobbyists and stopped being a bicycling
organization. I was flooded with "send money now or your right to ride
your bike will be taken away" letters several times a month.

Sort of like what happened with the NRA a few decades back, when it
stopped being a sporting organiztion and became a gun manufacturer's
lobby. I stopped being a member of that, too (I was a member through
the Boy Scout marksmanship merit badge program of the time) unil its
focus shifted.

Locally we have a Bike Coalition that considers it a great victory to
put inadequate and dangerous bike lanes on really shitty high traffic
roads, instead of using the nice, quiet parallel road a block or two
away. Bike campaigners are sometimes our enemies when they lose
perspective, often creating an unhealthy situation for cyclists and
stirring up resentment among business owners, residents and drivers by
taking out parking and reducing driving lanes. I think they are using a
50 year old handbook of cycling planning here.

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 5:48:08 PM7/22/16
to
I'm all for highway crossings. We got one on my way home from work: http://tinyurl.com/z993yrg
Bet you don't have an elevator! http://tinyurl.com/gvjsku3 It goes over to condo hell in the south waterfront which also has a cycletrack. I try to avoid the area.

You know, North Shoreline looks perfectly fine and has a nice bike facility. http://tinyurl.com/jtzjt3u I'd probably ride that rather than going further west to a MUP. Charleston looks pretty nice, too. http://tinyurl.com/zpm2hp6 You guys are a bunch of whiners. We kill for that kind of clean pavement and nice bike lanes.

My Weds and Thurs commute: http://tinyurl.com/hlh8ldz Nice little 20% climb.

Hey look, Google Maps caught some other idiot riding up the hill: http://tinyurl.com/h6lhp5o

-- Jay Beattie

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 6:26:50 PM7/22/16
to
On 7/22/2016 5:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> My Weds and Thurs commute: http://tinyurl.com/hlh8ldz Nice little 20% climb.
>
> Hey look, Google Maps caught some other idiot riding up the hill: http://tinyurl.com/h6lhp5o

That's fake. Everyone knows you can't climb a hill like that with
downtube shifters.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 6:34:19 PM7/22/16
to
More likely, they're using a brand-spanking-new handbook, the NACTO guide.

Those segregation-uber-alles advocates were very frustrated because the
AASHTO guide for the design of bike facilities pointed out (for example)
about a dozen practical reasons that sidepaths cause safety problems.
So they banded together to form a new organization, NACTO, and published
their own "guide." It's actually a collection of every bike facility
daydream that ever saw pavement - a smorgasbord of "gee whiz" ideas,
some sensible and many that are nuts.

Oh, and they lobbied like hell to give it some legitimacy, and to have
government agencies permit its use.

See http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=6051


--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 6:47:40 PM7/22/16
to
+1
Walked away from LAW and most 'cycling' shakedown scams like
it, I'm ambivalent about my NRA membership and our local
idiots make my cycling less pleasurable in many ways.

John B.

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 7:40:34 PM7/22/16
to
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:31:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I don't think that is unique to the bicycle bunch. The NRA used to be
a rather soft spoken bunch that promoted target shooting, gun safety
and training. They too seem to have changed to a group that deems
dedicated to gathering up large bundles of money.

Maybe that is civilization creeping closer and closer :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Andre Jute

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 8:01:05 PM7/22/16
to
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 7:21:23 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>
> First, that study doesn't show that racial minorities get hit more often. It shows (if anything) that racial minorities wait longer at crosswalks.

Statistics without common sense is garbage.

GIGO. Some people just cannot help putting in garbage; they know no better. But when the study is deliberately skewed, by hand-fettled questions nudging the respondents towards the expected answers, and by massaging the returns (look for phrases like "adjustment for sampling anomalies" and "smoothing", and look out for odd start and end dates, or weird category intervals, or trick log scales, all signs of someone who wasn't researching a falsifiable hypothesis but proving a preformed opinion, usually tendentious) then accusations of deliberate dishonesty should follow, but too often don't because we are simply too used to this kind of deliberate deceit.

Andre Jute

John B.

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 10:34:21 PM7/22/16
to
But I wonder what effect bicycle facilities actually have. I am seeing
a few "bicycle paths" here in Bangkok, essentially some painted strips
on wide sidewalks - say a "sidewalk" that is perhaps the same width as
a normal road traffic lane that very few people actually walk on. I
rode about a kilometer on one, once, and have never seen anyone else
ride on one.

I also note that in the late 1890s the so called Golden Age of
bicycles, there were very large numbers of cyclists, both recreational
and for transportation, but by 1920 bicycles had become a child's toy.
One wonders why? A lack of bicycle facilities?
--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 10:44:34 PM7/22/16
to
Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
36.125" away?

It looks like "J" may be going to get rich defending car guys. Kids
will be transferring to a better school, new car for the Missus... :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

W. Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 11:03:05 PM7/22/16
to
On 07-22-2016 16:48, jbeattie wrote:
> Hey look, Google Maps caught some other idiot riding up the hill: http://tinyurl.com/h6lhp5o

They didn't catch me but I did pedal up this one and many others.

http://tinyurl.com/jtcyjmd


--
Wes Groleau

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 11:29:24 PM7/22/16
to
There have been places where cops used a sort of a sting operation, with
one plainclothes cop riding while another observed passing motorists.

What we're actually hoping for, should the law be enacted, is A)
publicity regarding the law; and B) less plausible "he swerved in front
of me" defenses for motorists.


--
- Frank Krygowski

John B.

unread,
Jul 23, 2016, 4:37:20 AM7/23/16
to
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/22/2016 10:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
>>>> ... We have a new minimum passing
>>>> law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
>>>> it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
>>>> change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
>>>> intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
>>>> it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.
>>>
>>> Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
>>> "1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
>>> specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
>>> difficult.
>>>
>>> We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
>>> achieve. We're still trying.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
>> in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
>> 36.125" away?
>>
>> It looks like "J" may be going to get rich defending car guys. Kids
>> will be transferring to a better school, new car for the Missus... :-)
>
>There have been places where cops used a sort of a sting operation, with
>one plainclothes cop riding while another observed passing motorists.

Will that fly? I remember years ago when the cops first started using
"radar guns". Someone, I think in New York, maybe Long Island, took a
case to court and proved that the system of using a tuning fork to
calibrate the gun wasn't accurate.

Several rods held up across the court room and the Policeman asked to
say which of the rods is 36" long?

>What we're actually hoping for, should the law be enacted, is A)
>publicity regarding the law; and B) less plausible "he swerved in front
>of me" defenses for motorists.

Perhaps, but I did see two studies done in Los Angeles County, one
reporting the State police findings and a second done by a Bicycle
Aficionado and they both demonstrated that roughly half of the
collisions between bicycles and automobiles were the fault of the
cyclist - the majority of the collisions deemed to be the fault of the
cyclist was riding the wrong way on a road or highway.

It would seem logical that if the autos can be prevented from hitting
bicycles that will solve only about half the problem.
--
cheers,

John B.

Andrew Chaplin

unread,
Jul 23, 2016, 9:07:04 AM7/23/16
to
John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in
news:72m5pbl9org6j30d0...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
>>> ... We have a new minimum passing
>>> law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter
>>> when it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to
>>> have to change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this
>>> is the intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it.
>>> Maybe it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been
>>> following the law.
>>
>>Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
>>"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
>>specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
>>difficult.
>>
>>We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
>>achieve. We're still trying.
>
> Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
> in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
> 36.125" away?

In Ontario, which amended its Highway Traffic Act in ways similar to Québec,
it looks as if, unless a policeman witnesses an instance of passing too
close, it will only be enforced as the result of an accident.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 23, 2016, 11:29:00 AM7/23/16
to
I agree that the problems are split pretty much 50:50. And honestly, a
three feet passing law wouldn't be my first choice of strategy in a more
ideal world. But it is a politically achievable preliminary step.

As a long term strategy, I'm very much in favor of education (as well as
better law enforcement). That's education of both cyclists and motorists.

I think the main lesson that motorists need is that bicyclists do, right
now, have full legal rights to the road; and that as a consequence,
motorists need to slow down, wait a few seconds, and pass only when it's
safe.

I think a "minimum three feet" law is a potentially useful tool in that
education effort. If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Duane

unread,
Jul 23, 2016, 10:34:43 PM7/23/16
to
The law in Ontario was in place before ours. We ride often to Hawkesbury
or Cornwall and I've noticed the difference.
I don't see how it could actually be enforced except in those 2 ways. I
guess you could take a picture of an offence or something like that. But
it does seem to be working so far. I guess the fear of prosecution does
it.

--
duane

John B.

unread,
Jul 24, 2016, 2:11:28 AM7/24/16
to
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:28:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
I remember in high school there was an optional "Driver's Class" that
taught the traffic code, safe driving, including defensive driving and
even had a dual control car to teach the mechanics of driving. I've
long forgotten the details but I have the feeling that successfully
completing the course gave one some sort of advantage in obtaining
that much desired driver's licence at 16 years of age.

Don't they have this sort of thing now-a-days?

As for "If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice".

Of course it will. If the penalty is 48 hours in the "stocks" on the
town common there will be one result. If the penalty is a $10 fine and
no points on the license, probably a somewhat different result.

--
cheers,

John B.

Andrew Chaplin

unread,
Jul 24, 2016, 8:40:29 AM7/24/16
to
Duane <sp...@flarn.com> wrote in news:812075042.491005284.460000.spoo-
flar...@news.eternal-september.org:

> But it does seem to be working so far. I guess the fear of prosecution
> does it.

Around Ottawa, not so much. My morning commute from the south end leaves me
no option but Bank Street, unless I deviate by a route that adds another 20
minutes to my 25- to 30-minute commute. The heavy goods vehicles (dump
trucks bringing in aggregate, car transporters and the like) crowd cyclists,
and, worse, the tradesmen hauling trailers behind pick-ups seem utterly
unaware of how much wider the track of the trailer is compared to that of
the truck. I give all these beasts a wide berth at the corners.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 24, 2016, 11:18:33 AM7/24/16
to
On 7/24/2016 2:11 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:28:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> I remember in high school there was an optional "Driver's Class" that
> taught the traffic code, safe driving, including defensive driving and
> even had a dual control car to teach the mechanics of driving. I've
> long forgotten the details but I have the feeling that successfully
> completing the course gave one some sort of advantage in obtaining
> that much desired driver's licence at 16 years of age.

Yes, I took one of those classes on summer in high school.

> Don't they have this sort of thing now-a-days?

I'm not sure, but I think driver's training classes have largely gone
away, at least in our state. State support for public schools has been
slashed (so money could go to for-profit charter schools that, on
average, produce worse results). Local school officials have had to put
levies on the ballot to make up for state cuts, but "no new taxes"
sentiment has hurt those efforts. Everything is being cut down to the
minimum needed to have kids pass standardized tests, which are
administered far more often, eating up class time.

And BTW, the state supreme court long ago declared our methods of
funding education to violate the state constitution. But it hasn't changed.

> As for "If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
> passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice".
>
> Of course it will. If the penalty is 48 hours in the "stocks" on the
> town common there will be one result. If the penalty is a $10 fine and
> no points on the license, probably a somewhat different result.

Well, the hopeful analogy is this: A few years ago, a law was passed
requiring motorists to slow down and change lanes if possible when
passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights at the roadside. That
of course included cop cars.

I never saw much publicity about the law. But I heard about it when a
friend got a ticket before the signs were even up. He (a bike club
member, BTW) certainly told everyone he knew about the new law!

That law seems very well obeyed these days. That's not promising that a
minimum passing law will be similarly obeyed, of course. But I can hope.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Duane

unread,
Jul 24, 2016, 7:05:34 PM7/24/16
to
Andrew Chaplin <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> Duane <sp...@flarn.com> wrote in news:812075042.491005284.460000.spoo-
> flar...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> But it does seem to be working so far. I guess the fear of prosecution
>> does it.
>
> Around Ottawa, not so much. My morning commute from the south end leaves me
> no option but Bank Street, unless I deviate by a route that adds another 20
> minutes to my 25- to 30-minute commute. The heavy goods vehicles (dump
> trucks bringing in aggregate, car transporters and the like) crowd cyclists,
> and, worse, the tradesmen hauling trailers behind pick-ups seem utterly
> unaware of how much wider the track of the trailer is compared to that of
> the truck. I give all these beasts a wide berth at the corners.

Yeah when I say it seems to be working in Quebec I can't say what it's like
downtown Montreal. I don't work there and I don't ride there much on my
time off.

I haven't ridden in Ottawa though we just did a weekend trip from Montreal
to Gatineau last June. (Gatineau is in Quebec across a bridge from
Ottawa.) When we got into Gatineau it was like what you describe.
Especially from the hotel to Gatineau Park on the Saturday. When we do the
ride next year I'll see if the new law helps.

--
duane

John B.

unread,
Jul 24, 2016, 10:30:25 PM7/24/16
to
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:18:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/24/2016 2:11 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:28:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> I remember in high school there was an optional "Driver's Class" that
>> taught the traffic code, safe driving, including defensive driving and
>> even had a dual control car to teach the mechanics of driving. I've
>> long forgotten the details but I have the feeling that successfully
>> completing the course gave one some sort of advantage in obtaining
>> that much desired driver's licence at 16 years of age.
>
>Yes, I took one of those classes on summer in high school.
>
>> Don't they have this sort of thing now-a-days?
>
>I'm not sure, but I think driver's training classes have largely gone
>away, at least in our state. State support for public schools has been
>slashed (so money could go to for-profit charter schools that, on
>average, produce worse results). Local school officials have had to put
>levies on the ballot to make up for state cuts, but "no new taxes"
>sentiment has hurt those efforts. Everything is being cut down to the
>minimum needed to have kids pass standardized tests, which are
>administered far more often, eating up class time.
>

At the time I was in High School, my mother was an elected member of
the School board (she took parental responsibility to an extreme) and
I know that the driver education scheme, at the time, was funded by
the town, or at least the dual control car was, and the teacher was
one of the normal high school teachers seconded to the project so I
assume that the town also funded some additional pay for his
participation.

>And BTW, the state supreme court long ago declared our methods of
>funding education to violate the state constitution. But it hasn't changed.
>
>> As for "If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
>> passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice".
>>
>> Of course it will. If the penalty is 48 hours in the "stocks" on the
>> town common there will be one result. If the penalty is a $10 fine and
>> no points on the license, probably a somewhat different result.
>
>Well, the hopeful analogy is this: A few years ago, a law was passed
>requiring motorists to slow down and change lanes if possible when
>passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights at the roadside. That
>of course included cop cars.
>
>I never saw much publicity about the law. But I heard about it when a
>friend got a ticket before the signs were even up. He (a bike club
>member, BTW) certainly told everyone he knew about the new law!
>
>That law seems very well obeyed these days. That's not promising that a
>minimum passing law will be similarly obeyed, of course. But I can hope.

Here there is a law that one must "clear the road" for an emergency
vehicle (who will have its flashing lights and siren) and it is nearly
universally obeyed. I'm sure that if one was observed by the police
not to have complied there would be an instant ticketing.

Here, when they write you a ticket they take your driving license and
you don't get it back until the matter is settled.
--
cheers,

John B.

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 25, 2016, 3:22:43 PM7/25/16
to
I went back and read the whole paper, and the methodology sounds ok to
me: A (black or white) confederate tried to cross the street at a
midblock uncontrolled crosswalk, and an observer some distance away
noted what happened. The confederate did not actually step in the
crosswalk, but stayed on the sidewalk, leaving the drivers not legally
required to yield. Reading between the lines, I suspect that this was
(as you say) because almost all of them would have yielded as required.
50% of the time the first driver stopped anyway, for either race.
The difference was only in how likely subsequent cars were to stop.
There is such a crosswalk a block from my house, and I can assure you
that a brother could stand on the sidewalk looking hopeful for at least
a week before anyone stopped for him.

Collecting data on driver race would have been complicated, since the
relevant datum is how the drivers identified, not how they looked from a
block away. I would be a quite surprised to find that *only* minorities
specifically disfavored their own; that would be a real man bites dog
story.

It's hard to find data on racial disparities on pedestrians being *hit*,
but the NTSC does collect racial data on fatalities. Black people do
die disproportionately in pedestrian collisions. The real losers,
however, are Indians, who seem to be close to twice as likely to be
killed as pedestrians as white people.

Of course we can't conclude that driver bias is responsible for these
disparities, when living conditions and rates of alcohol abuse could
explain them. On the other hand, do you really mean to tell me that one
of the eastern Oregon yahoos you complain about is just as likely to
yield to an Indian pedestrian as a white one? If so, I may have a lead
on a few attractive bridges ...

I disagree that it is necessary for drivers to *consciously* decide to
hit minorities in order to cause a disparate effect. All they have to
do is unconsciously cut it a little closer for those that appear less
than deserving. It is my experience, as the paper claims, that drivers
tend to see yielding to pedestrians as more a matter of courtesy, or a
favor, than a duty.

> As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone --
> being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is
> getting sucked dry by PERS payments. It's not like we have a lot of
> spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not
> arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on
> educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and
> paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.

I selfishly want roads that work better, too. My point was that the
authors of these papers generally don't claim that bicycle facilities will
work better, or be safer, or in any way benefit those that are already
cycling. If anything they leave the idea that facilities are better in
the realm of things everyone knows, like that bike helmets save lives,
or CO2 kills polar bears.

What they do claim is that facilities will convince people to try
cycling. I don't know if that's true, but it might well be.

Suppose for every five couch potatoes that begin to take the fat bike or
the cruiser out on the local path for a spin on the local path one Jay
or Frank decides it's too much trouble to ride to work. Depending on
*why* one thinks it's a Good Thing that more people bike, that might
sound like a fine tradeoff. I suspect that it does for most of the
people writing facility promotion papers.


--

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 25, 2016, 3:43:03 PM7/25/16
to
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

<big snip>
BTW, last Friday, I got some cart food and ate lunch on a bench in front of the exact cross-walk studied by the PSU folks. I learned an important lesson: homeless people don't give a f***! Goddamn, they would just step out into traffic just east or west of the giant marked middle-of-the-block crosswalk (which is about 8' across). It is as though they were trying to avoid it. Cars stopped. There was a car that stopped for an old Asian woman at least five feet before she even hit the curb -- it was odd and proves to me that old Asian women get all the respect. A black dude got the cars to stop, too, but he was with a white dude, so that might explain the prompt attention. Some of the homeless people were so dirty and tanned that it would be hard for a motorist to tell their natural skin color, but again, they didn't wait for anyone to stop anyway.

I'm writing this up as a paper. I'm not sure what it proves, but I can probably get it to prove something.

-- Jay Beattie.



James

unread,
Jul 25, 2016, 5:48:28 PM7/25/16
to
On 26/07/16 05:43, jbeattie wrote:

>
> BTW, last Friday, I got some cart food and ate lunch on a bench in
> front of the exact cross-walk studied by the PSU folks. I learned an
> important lesson: homeless people don't give a f***! Goddamn, they
> would just step out into traffic just east or west of the giant
> marked middle-of-the-block crosswalk (which is about 8' across). It
> is as though they were trying to avoid it. Cars stopped. There was a
> car that stopped for an old Asian woman at least five feet before she
> even hit the curb -- it was odd and proves to me that old Asian women
> get all the respect. A black dude got the cars to stop, too, but he
> was with a white dude, so that might explain the prompt attention.
> Some of the homeless people were so dirty and tanned that it would be
> hard for a motorist to tell their natural skin color, but again, they
> didn't wait for anyone to stop anyway.
>
> I'm writing this up as a paper. I'm not sure what it proves, but I
> can probably get it to prove something.
>


The USian attitude to people who's skin colour is different from
"white", fascinates me.

Sadly the result of our recent federal election shows a growing number
of Australians are similarly racially/religiously challenged. Either
that or those who voted for Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" senators just
did so due to dissatisfaction with the major parties.

I don't look at skin colour of others or clothing they wear while
driving. To me they are people. I don't want to injure or kill any of
them - equally.

--
JS

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 25, 2016, 10:33:10 PM7/25/16
to
Go nuts. I feel sure a man of your accomplishments will find no
difficulty save recruiting six burly confederates who are willing to
appear homeless (or like lawyers on lunch break (coin flip)) for extra
psych credit. Many homeless dudes undoubtedly have problems with
authority, predicting consequences, and avoiding the bad drugs, and this
explains part of their traffic (mis)behavior. But I suspect you would
find that their behavior is partly explained by the belief that drivers
are less likely to give them a break, and some part of that belief is
due to the fact that drivers are, *in fact*, less likely to give them a
break.
--

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 25, 2016, 11:34:45 PM7/25/16
to
That's admirable. I'll note, though, that Australia's treatment of aborigines
seems very similar to America's treatment of our aborigines (native Americans)
and American's blacks.

- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 12:26:29 AM7/26/16
to
At that crosswalk, the (presumed) homeless were getting a free pass. I don't know what they were thinking, but the motorists were stopping. I saw nothing to suggest that they these people were treated less favorably than anyone else. It seemed to me that the motorist were not interested in hitting anyone, regardless of race, color, creed or economic status.


If somebody steps out in front of me, I slam on my brakes -- which I think is the usual response. Those who don't are usually not paying attention, and perhaps there are homicidal psychopaths who decide to floor it. Who knows. I didn't see any of them during my lunchtime observation.

-- Jay Beattie.

John B.

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 1:09:34 AM7/26/16
to
Over here the cars nearly always stop for the old Asian ladies and
usually just honk at the white dudes :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

James

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 1:27:41 AM7/26/16
to
Yes, however I haven't heard of too many police shootings of our
aboriginals in living memory. You guys still seem intent on shooting
your black Americans before asking questions.

Is doing them in with a car less paperwork?

--
JS

John B.

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 1:34:56 AM7/26/16
to
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:48:23 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 26/07/16 05:43, jbeattie wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, last Friday, I got some cart food and ate lunch on a bench in
>> front of the exact cross-walk studied by the PSU folks. I learned an
>> important lesson: homeless people don't give a f***! Goddamn, they
>> would just step out into traffic just east or west of the giant
>> marked middle-of-the-block crosswalk (which is about 8' across). It
>> is as though they were trying to avoid it. Cars stopped. There was a
>> car that stopped for an old Asian woman at least five feet before she
>> even hit the curb -- it was odd and proves to me that old Asian women
>> get all the respect. A black dude got the cars to stop, too, but he
>> was with a white dude, so that might explain the prompt attention.
>> Some of the homeless people were so dirty and tanned that it would be
>> hard for a motorist to tell their natural skin color, but again, they
>> didn't wait for anyone to stop anyway.
>>
>> I'm writing this up as a paper. I'm not sure what it proves, but I
>> can probably get it to prove something.
>>
>
>
>The USian attitude to people who's skin colour is different from
>"white", fascinates me.

Usians? I know a great many Australians and they, overwhelmingly, seem
to consider the general run of "blackfella" as a secondary sort of
person.

Although, to be fair, a mate from Perth who, in his younger days,
owned a sheep station north of Perth, very obviously differentiate
between good blackfellas and no goods. So obviously there are
differentiations within differentiations.

>Sadly the result of our recent federal election shows a growing number
>of Australians are similarly racially/religiously challenged. Either
>that or those who voted for Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" senators just
>did so due to dissatisfaction with the major parties.

From talking with Australians here it seemed that most of them
believed that much of Pauline Hanson's arguments were, at least to
some extent, valid.

>I don't look at skin colour of others or clothing they wear while
>driving. To me they are people. I don't want to injure or kill any of
>them - equally.

An admirable attitude although sometimes difficult to follow.
--
cheers,

John B.

James

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 3:51:02 AM7/26/16
to
I don't understand why.

--
JS




Duane

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 6:30:02 AM7/26/16
to
Nor do I.

--
duane

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 10:22:50 AM7/26/16
to
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.7676c5ee09cd I don't know what to make of the statistics for a number of reasons, particularly since they can be so easily spun -- right and left.

And no, it is quite a bit more paper work if you murder someone. The actual racism in the American justice system nationally is in the sentencing of certain federal crimes, e.g. crack versus powdered cocaine, three strikes, etc., etc. I say "nationally" because we are fifty states, and every state has its own criminal code. Every state, city and county has its own police or sheriff. The "national" police are the FBI. There is no other "USian police."

It has been my experience that most police officers are level-headed, but in a nation with more than one million state and local police officers, you will get murderers. There is work that needs to be done to fix race relations, but the news stories claiming that the "police" (i.e. all police in every state, county and town) are on some murderous rampage against African-Americans is wrong and inflammatory -- as we know from the Dallas shootings.

-- Jay Beattie.



Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 1:19:16 PM7/26/16
to
jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:33:10 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> >> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>> >
>> > <big snip>

[...]
Almost everyone that manages to live at home for a significant fraction
of the time has learned to do that. There are few cases of drivers
simply running over pedestrians deliberately. But there are many cases
where drivers take chances that, once in while, when things go wrong, do
result in hitting someone. Same thing with bicycles -- most drivers
could easily pass someone on a bike with six inches of room many times
before a really bad thing happened.

It's my contention that the quick, semiconscious decision on how big a
risk to take with someone else's life frequently depends on what kind of
person they seem to be. Old ladies of any race usually get a pass.
Younger guys that look like gang bangers not so much.
--

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 4:19:19 PM7/26/16
to
On 7/26/2016 1:19 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
>
> It's my contention that the quick, semiconscious decision on how big a
> risk to take with someone else's life frequently depends on what kind of
> person they seem to be. Old ladies of any race usually get a pass.
> Younger guys that look like gang bangers not so much.

Ian Walker, a British researcher, would say he corroborated your
contention. He claimed to show that motorists passed closer to helmeted
cyclists compared to unhelmeted, and closer to male cyclists than to
those that appeared to be women.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 4:40:43 PM7/26/16
to
I think the main thing we're seeing is media plus activists reacting to
a very few, but admittedly terrible, exceptions. A "Summer of the
Shark" type of coverage.

Yes, those few exceptions are truly terrible. But understand, I don't
think all the "black guy killed by cop" events being protested were
heinous cop misconduct. Cops are no more perfect than the rest of us,
and they sometimes have a terribly difficult job to do. Our local
newspaper has almost daily reports of thugs pulled over for traffic
violations, and found to have illegal guns in the car.

Oddly enough, those events do seem to involve black guys more often than
whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. I'm sure some would say that's racial
profiling. Others would say it's because a far higher percentage of
blacks have illegal guns in their cars. So what's a cop to do? Not stop
a car with a black guy when the plate is flagged on his system?

For a white example: Our ultra-safe suburban village got horrible
newspaper headlines maybe 20 years ago. A village cop shot and killed a
young guy he'd pulled over for loud music. The guy who was killed
worked for the newspaper, loading trucks, and was described in the paper
as a very pleasant, very peaceful young man who loved to listen to music
and relax with his head tilted back toward the sun when not loading the
trucks.

The cop said the kid had reached under the seat, possibly for a gun, and
when the cop tried to grab his arm through the open car door, the kid
hit the accelerator and dragged the cop. The cop feared for his life and
shot.

Turned out the nice young (white) man had a large pile of cash money in
the car, a fine supply of drugs packaged for sale, and yes, a gun under
the seat.

Now if I were in that business, I'd keep the stereo turned down and
drive very carefully. But as one cop friend told me, "They're not
Einsteins, Frank."


--
- Frank Krygowski

John B.

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 6:54:43 PM7/26/16
to
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:50:58 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well it appears that a number of your fellow countrymen (as well as
mine, and a multitude of others)) have problems being completely
neutral.

See: https://www.youtube.com/embed/yZZlo0WZ_iU?rel=0
Certainly the lyrics seem to be sung in an Australian accent.

But honestly, I have never, personally, been in any country that was
not, in fact, prejudiced, to some extent, toward at least some other
people. The Japanese, for example, are xenophobic not only toward all
foreigners but even toward pure blooded Japanese who have spent too
many years outside the home islands.

--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 10:32:27 PM7/26/16
to
It might be asked whether there should be any burden placed on the
disadvantaged to become upright, law abiding and useful citizens?

It might be noted that the Clancy Brothers when performing at the
White House before President Kennedy, sang "We want no Irish here",
which, while perhaps might not be topical when singing to a bloke
named "Kennedy" who is sitting in the White House but certainly had
been when the Kennedy clan arrived in the "The New World" in 1849.
--
cheers,

John B.

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 10:33:04 PM7/26/16
to
I don't know either, but can easily believe that the probability of
being shot, given police contact, is greater for whites than blacks.
The trouble is that the probability of police contact is much greater
for blacks, even in the same neighborhoods.

> And no, it is quite a bit more paper work if you murder someone. The
> actual racism in the American justice system nationally is in the
> sentencing of certain federal crimes, e.g. crack versus powdered
> cocaine, three strikes, etc., etc. I say "nationally" because we are
> fifty states, and every state has its own criminal code. Every state,
> city and county has its own police or sheriff. The "national" police
> are the FBI. There is no other "USian police."

That's just racism written into the law. Cops routinely stop minorities
more often than whites, and for more trivial suspicions. Since most of
us break at least a few laws a day that means more punishment for the
same guilt.

> It has been my experience that most police officers are level-headed,
> but in a nation with more than one million state and local police
> officers, you will get murderers. There is work that needs to be done
> to fix race relations, but the news stories claiming that the "police"
> (i.e. all police in every state, county and town) are on some
> murderous rampage against African-Americans is wrong and inflammatory
> -- as we know from the Dallas shootings.

Most USian cops are reasonable, just as long as they believe you're a
"good guy", but it's surprisingly easy to fall out of that category, and
damned hard to get back in. One of the easy ways is to have a beef with
*any* other cop, level-headed or not. The good cop may not put a boot
in, but he'll surely stand by and watch, then perjure himself to keep
his comrade out of trouble. Cops stick together in a way that must make
the mafia green with envy, or they get hung out to dry.

Just what do we know from the Dallas shootings? It is surely
unfortunate to be shot on the job by a deranged combat veteran, but that
doesn't mean they were doing either a good or bad job. The finale was n
improvised explosive straight out of Fallujah, for which I have yet to
see any believable self-defense justification. In a sane country that
would get some hard looks from the top, here it gets a pat on the back.

Cops droning civilians is a precedent we'll live to regret.

--

John B.

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 10:42:07 PM7/26/16
to
I once made a similar remark to a Maine State Policeman regarding a
escapee from the State Prison, who they caught within 24 hours. I had
remarked that "if it were me I would have found a place where I could
get water and laid up for a couple of days till the hue and cry died
down". The Cop said "Yes you probably could, but those guys aren't
very smart. That is why they are in there."
--
cheers,

John B.

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 26, 2016, 11:41:33 PM7/26/16
to
I never did criminal law, but when I was an associate a million years ago, I had to do "call" -- going to court and getting the trial assignments for the cases handled by my firm. Civil call was right after criminal call, and I would sit with the criminals until their docket was finished. I noticed that the same criminals were called for trial over and over again. I don't know how you make those people care about anything.

When I worked ambulance in San Jose, people would kill each other for no reason -- or at least no good reason. I once went to a party that ran amok, and it looked like the killing fields -- people lying on the ground stabbed -- all the way from the curb, through the house, and into the back yard. All because someone guy got 'dissed, and a fight broke out. My partner did a call where some guy got shot to death for taking cuts in line at a Taco Bell. I mean really, the food is not that good.

At the time, I hoped someone has a plan for reprogramming these people because after working downtown and eastside for a few years, I personally didn't give a shit. Let them kill each other. I can totally understand how cops get to the way they get. I quit and moved on to more genteel parts of the county and ultimately grad school, so I was able to recover at least some empathy. For cops who work decades in basically war zones, I don't know how you keep them fresh. It gets very difficult to be empathetic.

-- Jay Beattie.



John B.

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 3:44:32 AM7/27/16
to
One of the problems is that Police tend to be in contact with two
kinds of people. Police who are, at least initially, deemed to be good
guys and Criminals who are usually deemed to be bad guys.

Now than, if we look at things from a Cop's point of view.

Based on National Incarceration Rate, Caucasians amount of
450/100,000, Latinos 831/100,000 and Negroes 2,306/100,000. So, in
round numbers, a Cop's exposure to criminals shows him that about
twice many bad guys are black as all the rest together. And he reacts
to what he "knows" to be true as he sees it every day.

Now, certainly there are all kinds of social reason that effect this,
but in a policeman's life that is immaterial as for him it right here
and right now.

Imagine, you are a police officer investigating an altercation and you
see an individual who you believe to be holding a knife run into a
building. You follow holding your badge and gun and shouting "Police,
drop it". The individual who you believe to have a knife than
approaches you with his hand raised. You fire a warning shot into the
air and he slashes at you with his knife.

Now this can be rationalized in all kinds of ways but honestly, What
do you do?

Do you put your gun away and explain to the guy how you know he is
probably from a single parent family and that the school system is not
treating him right and how that guy who's lawn you were throwing all
that garbage on shouldn't have shouted at you.

Or maybe you shoot the knife out of his hand, like the Lone Ranger
used to do all those years ago?

Or maybe, being scared absolutely shitless,that he is going to kill
you, you shoot him. Whereupon every nitwit on the Internet starts
screaming you are bad, bad, bad.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 3:55:13 AM7/27/16
to
The NIJ has it that of those who are released from prison, 67.8% are
re-arrested within 3 years, 76.6 within 5 years and, of those
re-arrested, 57.7 were within the first year.

--
cheers,

John B.

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 1:24:52 PM7/27/16
to
John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

[ ... ]

> Imagine, you are a police officer investigating an altercation and you
> see an individual who you believe to be holding a knife run into a
> building. You follow holding your badge and gun and shouting "Police,
> drop it". The individual who you believe to have a knife than
> approaches you with his hand raised. You fire a warning shot into the
> air and he slashes at you with his knife.

Not police procedure anywhere in the US, where the rule is to shoot
center of mass until the threat is stopped. I agree with this; warning
shots endanger the public.


--

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 1:25:55 PM7/27/16
to
Not to mention the *real* natives of Japan, the Ainu.

--

AMuzi

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 1:50:55 PM7/27/16
to
Much agreed.
Warning shots are a creation of television and dime novels.

If there's no immediate danger to human life, don't point a
firearm. Period. You would be wrong to pull it, to point it
and certainly to negligently discharge it.

If there is immediate danger to human life, Mr Shouman is
correct; center of mass and more is better.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


jbeattie

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 2:53:46 PM7/27/16
to
Yes, but the Ainu were totally against the Ryukyuans who were the *real* natives, and the Ryukyuans were terrible to the cro-magnon back on the mainland -- and nobody, I mean nobody, liked the Wooly Mammoths. In contrast, the original peoples of North America lived in harmony and communed with Eywa in the Hometree -- all day, every day.

-- Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 4:09:53 PM7/27/16
to
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 7:53:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Yes, but the Ainu were totally against the Ryukyuans who were the *real* natives, and the Ryukyuans were terrible to the cro-magnon back on the mainland -- and nobody, I mean nobody, liked the Wooly Mammoths. In contrast, the original peoples of North America lived in harmony and communed with Eywa in the Hometree -- all day, every day.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Forgive me for being an economist, O Father, but how did those Indians eat if they prayed "every day, all day"?

In Alaska, running my half-Iditarod just see what it is like, I was so spaced-out from fatigue that I communed with Wendigo, the forest god of the Indians, who drives you mad after three days in the forest.

Now you know.

Andre Jute
All in all, I prefer the Zulu witchdocters I interned under to sled dogs which are hardly distinguishable from wild wolves

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 4:58:03 PM7/27/16
to
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:09:53 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 7:53:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but the Ainu were totally against the Ryukyuans who were the *real* natives, and the Ryukyuans were terrible to the cro-magnon back on the mainland -- and nobody, I mean nobody, liked the Wooly Mammoths. In contrast, the original peoples of North America lived in harmony and communed with Eywa in the Hometree -- all day, every day.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Forgive me for being an economist, O Father, but how did those Indians eat if they prayed "every day, all day"?
>
> In Alaska, running my half-Iditarod just see what it is like, I was so spaced-out from fatigue that I communed with Wendigo, the forest god of the Indians, who drives you mad after three days in the forest.
>
> Now you know.

Take-out food was big right after the Ice Age. You CAN eat and pray. I ate at a cheap Chinese restaurant with my son a few months ago and prayed that I wouldn't get sick. It worked. Thank you Great Spirit.

-- Jay Beattie

John B.

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 9:50:36 PM7/27/16
to
Perhaps.

But the description I wrote was essentially the testimony of the
police officer regarding his shooting of James Powell which triggered
the 1965 Harlem riots.
--
cheers,

John B.

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 10:16:57 PM7/27/16
to
I suppose those Clovis points were merely decorative, or perhaps used to
carve up sweet potatoes.

--

John B.

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 10:19:42 PM7/27/16
to
Of course. Hairy Savages :-)

When I lived there the main "Bad Guys" were the Koreans and in the mid
fifties the Japanese "repatriated" some 95,000 of them to their native
homeland. From what I read in the Japanese English language press they
were given a choice, North or South.

But a bigger problem are the Eta and Okinawans, both of whom are
ethnic Japanese and "look just like regular folks". Luckily though the
Japanese maintain Family Records that date back centuries and so
called "private detectives" can be hired to research these records so
you can be sure that your daughter is not marrying some filthy
creature.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 10:24:29 PM7/27/16
to
Is the above, perchance, an excerpt from a recent presentation before
the appellate court?
--
cheers,

John B.

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 11:21:49 PM7/27/16
to
I'm a huge world traveler, if you count all the places I've seen on my View-Master. Anyway, I can't think of any country where some large chunk of the population is not biased, racist, jingoist, xenophobic -- however you want to put it. Some countries are just better than others. The US is probably in the top quarter. I think Germany is just too nice, at least in terms of their permissive immigration policies. It's seeing the backlash. England was not nearly as nice, and it's living the backlash.

-- Jay Beattie.


John B.

unread,
Jul 27, 2016, 11:37:51 PM7/27/16
to
The New York collects data on all "police shootings" and a study of
some 11 years of data shows, using 2007 as the most representative on
"modern police" activity that:

Police force - 36,000
Total of 540 rounds fired annually in the line of duty.

Police opened fire in 60 cases. Fatalities 13,

In shootings where the felon returned fire, police hit their target
34% of the time. When firing at dogs accuracy was 55%

Average number of shots fired was 3.6 which remained largely constant
even after weapons with large cartridge capacity became common.
Note: there is some arguments that this number came from faulty record
keeping and may be larger.

Reality would seem to show that only a tiny percent of police actually
fire their weapon, That police gun battles are very rare and the
victims killed is even more rare, and that the police don't actually
fire many shots.

And that police, who are trained to shoot are somewhat less accurate
when someone is shooting back at them. Which is perfectly normal.

From FBI data, about half police shootings are at 5 feet or less.

--
cheers,

John B.

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 28, 2016, 7:50:51 PM7/28/16
to
Some things have changed since 1965. The one most relevant to this
discussion is that making movies has gone from being expensive and
inconvenient to something that a typical young person is prepared to do
at the drop of a hat. As a result, we have recently seen quite a few
incidents that show police who are incompetent, reckless, murderous or
all three.

That's disappointing, but policing is hard, and it would be surprising
to find that the police were the first human institution to attain
perfection. The actively bad cops *are* in the minority, but we see
over and over again that all their comrades, from top to bottom, back
them up without condition, no matter what they do. Behind them are
prosecutors, judges, and elected officials at all levels, who show all
police a remarkable amount of deference no matter how badly behaved they
are.

Law officers have a remarkably accomodating system to protect them
legally, just ask David Dinkins how it feels to tangle with the police
union. Not only is it nearly impossible to prosecute cops for outright
murder, it's very rare for even the worst to be fired or disciplined in
any substantial way.

Ratting on a fellow officer, however, no matter how bad he might be, is
(at the least) the end of a law enforcement career.

You might enjoy the following story:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html

A mental health worker is shot by a cop while lying in the street with
his hands up. In the cop's "defense", he was apparently trying to shoot
the autistic patient playing with his toy truck close by. But for video we
would just have to believe whatever the cops on the scene told us.

--

John B.

unread,
Jul 28, 2016, 9:58:40 PM7/28/16
to
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:50:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
I suggest two things here. One, that the actual number of
"incompetent, reckless, murderous or all three" is actually a very
tiny percentage of the total and that two, making a film about an
officer who acts as a gentleman probably wouldn't attract a lot of
viewers.

>That's disappointing, but policing is hard, and it would be surprising
>to find that the police were the first human institution to attain
>perfection. The actively bad cops *are* in the minority, but we see
>over and over again that all their comrades, from top to bottom, back
>them up without condition, no matter what they do. Behind them are
>prosecutors, judges, and elected officials at all levels, who show all
>police a remarkable amount of deference no matter how badly behaved they
>are.
>
>Law officers have a remarkably accomodating system to protect them
>legally, just ask David Dinkins how it feels to tangle with the police
>union. Not only is it nearly impossible to prosecute cops for outright
>murder, it's very rare for even the worst to be fired or disciplined in
>any substantial way.

You mean like the guys that were beating up on old Rodney there?

>Ratting on a fellow officer, however, no matter how bad he might be, is
>(at the least) the end of a law enforcement career.

Of course. A small insular group of people who the general public
neither likes or appreciates. And they defend themselves against
outsiders? Amazing!

>You might enjoy the following story:
>
>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html
>
>A mental health worker is shot by a cop while lying in the street with
>his hands up. In the cop's "defense", he was apparently trying to shoot
>the autistic patient playing with his toy truck close by. But for video we
>would just have to believe whatever the cops on the scene told us.

As far as I can tell from the article, the cop thought he was
defending someone. Now suppose that he had elected not to shoot and
the autistic bloke had killed the health worker?

Sort of "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't", isn't it?

--
cheers,

John B.

W. Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 28, 2016, 11:35:31 PM7/28/16
to
On 07-28-2016 20:58, John B. wrote:
> As far as I can tell from the article, the cop thought he was
> defending someone. Now suppose that he had elected not to shoot and
> the autistic bloke had killed the health worker?

The cop who said _much_later_ that he was trying to protect the guy he
shot (implying really bad aim?) allegedly said immediately after that he
didn't know why he did it.

--
Wes Groleau

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jul 29, 2016, 1:47:49 PM7/29/16
to
John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:50:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:24:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>

[ ... ]

>>Some things have changed since 1965. The one most relevant to this
>>discussion is that making movies has gone from being expensive and
>>inconvenient to something that a typical young person is prepared to do
>>at the drop of a hat. As a result, we have recently seen quite a few
>>incidents that show police who are incompetent, reckless, murderous or
>>all three.
>
> I suggest two things here. One, that the actual number of
> "incompetent, reckless, murderous or all three" is actually a very
> tiny percentage of the total and that two, making a film about an
> officer who acts as a gentleman probably wouldn't attract a lot of
> viewers.

I agree that they are a small percentage. The problem is that the
mechanisms for dealing with the problem are broken.

>>That's disappointing, but policing is hard, and it would be surprising
>>to find that the police were the first human institution to attain
>>perfection. The actively bad cops *are* in the minority, but we see
>>over and over again that all their comrades, from top to bottom, back
>>them up without condition, no matter what they do. Behind them are
>>prosecutors, judges, and elected officials at all levels, who show all
>>police a remarkable amount of deference no matter how badly behaved they
>>are.
>>
>>Law officers have a remarkably accomodating system to protect them
>>legally, just ask David Dinkins how it feels to tangle with the police
>>union. Not only is it nearly impossible to prosecute cops for outright
>>murder, it's very rare for even the worst to be fired or disciplined in
>>any substantial way.
>
> You mean like the guys that were beating up on old Rodney there?

Back in 1991? Why don't you stick with 1965?

>>Ratting on a fellow officer, however, no matter how bad he might be, is
>>(at the least) the end of a law enforcement career.
>
> Of course. A small insular group of people who the general public
> neither likes or appreciates. And they defend themselves against
> outsiders? Amazing!

Understandable but dangerous. A republic requires law officers that are
citizens first and cops second. Failing that we're better off with the
old hue and cry.

>>You might enjoy the following story:
>>
>>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html
>>
>>A mental health worker is shot by a cop while lying in the street with
>>his hands up. In the cop's "defense", he was apparently trying to shoot
>>the autistic patient playing with his toy truck close by. But for video we
>>would just have to believe whatever the cops on the scene told us.
>
> As far as I can tell from the article, the cop thought he was
> defending someone. Now suppose that he had elected not to shoot and
> the autistic bloke had killed the health worker?

They would have said "too bad, we can't protect everyone". As it was
they handcuffed the health worker and left him bleeding on the street
for twenty minutes afterwards without any medical assistance. It's just
pure dumb luck that he wasn't more seriously injured.

> Sort of "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't", isn't it?

Damned if you take cover from 50 yards away to try to ventilate a poor
simpleton playing with his toy truck in the street? Police in 1965 did
some heinous shit, but I don't think they had this culture of hysterical
institutionalized cowardice.

Maybe this will resonate with all of you live within your means types:
Guess who will pay for it? Taxpayers will. I'm sure preparations for a
lawsuit are already under way, and that the city will settle to avoid
having this pop up in the news periodically for the next few years.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the ten US cities with the largest
police departments paid out almost a quarter BILLION dollars to victims
of police misconduct in 2014.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834
--

jbeattie

unread,
Jul 29, 2016, 9:13:20 PM7/29/16
to
Hmmm. Citizens manage to do plenty of killing -- in fact, most of it. I think you mean cops need to follow the law. Cops should not be criminals, which seems like a reasonable proposition.

Cops, however, have special dispensation from the criminal laws that govern us ordinary citizens -- at least when carrying out their law enforcement duties. They can shoot fleeing felons under certain circumstances. We ordinary citizens can only shoot felons when they are in our homes committing felonies or when they are threatening to kill us or our friends. The "stand your ground" laws allow us ordinary citizen to shoot felon-ish people more freely -- which is good, because the planet is generally over-populated -- but certainly not when they are running away, or more often driving away. Cops can do that under the right circumstances, which is fine because some peoples just needs a kill'n.

We citizens have decided through our republican representatives that cops should be given some slack when it comes to killing people. Now, cops don't get a free pass -- they can't kill people willy-nilly with ball-point pens like Jason Bourne or any character played by Liam Neeson. They must follow the law and only kill according to the rules. It's all about the rules.

And about that hue and cry thing. Hueing and crying in the wrong neighborhood will just get you beaten and mugged by another five or six guys. They'll queue up behind the original perpetrator and wait their turn. It works sometimes, but not often. A lot of time the crowd is kind of creepy and just wants to watch.

Back in the old ambulance days, we used to get all sorts of creepy rubber-neckers who wanted to look at mangled people. I relied on the cops to keep them at bay. I relied on the cops for a lot of things.

There were some people who really did want to help, but they usually weren't very helpful. I remember working a nighttime traffic accident way down on Monterey Road in SJ long before it was developed. This guy had been hit on his motorcycle and was lying in a ditch between the lanes. His girlfriend was elsewhere and being helped by my partner. I couldn't get any light on him from the rig and had to use my flashlight. He was unconscious -- which was a good thing because his leg was on backward and practically wrapped around his head, which would have totally freaked him out if he were awake. I had this helpful bystander hold my flashlight and illuminate the scene while I tried to untie the guy and get him in my groovy Hare traction splint. The light kind of wobbled, and then my helpful bystander passed out. So much for hew and cry. I got a cop to take over.

You -- meaning you, and not the royal you -- have reason to distrust cops, and there is sure plenty of bad press about them killing people against the rules. I periodically have issues with cops, particularly the whole union protection thing and 24 hour wait before question (or sometimes 48). However, I relied on cops for many years to help me do my job and keep me safe in some really, really sketchy neighborhoods where citizens clearly did not follow the no-killing rules. I have some warm and fuzzy feelings about firemen, too (of course in a very hetero way. I mean, don't get me wrong . . . ).

-- Jay Beattie.

John B.

unread,
Jul 29, 2016, 10:28:44 PM7/29/16
to
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:47:46 -0400, Radey Shouman
<sho...@comcast.net> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:50:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:24:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>
>[ ... ]
>
>>>Some things have changed since 1965. The one most relevant to this
>>>discussion is that making movies has gone from being expensive and
>>>inconvenient to something that a typical young person is prepared to do
>>>at the drop of a hat. As a result, we have recently seen quite a few
>>>incidents that show police who are incompetent, reckless, murderous or
>>>all three.
>>
>> I suggest two things here. One, that the actual number of
>> "incompetent, reckless, murderous or all three" is actually a very
>> tiny percentage of the total and that two, making a film about an
>> officer who acts as a gentleman probably wouldn't attract a lot of
>> viewers.
>
>I agree that they are a small percentage. The problem is that the
>mechanisms for dealing with the problem are broken.

You mean that the guys that heat up Rodney King went free? Or the
arrest of three New York police commanders last month for corruption
did not happen?

>>>That's disappointing, but policing is hard, and it would be surprising
>>>to find that the police were the first human institution to attain
>>>perfection. The actively bad cops *are* in the minority, but we see
>>>over and over again that all their comrades, from top to bottom, back
>>>them up without condition, no matter what they do. Behind them are
>>>prosecutors, judges, and elected officials at all levels, who show all
>>>police a remarkable amount of deference no matter how badly behaved they
>>>are.
>>>
>>>Law officers have a remarkably accomodating system to protect them
>>>legally, just ask David Dinkins how it feels to tangle with the police
>>>union. Not only is it nearly impossible to prosecute cops for outright
>>>murder, it's very rare for even the worst to be fired or disciplined in
>>>any substantial way.
>>
>> You mean like the guys that were beating up on old Rodney there?
>
>Back in 1991? Why don't you stick with 1965?

You mean there was no police wrongdoing prior to 1965?

>>>Ratting on a fellow officer, however, no matter how bad he might be, is
>>>(at the least) the end of a law enforcement career.
>>
>> Of course. A small insular group of people who the general public
>> neither likes or appreciates. And they defend themselves against
>> outsiders? Amazing!
>
>Understandable but dangerous. A republic requires law officers that are
>citizens first and cops second. Failing that we're better off with the
>old hue and cry.

That sounds very altruistic. But is it reality? The FBI says that in
2013 there were 49,8521 assaults against serving police officers.

Were these assaults, all of them, justified? After all, shouldn't
there be some tit for tat here? If the coppers are going to be a
servant of the people, does that mean that the people get to beat up
on them with no expectation of retribution?

"Hey! It is Saturday Night. Lets get drunk and beat up a cop!"

>>>You might enjoy the following story:
>>>
>>>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html
>>>
>>>A mental health worker is shot by a cop while lying in the street with
>>>his hands up. In the cop's "defense", he was apparently trying to shoot
>>>the autistic patient playing with his toy truck close by. But for video we
>>>would just have to believe whatever the cops on the scene told us.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the article, the cop thought he was
>> defending someone. Now suppose that he had elected not to shoot and
>> the autistic bloke had killed the health worker?
>
>They would have said "too bad, we can't protect everyone". As it was
>they handcuffed the health worker and left him bleeding on the street
>for twenty minutes afterwards without any medical assistance. It's just
>pure dumb luck that he wasn't more seriously injured.

"They left him bleeding in the street"? You mean that they refused to
call for medical assistance for 20 minutes? Can you actually document
that" Or is just supposition?

>> Sort of "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't", isn't it?
>
>Damned if you take cover from 50 yards away to try to ventilate a poor
>simpleton playing with his toy truck in the street? Police in 1965 did
>some heinous shit, but I don't think they had this culture of hysterical
>institutionalized cowardice.
>
>Maybe this will resonate with all of you live within your means types:
>Guess who will pay for it? Taxpayers will. I'm sure preparations for a
>lawsuit are already under way, and that the city will settle to avoid
>having this pop up in the news periodically for the next few years.
>The Wall Street Journal reports that the ten US cities with the largest
>police departments paid out almost a quarter BILLION dollars to victims
>of police misconduct in 2014.
>
>http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834

Of course, if you employ people who break the law then you are, I
believe, in some manner, responsible and in U.S. culture today one
doesn't sue the guy what done it, you sue the guy with the big bucks.

But, if your theories are correct than why do the tax payers stand for
it? After all, if sufficient citizens actually believed your thesis to
be true I would think that there would be people all over the U.S.
being elected on a "I'll get rid of the Cops" platform.
--
cheers,

John B.

W. Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 2:43:24 AM7/30/16
to
On 07-29-2016 21:28, John B. wrote:
> "They left him bleeding in the street"? You mean that they refused to
> call for medical assistance for 20 minutes? Can you actually document
> that" Or is just supposition?

I may be remembering wrong, but I think that was what he said when
someone filmed him in the hospital. If he was handcuffed and lying in
the street, he wouldn't be able to look at his watch.

BUT, if he thought it was twenty, it must have been at least five.

--
Wes Groleau

John B.

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 3:32:59 AM7/30/16
to
As I asked, he was laying in the street bleeding and the cops refused
to call for medical assistance for 20 minutes? Or perhaps that the
cops called for medical assistance and it took 20 minutes through
traffic for the ambulance to get there?

There is a difference.
--
cheers,

John B.

W. Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 1:23:11 PM7/30/16
to
When you shoot someone "by accident," does it take handcuffs to prevent
him from leaving before EMS arrives? If EMS is needed, then first aid
is also needed. And it is illegal in USA to force someone to accept
medical assistance.

On the other hand, why does the video stop before the shooting?
Accidentally hit the wrong button? Or edited out a part that might
exonerate the cop? Maybe the patient "aimed" the toy truck at the
therapist?

And I'm also still wondering about the cop saying "I don't know" why I
shot you and later saying he was aiming at the patient to protect the
therapist. It's hard not to think that "I don't know" means "I'm still
trying to figure out what I can say to not look like an evil idiot or a
clueless klutz."

--
Wes Groleau

Andre Jute

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 2:16:08 PM7/30/16
to
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:53:30 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-study-confirms-protected-bike-lanes-get-more-people-bikes-and-reduce-injuries.html
>
> --
> JS

From reading the thread that resulted from this link, an innocent might conclude:
1. Vehicular cycling is about making your bike a safe steel cage on crime-infested streets.
2. The average member of RBT has absolutely no manners and thinks nothing of interrupting a useful discussion to derail it terminally.
3. Even if the members of RBT do not perpetrate these rude acts deliberately, they have no self-control, no discipline.
4. At least some members of RBT must be mentally defective. Of course, it is also possible that they are geniuses capable of making the amazing mental leaps. I leave it to the innocent to decide how likely that is.

Andre Jute
Just wondering what happened to an interesting thread

Sir Ridesalot

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 3:48:33 PM7/30/16
to
Like just about every other thread on this newsgroup it got hijacked. Someone will chime in with "It's not hichacking it's topic drift". When someone wants to change the topic of a thread they should start a new thread but that's too much work for most of them.

Cheers

John B.

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 10:11:42 PM7/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:23:08 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
Have you ever actually been around people who have been in very
traumatic occurrences? I have and generally they are very vague about
what happened and why. A good friend, pilot in a single engine jet,
had to eject. He was on a gunnery training mission and had made a
firing pass and went into afterburner to climb back to altitude and
the engine blew up. Since it was on a gunnery range all radio
transmissions were recorded and when they played the tape at the
investigation he had been rather vocal, "SHIT", "FUCK", "DAMN", and so
on. None of which he remembered saying. In fact he didn't even
remember ejecting from the airplane.

--
cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 10:12:54 PM7/30/16
to
On 7/30/2016 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:53:30 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>>> http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-study-confirms-protected-bike-lanes-get-more-people-bikes-and-reduce-injuries.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> JS
>>
>> From reading the thread that resulted from this link, an innocent might conclude:
>> 1. Vehicular cycling is about making your bike a safe steel cage on crime-infested streets.
>> 2. The average member of RBT has absolutely no manners and thinks nothing of interrupting a useful discussion to derail it terminally.
>> 3. Even if the members of RBT do not perpetrate these rude acts deliberately, they have no self-control, no discipline.
>> 4. At least some members of RBT must be mentally defective. Of course, it is also possible that they are geniuses capable of making the amazing mental leaps. I leave it to the innocent to decide how likely that is.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Just wondering what happened to an interesting thread
>
> Like just about every other thread on this newsgroup it got hijacked.

Quit talking about thread hijacking, Sir. That's not what we were
discussing!

;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

John B.

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 10:22:05 PM7/30/16
to
But isn't that normal conversation? A bunch of guys sitting around
after work having a beer. One guy says, "Hey, did you see the TV last
night? Geeze, the knockers on that broad!" Another guy says, "No, but
for big knockers I've got a you tube you want to watch". A third guy
says, You Tube? My friggin hand phone can't show you tube for some
reason". Fourth Guy, "What kind of hand phone you got?"
--
cheers,

John B.

W. Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 30, 2016, 11:37:08 PM7/30/16
to
On 07-30-2016 21:11, John B. wrote:
> Have you ever actually been around people who have been in very
> traumatic occurrences? I have and generally they are very vague about

Well, the way things are going with police these days, I'm sure the
fellow was a bit nervous in that situation.

> what happened and why. A good friend, pilot in a single engine jet,
> had to eject. He was on a gunnery training mission and had made a
> firing pass and went into afterburner to climb back to altitude and
> the engine blew up. Since it was on a gunnery range all radio

In terms of degree of "traumatic," there's a big difference between
being in a stand-off behind a car door and being in the air when your
only engine unexpectedly explodes.

I don't even know whether it's true that he said "I don't know" AT THE
SCENE, but if he did, he was probably telling the truth.

But also if he said that, then any contrary after-the-fact story will
likely be a CYA story.

As is usual in these situations, there are things that don't seem right
on both sides of the story.

--
Wes Groleau

Sir Ridesalot

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 1:07:47 AM7/31/16
to
If those guys are talking about something that has nothing to do with the topic that was started then someone will try to bring the conversation back rto the original topic. It's a bit different on usenet ort forums where someone starts athread about a specific topic and a few posts later that topic is hijacked to a totally different topic. Hten the OP checks the thread for updates and finds pages of totally unrelated stuff.

Why is it so hard for people to start their own topic rather than hijacking an existing thread? When the followup post are totally unrelated to the topic that was started it's a hijacked thread not topic drift.

Cheers

John B.

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 2:14:55 AM7/31/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:37:05 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>On 07-30-2016 21:11, John B. wrote:
>> Have you ever actually been around people who have been in very
>> traumatic occurrences? I have and generally they are very vague about
>
>Well, the way things are going with police these days, I'm sure the
>fellow was a bit nervous in that situation.
>
>> what happened and why. A good friend, pilot in a single engine jet,
>> had to eject. He was on a gunnery training mission and had made a
>> firing pass and went into afterburner to climb back to altitude and
>> the engine blew up. Since it was on a gunnery range all radio
>
>In terms of degree of "traumatic," there's a big difference between
>being in a stand-off behind a car door and being in the air when your
>only engine unexpectedly explodes.

You are just arguing. Traumatic means various things to various
people. Look up "post traumatic Stress Syndrome". Note that it says
"effects some people". In other words, that same event effects some
people differently than other people.

In short, unless you have stood behind a car door while someone was
shooting at you and had your airplane explode under you then quite
simply you aren't competent to comment. And even if you have done both
you are still only competent to answer for yourself.

>I don't even know whether it's true that he said "I don't know" AT THE
>SCENE, but if he did, he was probably telling the truth.
>

I doubt that the words "I don't know" are meaningful without knowing
the whole sequence of events, tones of voice, preceding and succeeding
comments, etc. Are we to believe that someone asked a serving police
officer, "Why did you shoot him" and the officer replied,"I don't
know", actually meaning that he had no idea why he shot the victim?

Or was the Cop sitting there shivering and shaking from the
adrenaline sloshing around in his blood stream and some reporter
sticks a microphone in his face and says"Why did you shoot him", and
instead of what he really thinks of the reporter, which likely
wouldn't be fit to print, he just shrugs his shoulders and says "I
don't know".

>But also if he said that, then any contrary after-the-fact story will
>likely be a CYA story.

I see, we now make decisions based on "if"?

>As is usual in these situations, there are things that don't seem right
>on both sides of the story.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 4:44:31 AM7/31/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
Well, looking at the message header, above, the earliest reference
seems to be James writing about Bike Lanes.

And you are talking about hijacking a thread....
--
cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 10:37:59 AM7/31/16
to
On 7/31/2016 1:07 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> But isn't that normal conversation? A bunch of guys sitting around
>> after work having a beer. One guy says, "Hey, did you see the TV last
>> night? Geeze, the knockers on that broad!" Another guy says, "No, but
>> for big knockers I've got a you tube you want to watch". A third guy
>> says, You Tube? My friggin hand phone can't show you tube for some
>> reason". Fourth Guy, "What kind of hand phone you got?"
>> --
>> cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> If those guys are talking about something that has nothing to do with the topic that was started then someone will try to bring the conversation back rto the original topic.

It sounds to me like you have very little experience with real
conversations.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 12:19:41 PM7/31/16
to
You're a patronizing, bullying little shit, Franki-boy.

As it happens, as a novelist, I have a very great deal of experience with reducing conversations to written form. There are even chapters in several of my handbooks for other writers on how to do it, and a chapter in one of them on the subject was picked out for special notice in an op-ed review in The Times, and several times anthologized as the best of its type.

You're wrong. The first essential of a decent conversation is good manners, which is a form of discipline. Both appear to be strangers to you. The second essential is rationality, which I wouldn't expect you to understand because you're a navel watcher who sees every argument as a stalinist exercise in imposing your will on others, but at its root rationality is another organizing principle.

What your argument actually comes down to is, "This is the way we do it because it's on the 'net, and if you don't like it you can put up or shut up." It is the lowest form of tautological, circular argument made by the lowest form of undereducated, uncultured pond slime floating on the net, characteristically accompanied by a threat; it's just street corner gangbanger thuggery reduced to writing. By way of example, it is an argument often made by Ron whatsisface, who used to post here as Ronsonic.

Andre Jute
Incisive

W. Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 6:24:27 PM7/31/16
to
On 07-31-2016 01:14, John B. wrote:
> I doubt that the words "I don't know" are meaningful without knowing
> the whole sequence of events, tones of voice, preceding and succeeding
> comments, etc. Are we to believe that someone asked a serving police
> officer, "Why did you shoot him" and the officer replied,"I don't
> know", actually meaning that he had no idea why he shot the victim?

That is what the victim claims and what the media is pretending to
believe. The same officer is reported as saying LATER that he was
trying to protect the victim and missed.

Again, I have no way of knowing who's lying if anyone.

--
Wes Groleau

John B.

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 11:01:37 PM7/31/16
to
And considerable experience in arguing that "I'm right" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Jul 31, 2016, 11:04:15 PM7/31/16
to
Exactly... And a thesis supported by "he said, they said" doesn't
stand up well to peer review :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

Radey Shouman

unread,
Aug 1, 2016, 10:34:35 PM8/1/16
to
jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:47:49 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:50:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
>> > <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:24:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
>> >>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>

---%<---

>> Understandable but dangerous. A republic requires law officers that are
>> citizens first and cops second. Failing that we're better off with the
>> old hue and cry.
>
> Hmmm. Citizens manage to do plenty of killing -- in fact, most of
> it. I think you mean cops need to follow the law. Cops should not be
> criminals, which seems like a reasonable proposition.

Ideally they would not tolerate criminals among them.

> Cops, however, have special dispensation from the criminal laws that
> govern us ordinary citizens -- at least when carrying out their law
> enforcement duties. They can shoot fleeing felons under certain
> circumstances. We ordinary citizens can only shoot felons when they
> are in our homes committing felonies or when they are threatening to
> kill us or our friends. The "stand your ground" laws allow us ordinary
> citizen to shoot felon-ish people more freely -- which is good,
> because the planet is generally over-populated -- but certainly not
> when they are running away, or more often driving away. Cops can do
> that under the right circumstances, which is fine because some peoples
> just needs a kill'n.

It's not just legislation that makes judging cops different than
judging you and me, there is also ever increasing deference from the
courts, eg Graham v Connor for use of force.

> We citizens have decided through our republican representatives that
> cops should be given some slack when it comes to killing people. Now,
> cops don't get a free pass -- they can't kill people willy-nilly with
> ball-point pens like Jason Bourne or any character played by Liam
> Neeson. They must follow the law and only kill according to the rules.
> It's all about the rules.

What prevents them? Rules are great, enforcing them against the
enforcers is hard, and getting harder all the time.

> And about that hue and cry thing. Hueing and crying in the wrong
> neighborhood will just get you beaten and mugged by another five or
> six guys. They'll queue up behind the original perpetrator and wait
> their turn. It works sometimes, but not often. A lot of time the crowd
> is kind of creepy and just wants to watch.

That's exactly the problem with the hue and cry -- it only works when
you can rely on the mob called up to be on your side. It's great when
they're on you're side because the other guy is a thief, but it might be
be they're against him because he's not from around here, or he talks
funny, or he's the wrong color.

When the police act that way they're no improvement on the mob.

> Back in the old ambulance days, we used to get all sorts of creepy
> rubber-neckers who wanted to look at mangled people. I relied on the
> cops to keep them at bay. I relied on the cops for a lot of things.

Back in the day I played a lot of pickup volleyball with a bunch of cops
(my neighbor had a court by his house, and was a federal marshal). Good
times. I don't remember anyone going all Walter Sobchak, although
carrying (the ball) was rife.

> There were some people who really did want to help, but they usually
> weren't very helpful. I remember working a nighttime traffic accident
> way down on Monterey Road in SJ long before it was developed. This
> guy had been hit on his motorcycle and was lying in a ditch between
> the lanes. His girlfriend was elsewhere and being helped by my
> partner. I couldn't get any light on him from the rig and had to use
> my flashlight. He was unconscious -- which was a good thing because
> his leg was on backward and practically wrapped around his head, which
> would have totally freaked him out if he were awake. I had this
> helpful bystander hold my flashlight and illuminate the scene while I
> tried to untie the guy and get him in my groovy Hare traction splint.
> The light kind of wobbled, and then my helpful bystander passed
> out. So much for hew and cry. I got a cop to take over.

Once an ambulance dude asked me to lift the other end of one of those
collapsable gurneys. I didn't pass out, but there weren't any detached
legs to look at.

> You -- meaning you, and not the royal you -- have reason to distrust
> cops, and there is sure plenty of bad press about them killing people
> against the rules. I periodically have issues with cops, particularly
> the whole union protection thing and 24 hour wait before question (or
> sometimes 48). However, I relied on cops for many years to help me do
> my job and keep me safe in some really, really sketchy neighborhoods
> where citizens clearly did not follow the no-killing rules. I have
> some warm and fuzzy feelings about firemen, too (of course in a very
> hetero way. I mean, don't get me wrong . . . ).

I don't know where you get your ideas -- I am white, aging into
decrepitude, talk politely in a convincing American accent, live in a
nice middle class neighborhood ... I'm much more likely to be struck by
lightning than shot by a cop. You seem to be saying I shouldn't worry
for that reason, which is the kind of high standard that made the KKK
such an influential organization in our country.

I suspect few of your readers know what you mean about the 24 or 48 hour
wait, part of a "law enforcement bill of rights" negotiated by police
unions. A cop involved, say, in a questionable shooting, instead of
being hauled away immediately like an ordinary citizen, gets a chance to
go home, talk with his union rep and union-provided lawyer, and get his
story straight with all his cop buddies. It's a nice chance to turn "I
don't know" into "I feared for my life when I saw that autist reaching
for his waistband".

The biggest problem with police unions, in my opinion, is that they make
it way too hard to fire people who have shown by their behavior that
they're not cut out to be cops. Most of them don't belong in prison,
but they don't belong behind a badge, either.


--

Radey Shouman

unread,
Aug 1, 2016, 10:40:39 PM8/1/16
to
Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> writes:

> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:47:46 -0400, Radey Shouman
>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:50:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:

----%<----

>>>
>>>Maybe this will resonate with all of you live within your means types:
>>>Guess who will pay for it? Taxpayers will. I'm sure preparations for a
>>>lawsuit are already under way, and that the city will settle to avoid
>>>having this pop up in the news periodically for the next few years.
>>>The Wall Street Journal reports that the ten US cities with the largest
>>>police departments paid out almost a quarter BILLION dollars to victims
>>>of police misconduct in 2014.
>>>
>>>http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834
>>
>> Of course, if you employ people who break the law then you are, I
>> believe, in some manner, responsible and in U.S. culture today one
>> doesn't sue the guy what done it, you sue the guy with the big bucks.

You can't sue the individual police officer, who has qualified
immunity. You can't sue the police department. The police department
doesn't lose any money when their employer loses or settles a lawsuit.

>> But, if your theories are correct than why do the tax payers stand for
>> it? After all, if sufficient citizens actually believed your thesis to
>> be true I would think that there would be people all over the U.S.
>> being elected on a "I'll get rid of the Cops" platform.

I suggest a platform plank of taking all payments for compensating
police misconduct out of the police pension fund, but that's a pipe dream.


--

jbeattie

unread,
Aug 1, 2016, 11:01:46 PM8/1/16
to
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:34:35 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>
<snip>

> I don't know where you get your ideas -- I am white, aging into
> decrepitude, talk politely in a convincing American accent, live in a
> nice middle class neighborhood ... I'm much more likely to be struck by
> lightning than shot by a cop. You seem to be saying I shouldn't worry
> for that reason, which is the kind of high standard that made the KKK
> such an influential organization in our country.

Like I said, cops should follow the law -- which does not allow them to murder people, white or black. I don't think you should worry because the incidence of police shooting of unarmed individuals is very, very low regardless of color. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2015 I think you are far more likely to get shot by an ordinary citizen.

> I suspect few of your readers know what you mean about the 24 or 48 hour
> wait, part of a "law enforcement bill of rights" negotiated by police
> unions. A cop involved, say, in a questionable shooting, instead of
> being hauled away immediately like an ordinary citizen, gets a chance to
> go home, talk with his union rep and union-provided lawyer, and get his
> story straight with all his cop buddies. It's a nice chance to turn "I
> don't know" into "I feared for my life when I saw that autist reaching
> for his waistband".
>
> The biggest problem with police unions, in my opinion, is that they make
> it way too hard to fire people who have shown by their behavior that
> they're not cut out to be cops. Most of them don't belong in prison,
> but they don't belong behind a badge, either.

I agree and feel the same way about teachers' unions, which makes me a heretic in Portland. The ship is sinking . . . women, children and teachers into the lifeboats.

-- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 12:56:20 AM8/2/16
to
On 8/1/2016 10:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>
>> We citizens have decided through our republican representatives that
>> cops should be given some slack when it comes to killing people. Now,
>> cops don't get a free pass -- they can't kill people willy-nilly with
>> ball-point pens like Jason Bourne or any character played by Liam
>> Neeson. They must follow the law and only kill according to the rules.
>> It's all about the rules.
>
> What prevents them? Rules are great, enforcing them against the
> enforcers is hard, and getting harder all the time.

Is there evidence that unjustified killings by cops has increased in the
past 50 years or so?

Related: I'm pretty sure that the number of handguns in civilian
possession has increased. Many of those are in the possession of rather
unsavory characters, the kind police are forced to deal with. Would
that perhaps have an effect on the counts of people shot by police?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Radey Shouman

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 11:56:49 AM8/2/16
to
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 8/1/2016 10:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>>
>>> We citizens have decided through our republican representatives that
>>> cops should be given some slack when it comes to killing people. Now,
>>> cops don't get a free pass -- they can't kill people willy-nilly with
>>> ball-point pens like Jason Bourne or any character played by Liam
>>> Neeson. They must follow the law and only kill according to the rules.
>>> It's all about the rules.
>>
>> What prevents them? Rules are great, enforcing them against the
>> enforcers is hard, and getting harder all the time.
>
> Is there evidence that unjustified killings by cops has increased in
> the past 50 years or so?

I'm not sure where you would find it. If you follow the Wikipedia link
that Mr. Beattie provided you'll see that US law enforcement has
resisted collecting statistics on the use of excessive force, although
legally required to do so.

My own intuition is that policing has always been a rough business, and
that the recent media interest is mostly due to the availability of
video.

> Related: I'm pretty sure that the number of handguns in civilian
> possession has increased. Many of those are in the possession of
> rather unsavory characters, the kind police are forced to deal with.
> Would that perhaps have an effect on the counts of people shot by
> police?

I am afraid you are mistaken. Police may complain that they are
"outgunned", but there is little evidence of that. Most criminals, even
if armed to the teeth, would much rather be arrested than shot.

You might check out the following link:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/07/the-sky-is-not-falling-police-fatalities-edition.html

http://goo.gl/EAJHqd

for some nice statistics and graphs on firearm-related police deaths in
the US. Those deaths have been falling consistently since the
mid-seventies.


--

Radey Shouman

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 12:03:30 PM8/2/16
to
jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:34:35 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't know where you get your ideas -- I am white, aging into
>> decrepitude, talk politely in a convincing American accent, live in a
>> nice middle class neighborhood ... I'm much more likely to be struck by
>> lightning than shot by a cop. You seem to be saying I shouldn't worry
>> for that reason, which is the kind of high standard that made the KKK
>> such an influential organization in our country.
>
> Like I said, cops should follow the law -- which does not allow them
> to murder people, white or black. I don't think you should worry
> because the incidence of police shooting of unarmed individuals is
> very, very low regardless of color.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2015
> I think you are far more likely to get shot by an ordinary citizen.

I'm sure that's true, assuming "ordinary" means "criminal".

Apparently unjustified shootings by police have a corrosive effect on
the ability of those same police to maintain order, enforce the law,
help out EMTs, and otherwise do their proper jobs. Shootings by
criminals do not that effect.

>> I suspect few of your readers know what you mean about the 24 or 48 hour
>> wait, part of a "law enforcement bill of rights" negotiated by police
>> unions. A cop involved, say, in a questionable shooting, instead of
>> being hauled away immediately like an ordinary citizen, gets a chance to
>> go home, talk with his union rep and union-provided lawyer, and get his
>> story straight with all his cop buddies. It's a nice chance to turn "I
>> don't know" into "I feared for my life when I saw that autist reaching
>> for his waistband".
>>
>> The biggest problem with police unions, in my opinion, is that they make
>> it way too hard to fire people who have shown by their behavior that
>> they're not cut out to be cops. Most of them don't belong in prison,
>> but they don't belong behind a badge, either.
>
> I agree and feel the same way about teachers' unions, which makes me a
> heretic in Portland. The ship is sinking . . . women, children and
> teachers into the lifeboats.

I'll try not to bore r.b.t with my opinion of teachers' unions ...

--

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 1:34:06 PM8/2/16
to
That's good, but I was thinking of a different cause-effect chain. If
(say) the people pulled over by cops for certain offenses are more
likely to be carrying handguns (or are even perceived by cops to be more
likely to be carrying handguns) it seems to me that cops would be on
higher alert, so to speak. They'd be more likely to mistrust a person
who refused to show his hands, or who reached into his clothes or under
his seat.

That could both lead to more shootings of people who were unarmed, and
to shooting of people who actually were reaching for a weapon.

In the latter case, it would probably help reduce the number of cops
killed while on duty.

In the current climate, with well-publicized ambushes of police
occasionally popping up, I imagine a great many cops are very worried.
Some will be on hair trigger, so to speak. And even though we'd like
them to be perfect, I can understand their emotions.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 2:57:40 PM8/2/16
to
Your didn't allow for batshit crazy, which is a trend.

Local Ohio example:

http://www.odmp.org/officer/22514-police-officer-sonny-lee-kim

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Radey Shouman

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 4:15:19 PM8/2/16
to
If they were bicyclists instead of cops, it would be time for a
"DANGER DANGER" post, wouldn't it?

US police training has shifted to more emphasis on "command presence"
instead of negotiation, more caution during traffic stops and other
encounters with us, and quicker use of deadly force. This may very well
have the effect of both reducing police injuries and increasing injuries
to civilians. Among those at particular risk are people who don't know
English, the deaf, and people with mental deficits.

When I first learned to drive I used to get out of the car whenever
I was pulled over and wait outside the car for the cop. Nowadays
that would probably get a gun pointed at me.

--

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 2, 2016, 9:34:42 PM8/2/16
to
On 8/2/2016 4:15 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> ... I was thinking of a different cause-effect chain. If
I don't know about any shifts in police training emphasis, but I can
ask. I have several friends who are cops. Even better, one of my best
friends (although I don't see him as often as before) is a former cop, a
professor of Criminal Justice, and on the board of the local police academy.

Next time I see him I'll try to get into a discussion about this.

However, I do agree that negotiation and non-lethal defusing of
potential threats is a skill that cops should have. (Actually, it's a
skill that everyone should have.) Practical skills that way might go a
long way toward reducing violence. And of course, many police forces do
have trained negotiators whom they call in for certain situations.

Unfortunately, our society seems to have been trying to move in the
other direction. Can you imagine trying to market an "action movie" in
which the hero convinces the villain to sit down over a cup of tea, so
he can understand the error of his ways? It's far easier to sell "bang
bang, shoot 'em up!" concepts. And not only for cops.

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Aug 3, 2016, 10:10:08 AM8/3/16
to
Cops negotiate all the time. Another citizen captures on video the brutality of the PPD dealing with a disabled person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh7dQFcGqGk It's outrageous!

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi

unread,
Aug 3, 2016, 10:21:05 AM8/3/16
to
I have some direct experience with the previous protocol, a
hardwood baton, which is very effective for changing
behavior. Quickly.

John B.

unread,
Aug 5, 2016, 4:47:55 AM8/5/16
to
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:56:47 -0400, Radey Shouman
<sho...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 8/1/2016 10:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We citizens have decided through our republican representatives that
>>>> cops should be given some slack when it comes to killing people. Now,
>>>> cops don't get a free pass -- they can't kill people willy-nilly with
>>>> ball-point pens like Jason Bourne or any character played by Liam
>>>> Neeson. They must follow the law and only kill according to the rules.
>>>> It's all about the rules.
>>>
>>> What prevents them? Rules are great, enforcing them against the
>>> enforcers is hard, and getting harder all the time.
>>
>> Is there evidence that unjustified killings by cops has increased in
>> the past 50 years or so?
>
>I'm not sure where you would find it. If you follow the Wikipedia link
>that Mr. Beattie provided you'll see that US law enforcement has
>resisted collecting statistics on the use of excessive force, although
>legally required to do so.

Well perhaps, although I was, without looking very hard, able to find
something like 11 years of New York police static tics. And I am able
to find FBI statistics covering local police forces nation wide.

This resistance seems to be rather weak if a guy living half way6
round the world can find it without any real effort.

--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Aug 5, 2016, 4:54:14 AM8/5/16
to
As I thank I have mentioned, I knew a Maine State Policeman pretty
well and he was telling me about two instances that happened on the
Maine State Toll Road. In one case the guy in the auto jumped out,
knocked the cop on his butt, stole his gun and left him handcuffed to
a tree on the side of the road. In the second case the cop walked up
to the car and the guy in the car shot him and killed him.

I was told this as part of en explanation why I could expect a bit
more "formal" treatment from the State Police in the future.



>That could both lead to more shootings of people who were unarmed, and
>to shooting of people who actually were reaching for a weapon.
>
>In the latter case, it would probably help reduce the number of cops
>killed while on duty.
>
>In the current climate, with well-publicized ambushes of police
>occasionally popping up, I imagine a great many cops are very worried.
>Some will be on hair trigger, so to speak. And even though we'd like
>them to be perfect, I can understand their emotions.
--
cheers,

John B.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages