Simitian Cell Phone Bill Goes to California Governor, Adds Bicyclists to Ban, Raises Fines
SMS
phone law, but that will change if Governor Brown signs Simitian's bill
as expected.
If you've ever tried using a Bluetooth headset while riding, you know
that they don't work all that well due to wind noise.
While there are several very good quality iPhone bicycle mounts, if you
have another smart phone you are stuck with funky universal mounts that
are usually not trustworthy.
damyth
> Originally bicyclists were not covered by California's hands-free cell
> phone law, but that will change if Governor Brown signs Simitian's bill
> as expected.
>
>
> If you've ever tried using a Bluetooth headset while riding, you know
> that they don't work all that well due to wind noise.
>
> While there are several very good quality iPhone bicycle mounts, if you
> have another smart phone you are stuck with funky universal mounts that
> are usually not trustworthy.
Are you retarded?
Are you advocating that cyclists (and drivers) should have the right
to talk hands-free? Perhaps that's why you feel foam lids make you
safe?
The fine is so inconsequential anyways that I doubt anyonem including
cops, will take it seriously, even when the bill becomes law.
Chalo
My main concern about things like this is ethical-- the presumption
that the burden of duty should be the same for the people who
unilaterally impose risk of harm upon others, and for those whom they
impose risk upon without consent.
But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
yourself with.
Chalo
SMS
> But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
> yourself with.
The law is good, in a way, since it increases the fines for drivers and
it adds cyclists. Those that don't have a headset will be less likely to
be using their phone. But it does not address the fact that using a
headset does not mean that the driver is not distracted. Phone use while
driving should be banned entirely. Unfortunately there is no political
will to do that (though it is the case for drivers under 21 in California).
Unlike helmet laws, this law is intended to protect regular people from
stupid people--protecting dumb people from themselves is a side effect,
not the main focus.
jcdill
> On 8/16/2011 12:15 PM, Chalo wrote:
>
>> But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
>> yourself with.
>
> The law is good, in a way, since it increases the fines for drivers and
> it adds cyclists. Those that don't have a headset will be less likely to
> be using their phone. But it does not address the fact that using a
> headset does not mean that the driver is not distracted. Phone use while
> driving should be banned entirely.
I have yet to see a properly conducted study that proves that using a
cell phone with a headset while driving is contributing to an increase
in traffic accidents in the Real World.
IMHO, the people who get involved in accidents while using their phones
because they got "distracted" are the same ones who were getting into
accidents before cell phones because they were distracted by changing
the radio station or CD in the CD player, by drinking their coffee, by
engaging in personal grooming (shaving, putting on makeup, fixing one's
hair, etc.), fighting with kids or passengers, talking to passengers,
looking at a map (or GPS) instead, among the many other things drivers
often do instead of paying attention to the road.
If you have any cites for a STUDY that shows INCREASED ACCIDENT RATES
that correlate with increased cell phone use, I'd love to see it.
Because it's clear that traffic accident rates are NOT going up, yet
cell phone usage has skyrocketed.
jc
Ben Pfaff
> If you have any cites for a STUDY that shows INCREASED ACCIDENT RATES
> that correlate with increased cell phone use, I'd love to see
> it. Because it's clear that traffic accident rates are NOT going up,
> yet cell phone usage has skyrocketed.
Many of the drivers who come close to hitting me while making
illegal maneuvers (running stop signs, running red lights) are
holding cell phones up to their ears. This is obviously
dangerous, study or no study, and I want those drivers stopped
and cited.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
damyth
For the sake of discussion, let's just take your assertion as true,
that talking on cell-phone/texting while driving has not increased
accident rates.
http://distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf
What do you make of this study?
Explain to me why already distracted drivers (CD/Radio) should be
allowed yet another distraction that leads to impairment?
You might want to check out:
http://distraction.gov/research/index.html
Dan O
They also cannot seem to be bothered to put down the phone and
activate their turn signal.
James
> On Aug 16, 10:10 am, SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Originally bicyclists were not covered by California's hands-free cell
>> phone law, but that will change if Governor Brown signs Simitian's bill
>> as expected.
>>
>> <http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=165271&title=Tex...>
>>
>> If you've ever tried using a Bluetooth headset while riding, you know
>> that they don't work all that well due to wind noise.
>>
>> While there are several very good quality iPhone bicycle mounts, if you
>> have another smart phone you are stuck with funky universal mounts that
>> are usually not trustworthy.
>
> to talk hands-free?
I talk hands free all the time. I am not Italian. I talk to fellow
bike riders without using my hands, and if I'm driving I talk to
passengers without the use of my hands. My hands are generally used to
help control the vehicle that I am in control of.
Whether I am talking to someone locally or remote by phone, what's the
difference. It's all hands free and allowed by law here.
--
JS.
jcdill
Did you even read what I wrote? I'll give it to you again:
IMHO, the people who get involved in accidents while using their phones
because they got "distracted" are the same ones who were getting into
accidents before cell phones because they were distracted by changing
the radio station or CD in the CD player, by drinking their coffee, by
engaging in personal grooming (shaving, putting on makeup, fixing one's
hair, etc.), fighting with kids or passengers, talking to passengers,
looking at a map (or GPS) instead, among the many other things drivers
often do instead of paying attention to the road.
In other words, if they didn't have a cell phone to their ears when they
almost hit you, they would be doing one of dozens of other careless
behaviors. It's not the phone, it's the driver. Banning cell phone use
by people who know how to use it responsibly isn't going to change the
accident rate, just as the increasing cell phone usage hasn't changed
the accident rate. Most accidents are caused by careless drivers, and
they will continue to be careless even when you take the phones out of
their hands.
If you want to *really* do something about this, advocate to make it a
requirement to attend traffic school if a driver is caught using a
non-hand's-free cell phone. This would help get the careless drivers in
a classroom where education can potentially help them become more
careful behind the wheel.
jc
Jonz
>
> Many of the drivers who come close to hitting me while making
> illegal maneuvers (running stop signs, running red lights) are
> holding cell phones up to their ears. This is obviously
> dangerous, study or no study, and I want those drivers stopped
> and cited.
Allow me to change your paragraph ever so slightly, two words actually.
Many of the bicyclists who come close to hitting me while making
illegal maneuvers (running stop signs, running red lights) are
holding cell phones up to their ears. This is obviously
dangerous, study or no study, and I want those bicyclists stopped
and cited.
Jonz
jcdill
> For the sake of discussion, let's just take your assertion as true,
> that talking on cell-phone/texting while driving has not increased
> accident rates.
>
> http://distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf
> What do you make of this study?
It doesn't prove a thing. It is a simulation. If it measured something
real, we would see a climbing accident rate as cell phone usage
exploded, but THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
> Explain to me why already distracted drivers (CD/Radio) should be
> allowed yet another distraction that leads to impairment?
Because many drivers who are not already distracted can safely use the
radio, change a CD, use a cell phone, etc. without becoming a hazard
behind the wheel. The problem is not the cell phone or radio etc. The
problem is the careless driver. Educate the careless driver, don't
penalize the careful driver who knows how to use a cell phone and drive
safely.
If you don't think such a driver exists, ask why police are allowed to
use THEIR cell phones while driving. (And they aren't required to use
them hands-free either.)
> You might want to check out:
> http://distraction.gov/research/index.html
Why? I have absolutely no interest in wasting my time trying to find a
study that I believe does not exist. The raw data is quite clear - cell
phone usage has exploded in the past 15 years, but the accident rate
remains relatively unchanged. Before we try to "solve this problem",
they need to first prove that a problem exists. So far, all of the
"proof" is bogus, such as placing "blame" on cell phone usage whenever
an accident occurs when a cell phone is in use. That's crazy. We don't
let the police say an accident is caused by the radio just because the
radio is in use. We don't let the police say an accident is caused by
passengers just because there are passengers in the car. But we let the
police get away with saying that cell phone use was a factor whenever a
cell phone was in use, despite a total lack of any actual EVIDENCE that
the phone call in any way distracted the driver. If a driver gets
rear-ended while on a cell phone, while stopped at a light, they will
say the cell phone use was a factor! BOGUS statistics are used to scare
up support for laws and campaigns that solve NOTHING.
jc
Ben Pfaff
That's not actually true, though. Hardly any of the bicyclists
who come close to hitting me while making illegal maneuvers are
holding cell phones up to their ears. I don't remember this ever
happening, in fact.
--
"Now I have to go wash my mind out with soap."
--Derick Siddoway
damyth
> On 16/08/11 1:43 PM, damyth wrote:
>
> > For the sake of discussion, let's just take your assertion as true,
> > that talking on cell-phone/texting while driving has not increased
> > accident rates.
>
Wow, I guess I must have hit a nerve there.
You can't even discuss this rationally.
Exactly how many accidents and fatalities would it take for you to
determine there is a relationship between talking/texting on a cell
phone while driving and driving impaired? How would you propose we
make such a study ethically?
There's definitely a difference between talking on the cell phone vs.
talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio/CD. That you
haven't figured out the distinction tells me already you aren't
interested in any facts and are not well informed on the topic.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
<http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=165271&title=Texting%20or%20talking%20drivers%20facing%20tougher%20penalties>
"Currently, the fine for a first offense for violating the
hands-free law is $20 and $50 for the second offense. The
new fines will be $50 for the first offense and $100 for
the second."
As one of the few that I know of who were ticketed for talking on a
cell phone while driving (by the Scotts Valley PD), be advised that
the actual first offense fine turned out to be $120. That's $20 for
the fine, and $100 in taxes. Instead of just standing in line at the
county building and paying the fine, I had to wait about 2 months for
the state to send me a bill. Since the tax on such a ticket seems to
be based on a percentage of the fine, my guess is that the tax will
also increase dramatically.
Also, as JC Dill mentioned, the dramatic increase in cell phone use
over the years has not produced a corresponding increase in accidents
and fatalities.
"Fatal crashes in California drop for fifth straight year"
<http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/21/2472429/fatal-crashes-in-california-drop.html>
The best I can suggest is that as the price of gasoline increases, the
accident and fatality rate decreases.
Any semblance to revenue enhancement is probably coincidental.
After bicyclists, I guess roller skaters, skateboarders, surfers, and
pogo stick riders are next.
An open question will be whether one is required to be moving while
cycling and talking in order to deserve a ticket. When I get a cell
phone call while cycling, I stop, pull to the side, and talk. However,
the law presumes that if someone is intoxicated while sitting in a
vehicle, they are presumed able to be driving, and therefore will
receive a drunk driving ticket. The same logic might be applied to a
cyclist. I'm sure the issue will be addressed when the legislature
addresses the next increase in cell phone use while moving fines.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Yes, yakking on a phone while riding is stupid, but is much more likely
to result in bodily harm to the person on a bicycle than anyone else,
even a pedestrian (at least for those on upright bicycles).
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Talking on a cell phone while driving should result in the loss of
license for at least one year, and require a SR-22 certificate for
re-licensing.
John B.
wrote:
>On 16/08/11 12:31 PM, SMS wrote:
>> On 8/16/2011 12:15 PM, Chalo wrote:
>>
>>> But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
>>> yourself with.
>>
>> The law is good, in a way, since it increases the fines for drivers and
>> it adds cyclists. Those that don't have a headset will be less likely to
>> be using their phone. But it does not address the fact that using a
>> headset does not mean that the driver is not distracted. Phone use while
>> driving should be banned entirely.
>
>I have yet to see a properly conducted study that proves that using a
>cell phone with a headset while driving is contributing to an increase
>in traffic accidents in the Real World.
>
I believe that you need to investigate further as I've seen studies
that demonstrate that hand phone use while driving is a cause of
accidents and further that the use of a "hands free" device does
little to improve the odds.
A very superficial investigations shows:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20041019_WP106.pdf
http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/index.html
>IMHO, the people who get involved in accidents while using their phones
>because they got "distracted" are the same ones who were getting into
>accidents before cell phones because they were distracted by changing
>the radio station or CD in the CD player, by drinking their coffee, by
>engaging in personal grooming (shaving, putting on makeup, fixing one's
>hair, etc.), fighting with kids or passengers, talking to passengers,
>looking at a map (or GPS) instead, among the many other things drivers
>often do instead of paying attention to the road.
>
>If you have any cites for a STUDY that shows INCREASED ACCIDENT RATES
>that correlate with increased cell phone use, I'd love to see it.
>Because it's clear that traffic accident rates are NOT going up, yet
>cell phone usage has skyrocketed.
>
>jc
See above.
--
John B.
Jonz
>
> Yes, yakking on a phone while riding is stupid, but is much more likely
> to result in bodily harm to the person on a bicycle than anyone else,
> even a pedestrian (at least for those on upright bicycles).
>
Ahh yes... Tell that to Dionette Cherney.
Jonz
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> IMHO, the people who get involved in accidents while using their phones
> because they got "distracted" are the same ones who were getting into
> accidents before cell phones because they were distracted by changing
> the radio station or CD in the CD player, by drinking their coffee, by
> engaging in personal grooming (shaving, putting on makeup, fixing one's
> hair, etc.), fighting with kids or passengers, talking to passengers,
> looking at a map (or GPS) instead, among the many other things drivers
Changing radio stations or talking to a passenger can be done while
still paying attention to both the road/traffic ahead and the mirrors.
Dialing or talking on a phone cannot be.
Drinking non-intoxicating liquids while driving is not an issue - just
clip your CamelBak hose to your shirt (BTDT).
Misbehaving children can be dealt with by transferring them to the cargo
area, or the use of duct tape. ;)
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
I have a relative whose car was rear-ended at a red light by a college
girl who was riding a bicycle while texting.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> If you don't think such a driver exists, ask why police are allowed to
> use THEIR cell phones while driving. (And they aren't required to use
Because no one is watching the watchers.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
>
> I talk hands free all the time. I am not Italian. I talk to fellow bike
> riders without using my hands, and if I'm driving I talk to passengers
> without the use of my hands. My hands are generally used to help control
> the vehicle that I am in control of.
>
> Whether I am talking to someone locally or remote by phone, what's the
> difference. It's all hands free and allowed by law here.
>
Here are some motorcycle hand signals that can also be used on a
bicycle. Row 4 is best used with discretion, however.
<http://www.njmc.org/etiquette/>
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> An open question will be whether one is required to be moving while
> cycling and talking in order to deserve a ticket. When I get a cell
> phone call while cycling, I stop, pull to the side, and talk. However,
> the law presumes that if someone is intoxicated while sitting in a
> vehicle, they are presumed able to be driving, and therefore will
> receive a drunk driving ticket. The same logic might be applied to a
> cyclist. I'm sure the issue will be addressed when the legislature
> addresses the next increase in cell phone use while moving fines.
In some states you can get a drunk driving citation for merely being
*near* your vehicle with the keys, even if the engine is cold
(indicating that the vehicle has not been driven recently) and it is
parked in your driveway. This indicates it is not about punishing drunk
drivers, but showing the authoritarian power of the state over the people.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Freak accident. The *usual* result of an upright bicycle to pedestrian
collision is a bruise to the pedestrian and a fall onto the shoulder or
head with moderate to severe consequences to the cyclist. For this
reason, in areas where there are lots of stupid pedestrians (e.g.
college campuses, bar districts) I prefer to ride a recumbent bicycle,
trike or velomobile.
Jonz
This has got to be a first. Ben, you are amazing. A bicyclist actually
admitting to coming close to being hit by another bicyclist while making
illegal maneuvers. Would you care to enumerate how many times you came
close to being hit by a bicyclist making illegal maneuvers.
Jonz
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
While performing *legal* maneuvers on a bicycle, I have been hit by
persons on a bicycle that were performing *illegal* maneuvers.
AMuzi
My friend's grandfather was the pedestrian here:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/jfkgrfth.jpg
Since we're discussing outliers, my employee rode through a
red light at speed, smacked a car crossing on the green and
dented the front quarter panel with his shoulder. My
employee was ticketed and had to pay the car repairs but
suffered no damage to body or bicycle.
With enough iterations, and we do have a big crazy dynamic
perhaps even frenetic population, you'll see one of
everything eventually. Outliers are not trends.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jonz
> On 8/16/2011 8:04 PM, Jonz wrote:
>> On 8/16/2011 5:31 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, yakking on a phone while riding is stupid, but is much more likely
>>> to result in bodily harm to the person on a bicycle than anyone else,
>>> even a pedestrian (at least for those on upright bicycles).
>>>
>>
>> Ahh yes... Tell that to Dionette Cherney.
>>
>> Jonz
>
> Freak accident.
Wrong! Try preventable homicide. The bicyclist blew off the red light
and Ms. Cherney was in the crosswalk with a walk signal.
> The *usual* result of an upright bicycle to pedestrian
> collision is a bruise to the pedestrian and a fall onto the shoulder or
> head with moderate to severe consequences to the cyclist.
The first part of your statement is correct in that the pedestrian comes
away with bruises if not broken bones. The second part is where you have
a problem. Mostly the bicyclist just rides away. This usually happens so
fast that no one can give an accurate description of the bicyclist.
This brings up another pet peeve of mine. Bicycles need to be licensed
by the DMV and display a license plate just like a motorcycle. This
might cut down on the leaving-the-scene-of-an-accident incidents by
bicyclists.
Jonz
James
> With enough iterations, and we do have a big crazy dynamic perhaps even
> frenetic population, you'll see one of everything eventually.
Even the death of a person, who died from a fall down stairs or from a
fall out of bed, who regularly rode bike.
> Outliers
> are not trends.
Yup. I'm an outlier - and proud of it. My wheels are still straight,
despite the fewer than recommended spokes and lashings of expensive but
apparently useless EH&M.
YMWV.
--
JS.
(PeteCresswell)
>they got "distracted" are the same ones who were getting into
>accidents before cell phones because they were distracted by changing
>the radio station or CD in the CD player, by drinking their coffee, by
>engaging in personal grooming (shaving, putting on makeup, fixing one's
>hair, etc.), fighting with kids or passengers, talking to passengers,
>looking at a map (or GPS) instead, among the many other things drivers
>often do instead of paying attention to the road.
I would disagree.
I've done all of the above - including using a cell phone and
talking on a CB radio.
The cell phone is different. With all activities, the driver is
time-slicing. But with the other activities, the slicing can
be, and usually is, stopped abruptly when circumstances demand
it.
Even talking on the CB radio, there's a shared awareness between
the two people talking that both are driving.
With a cell phone, there's no covenant with the person on the
other end. Your consciousness/attention tends to stay focused on
the conversation.
Some people do it better than others. I'm lousy at it so I
mostly avoid it, but everybody is subject to that limitation.
--
PeteCresswell
Simon Lewis
What bollox. How many of these "leaving the scene" incidents have there
been?
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> On 8/16/2011 6:22 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>> On 8/16/2011 8:04 PM, Jonz wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2011 5:31 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yakking on a phone while riding is stupid, but is much more likely
>>>> to result in bodily harm to the person on a bicycle than anyone else,
>>>> even a pedestrian (at least for those on upright bicycles).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahh yes... Tell that to Dionette Cherney.
>>>
>>> Jonz
>>
>> Freak accident.
>
> Wrong! Try preventable homicide. The bicyclist blew off the red light
> and Ms. Cherney was in the crosswalk with a walk signal.
>
>
>> The *usual* result of an upright bicycle to pedestrian
>> collision is a bruise to the pedestrian and a fall onto the shoulder or
>> head with moderate to severe consequences to the cyclist.
>
> The first part of your statement is correct in that the pedestrian comes
> away with bruises if not broken bones. The second part is where you have
> a problem. Mostly the bicyclist just rides away. This usually happens so
> fast that no one can give an accurate description of the bicyclist.
>
injury, the chances of the cyclist escaping serious injury are also small.
However, the streamlined shell of a velomobile will both protect the
rider and deflect the pedestrian away without serious harm. :)
> This brings up another pet peeve of mine. Bicycles need to be licensed
> by the DMV and display a license plate just like a motorcycle. This
> might cut down on the leaving-the-scene-of-an-accident incidents by
> bicyclists.
Pedestrians should have license plates to walk/run in public, so they
stop getting away with injuring cyclists by jaywalking and crossing
against the "Don't Walk" signals.
Don Freeman
> This brings up another pet peeve of mine. Bicycles need to be licensed
> by the DMV and display a license plate just like a motorcycle. This
> might cut down on the leaving-the-scene-of-an-accident incidents by
> bicyclists.
>
And that happens so often now doesn't it?
--
__
(oO) www.cosmoslair.com
/||\ Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Stop the presses! I agree with a post by Simon Lewis.
Don Freeman
>
> I have a relative whose car was rear-ended at a red light by a college
> girl who was riding a bicycle while texting.
>
type of behavior out of the species.
Don Freeman
>
> This has got to be a first. Ben, you are amazing. A bicyclist actually
> admitting to coming close to being hit by another bicyclist while making
> illegal maneuvers. Would you care to enumerate how many times you came
> close to being hit by a bicyclist making illegal maneuvers.
>
There are bicyclists and then there are idiots who happen to sometime
ride bicycles. There is a difference.
Don Freeman
>
> Pedestrians should have license plates to walk/run in public, so they
> stop getting away with injuring cyclists by jaywalking and crossing
> against the "Don't Walk" signals.
>
Ben Pfaff
Hmm? I see bicyclists run stop signs regularly. Sometimes they
come close to hitting me. Why wouldn't I admit that?
I normally stop for stop signs. It doesn't cost me anything,
beyond a second or two.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Frank Krygowski
>
> With enough iterations, and we do have a big crazy dynamic perhaps even
> frenetic population, you'll see one of everything eventually. Outliers
> are not trends.
I agree completely. Look at large population data.
--
- Frank Krygowski
sms88
> I have yet to see a properly conducted study that proves that using a
> cell phone with a headset while driving is contributing to an increase
> in traffic accidents in the Real World.
There are so many factors that contribute to accidents that you could
never prove causation of a change in the accident rate from a single factor.
What you _can_ look at is the numbers of accidents caused by distracted
driving, and you can also look at these numbers before and after a
hands-free law is put into place (though with the rate of compliance,
such numbers may be of limited value.
The NHTSA stated that in 18% of distracted driving fatalities the
distraction was a cell phone.
Of course you could use the logic of those opposed to helmets and state
that there is no reason to try to do anything of that 18% unless you
address the other 82% first. You could also ban talking to other
passengers, eating, drinking, hair combing, applying make-up, navigation
systems, audio entertainment, etc.
Of course the reality is that you do what is practical to do. Getting
people to give up audio entertainment or drinking coffee in their cars
is not going to happen. But getting them to use a hands-free device, or
not use a cell phone at all around schools, is something that stands a
chance of happening.
jcdill
> On 8/16/2011 5:26 PM, jcdill wrote:
>> [...]
>> IMHO, the people who get involved in accidents while using their phones
>> because they got "distracted" are the same ones who were getting into
>> accidents before cell phones because they were distracted by changing
>> the radio station or CD in the CD player, by drinking their coffee, by
>> engaging in personal grooming (shaving, putting on makeup, fixing one's
>> hair, etc.), fighting with kids or passengers, talking to passengers,
>> looking at a map (or GPS) instead, among the many other things drivers
>> often do instead of paying attention to the road.[...]
>
> Changing radio stations or talking to a passenger can be done while
> still paying attention to both the road/traffic ahead and the mirrors.
> Dialing or talking on a phone cannot be.
This is not true. If this *were* true, as cell phone usage skyrocketed,
we would see an increasing accident rate, which we have NOT seen.
Many people use cell phones responsibly while driving. You don't see
them *because* they are using them responsibly, and not almost getting
into accidents. The ones who aren't responsible in their cell phone
usage while driving get into accidents, accidents they would get into
ANYWAY if you took their phones away - the accident is caused by a
careless driver who pays little attention to the road and who is easily
distracted by *everything*. This is why the accident rate hasn't gone
up, it's the same type of driver, getting into the same type of accident
- caused by being inattentive and easily distracted. It's not the phone
- if it WERE the phone then the accident rate would be changing
dramatically as cell phone usage climbs.
jc
jcdill
> I see bicyclists run stop signs regularly. Sometimes they
> come close to hitting me.
I was almost hit (as a pedestrian) while crossing Market Street in SF
today ~6 pm, by 2 bicycles that ran the red light (just as it was
turning red) rather than stop and wait for the next light cycle. There
were dozens of pedestrians waiting to cross, and if we had started
forward as the pedestrian crossing signal came on, the bikes would have
plowed into the group. Fortunately, cars and bikes run the light on
Market often enough that most pedestrians look before starting across
when the light has just changed. There was a 3rd bike who stopped
instead of running the light, so it wasn't a matter of "going too fast
to stop" or being unaware that the light was changing.
jc
jcdill
> You can't even discuss this rationally.
>
> Exactly how many accidents and fatalities would it take for you to
> determine there is a relationship between talking/texting on a cell
> phone while driving and driving impaired?
There are 10s of thousands of people killed in traffic accidents in the
US every year. We have the data. We just need to look at the data
intelligently. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety
In the US, the number of cell phone subscribers has increased by
1,262.4% between the years 1985-2008. In approximately the same period
the number of crashes has fallen by 0.9% (1995–2009) and the number of
fatal crashes fallen by 6.2%.[13][14][15] It has been argued that these
statistics contradict the claims that mobile use impairs driving
performance.[16] Similarly, a 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data
Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key
states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving
and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41%
to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban
was enacted. [17][18]
> How would you propose we
> make such a study ethically?
Talk about being irrational! A study of this type is done by comparing
existing accident rates and cell phone usage, looking for changes. This
is completely ethical.
Here are the things to look for: Has the accident rate gone up as cell
phone usage has gone up? Has it gone down when hands-free laws were
enacted? Has it gone down when there was a crackdown on people using
cell phones while driving? Has it gone down in countries that banned
cell phone use entirely while driving?
*IF* cell phone usage is truly a contributing factor in auto accidents,
there should be a strong correlation between one or more of the above
cell phone usage behaviors and the accident rate. Yet, as the studies
cited by the wikipedia article above show, there is no correlation at all.
> There's definitely a difference between talking on the cell phone vs.
> talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio/CD. That you
> haven't figured out the distinction tells me already you aren't
> interested in any facts and are not well informed on the topic.
Of course there's a difference, but a good driver can make a smart
decision about when and where to talk on the phone, and when to end a
phone call, not answer a phone call, not take a phone call, or tell the
other party to hold on a minute. For example, I needed to make a cell
phone call the other day, and didn't start it just as I was about to
navigate a tricky intersection and merge onto a busy freeway. Instead,
I made the call while driving along an almost empty 5-lane freeway
(built for 80 MPH traffic with a 65 MPH speed limit). Easily distracted
drivers don't think about this type of thing, they call when and where
they want, with no thought to if this is the best time to be on the
phone or not. They also change CDs whenever, change the radio whenever,
do personal grooming whenever, etc. They get into accidents because
they are careless. The cell phone is just one of many things they do at
inopportune times, and occasionally it's the thing they are doing when
they get into the inevitable accident that is caused by being CARELESS,
not caused by being on the phone. Take away their phone (or just look
at their behaviors before phones were available) and you find them being
careless about other things, and getting into accidents because of it.
jc
jcdill
> What you _can_ look at is the numbers of accidents caused by distracted
> driving, and you can also look at these numbers before and after a
> hands-free law is put into place (though with the rate of compliance,
> such numbers may be of limited value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety
In the US, the number of cell phone subscribers has increased by
1,262.4% between the years 1985-2008. In approximately the same period
the number of crashes has fallen by 0.9% (1995–2009) and the number of
fatal crashes fallen by 6.2%.[13][14][15] It has been argued that these
statistics contradict the claims that mobile use impairs driving
performance.[16] Similarly, a 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data
Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key
states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving
and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41%
to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban
was enacted. [17][18]
> The NHTSA stated that in 18% of distracted driving fatalities the
> distraction was a cell phone.
Using bogus data - e.g. police reports that "blame" cell phone usage for
all accidents caused when a cell phone was in use, without any actual
evidence that the usage contributed to the accident in any way.
If 18% of all accidents occurred during the rain, and then 100% of the
time cell phone drivers used their phones while it was raining, and the
accident rate didn't change, the police would then claim that 18% of all
accidents were caused by cell phone usage.
You need to see an *increase* in the accident rate to substantiate a
claim that a new behavior is causing an increase in accidents. But
there is no increase in the accident rate - in fact the rate is decreasing!
> Of course you could use the logic of those opposed to helmets
There is very clear data that helmet use reduces serious head injuries.
The rate of head injuries among bike riders (and horse riders, and
motorcycle riders) has declined dramatically with a strong correlation
to increased helmet use. For example:
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
How do helmet laws affect motorcyclist deaths and injuries?
In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet
laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and
injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal
helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and
injuries rose.
(This was the first cite I found - I know there are many more, including
cites for bike helemts and horse helmets.)
> Of course the reality is that you do what is practical to do. Getting
> people to give up audio entertainment or drinking coffee in their cars
> is not going to happen. But getting them to use a hands-free device, or
> not use a cell phone at all around schools, is something that stands a
> chance of happening.
Good luck with that. Parents use cell phones all the time to call their
kids when they are trying to pick them up at school.
As for a hands-free device - I spend FAR more time fiddling with the
stupid headset than I ever did when I just held a phone to my ear.
There is no data to support the idea that using a hands-free device is
safer. I use one because it's the law, not because I believe that it
increases safety.
jc
jcdill
> I believe that you need to investigate further as I've seen studies
> that demonstrate that hand phone use while driving is a cause of
> accidents and further that the use of a "hands free" device does
> little to improve the odds.
>
> A very superficial investigations shows:
> http://www.aei.org/docLib/20041019_WP106.pdf
The study's hypothesis proves only that careless drivers are careless.
Note that they didn't check to see if the overall accident rate changed
- they failed to consider that these people would get into an accident
by *being careless* in either case (with or without a cell phone at hand).
Take a close look at Table 4. Drivers who use cell phones for 1 hour a
day or more had the LOWEST ACCIDENT RATE - lower than those who don't
own a cell phone at all. In their survey, 85%[1] of those who use cell
phones say they use them while driving. They don't break out what
percent of those who use cell phones for 1 hour a day or more do or
don't use their phones while driving, but they can't possibly all be in
the 15% who have cell phones but never use them while driving. (If the
were disproportionately represented in the "never use the phone while
driving" group, the report should have noted it.)
[1] Not 71.6%, as that figure includes those who were studied but don't
own cell phones.
> http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/index.html
This site is pure propaganda, using bogus statistics. (I'm *loathe* to
use the "government is spreading propaganda" claim, but it's completely
justified with this "report" that claims to be using facts and data but
which is using neither correctly.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety
In the US, the number of cell phone subscribers has increased by
1,262.4% between the years 1985-2008. In approximately the same period
the number of crashes has fallen by 0.9% (1995–2009) and the number of
fatal crashes fallen by 6.2%.[13][14][15] It has been argued that these
statistics contradict the claims that mobile use impairs driving
performance.[16] Similarly, a 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data
Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key
states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving
and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41%
to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban
was enacted. [17][18]
> See above.
Ditto.
jc
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> On 16/08/11 4:16 PM, damyth wrote:
>
>> You can't even discuss this rationally.
>>
>> Exactly how many accidents and fatalities would it take for you to
>> determine there is a relationship between talking/texting on a cell
>> phone while driving and driving impaired?
>
> There are 10s of thousands of people killed in traffic accidents in the
> US every year. We have the data. We just need to look at the data
> intelligently. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety
>
> In the US, the number of cell phone subscribers has increased by
> 1,262.4% between the years 1985-2008. In approximately the same period
> the number of crashes has fallen by 0.9% (1995–2009) and the number of
> fatal crashes fallen by 6.2%.[13][14][15] It has been argued that these
> statistics contradict the claims that mobile use impairs driving
> performance.[16] Similarly, a 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data
> Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key
> states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving
> and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41%
> to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban
Do these studies account for most of the ill handling, poor braking POS
vehicles sold by "Detroit" up through the early 1980s going to the
junkyards where they belong?
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> There is very clear data that helmet use reduces serious head injuries.
> The rate of head injuries among bike riders (and horse riders, and
> motorcycle riders) has declined dramatically with a strong correlation
> to increased helmet use. For example:
>
> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
>
> How do helmet laws affect motorcyclist deaths and injuries?
>
> In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet
> laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and
> injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal
> helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and
> injuries rose.
>
> (This was the first cite I found - I know there are many more, including
Do these studies account for many lidless motorcycle riders being on
cruiser bikes that have relatively poor handling and brakes, or being
reckless squids on sport bikes? The moto riders I see with full-face
helmets, CE compliant body armor, and armored gloves and boots are
generally on "metric" or European sport-touring or dual-sport bikes.
The latter group will have much lower head injury rates than the former
groups due to riding properly.
jcdill
We see declining accident rates, surely retiring older cars with poorer
braking characteristics could be part of the reason why.
If cell phone use is contributing to increasing accident rates we would
see a hockey-stick shaped bump in the traffic rate, one that correlates
for the hockey-stick shaped chart you would get if you graphed cell
phone use in the US, using data such as this:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html
But there is no such bump. The declining accident rate is fairly
steady, with absolutely no correlation with the huge increase in cell
phone usage. Further, the rate doesn't change when laws are passed
banning cell phones - a clear indicator that cell phone usage is not,
per se, the cause behind the accidents that occur when cell phones are
in use when driving, that the same groups of drivers are getting into
just as many accidents even when they aren't using cell phones while
driving.
jc
jcdill
> On 8/17/2011 2:05 AM, jcdill wrote:
>> [...]
>> There is very clear data that helmet use reduces serious head injuries.
>> The rate of head injuries among bike riders (and horse riders, and
>> motorcycle riders) has declined dramatically with a strong correlation
>> to increased helmet use. For example:
>>
>> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
>>
>> How do helmet laws affect motorcyclist deaths and injuries?
>>
>> In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet
>> laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and
>> injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal
>> helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and
>> injuries rose.
>>
>> (This was the first cite I found - I know there are many more, including
>> cites for bike helemts and horse helmets.)[...]
>
> Do these studies account for many lidless motorcycle riders being on
> cruiser bikes that have relatively poor handling and brakes, or being
> reckless squids on sport bikes?
Doesn't matter.
The study correlates hospital records with the dates that helmet laws
were enacted or repealed. The types of bikes used can be assumed to
remain constant when comparing same-year accident rates for state A that
has a helmet law and state B that does not have a helmet law. The
primary thing that changes (in any substantial way) is the law, and
there's a dramatic change in the types of injuries that occur
before/after these law changes.
jc
Dan O
Rims and brake pads? Pedal cleats? Powerbars for the energy needed
to make it home? :-)
(Granted, time is far more valuable than those material things -
although, most people have to spend time earning money to buy those
things, and more time servicing those components... )
Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from and it's
perfectly all right, and efficiency is not the end all, be all, but it
is what it is.
Ben Pfaff
>> I normally stop for stop signs. It doesn't cost me anything,
>> beyond a second or two.
>
> Rims and brake pads? Pedal cleats? Powerbars for the energy needed
> to make it home? :-)
I don't mind if you don't stop for stop signs, as long as you
don't endanger me or force me to dodge you, etc. as a result.
But I usually do stop, myself.
Dan O
> Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I normally stop for stop signs. It doesn't cost me anything,
> >> beyond a second or two.
>
> > Rims and brake pads? Pedal cleats? Powerbars for the energy needed
> > to make it home? :-)
>
> I don't mind if you don't stop for stop signs, as long as you
> don't endanger me or force me to dodge you, etc. as a result.
Fair enough - you've got it - absolutely - you may rely on it!
(Wow! A reasonable encounter over differences on rbt!)
> But I usually do stop, myself.
And for that you *do*, indeed, have the moral higher ground (I mean
it). Thank you for not using it to spit on me down here :-)
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Or the bozos stop riding if they have to wear a lid. Unless the studies
consider changes in use, they are worthless.
jcdill
> Or the bozos stop riding if they have to wear a lid. Unless the studies
> consider changes in use, they are worthless.
I'm pretty sure they also looked at bike sales and registration numbers,
to correlate the accident rate with the number of bikes on the road. If
there was a significant change in the type of riding, it would show up
in that data - e.g. did bike sales fall off when a helmet law was enacted?
jc
SMS
You make the same mistake, of believing that correlation equals
causation, in believing that if sales went up or down after a helmet law
that that sales change is necessarily due to that law. I see the monthly
numbers for bicycles sold in North America. They fluctuate wildly for a
number of reasons. Helmets have never been mentioned as a cause for the
changes. There is no way you could attribute change in sales to any one
specific factor.
jcdill
> jcdill<jcdill...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:49:02
New vehicle sales are a very good proxy for miles driven. When gas
prices skyrocketed in the spring and summer 2008 (before the financial
crisis in the fall of 2008), people stopped driving gas guzzlers, the
resale value of gas guzzlers dropped dramatically, and the sales of new
gas guzzlers plummeted. Similarly, if something happened to cause HOGs
to stop riding, many would put their bikes up for sale, used bike prices
would fall, and sales of new Harleys would slow or stop.
> You have to remember that out-of-state riders without helmets would be
> put off visiting a MHL state, where the reverse would not be true.
> That pushes mileage into free choice states from MHL ones.
If you wanted to study it down to this level, I bet you could get the
raw data including the state of residence for every rider who was
hospitalized with a head injury, and try to determine if out-of-state
riders increase in a state that recently repealed a helmet law, etc.
jc
jcdill
> On 8/17/2011 4:49 PM, jcdill wrote:
>> On 17/08/11 4:36 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>>
>>> Or the bozos stop riding if they have to wear a lid. Unless the studies
>>> consider changes in use, they are worthless.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure they also looked at bike sales and registration numbers,
>> to correlate the accident rate with the number of bikes on the road. If
>> there was a significant change in the type of riding, it would show up
>> in that data - e.g. did bike sales fall off when a helmet law was
>> enacted?
>
> You make the same mistake, of believing that correlation equals
> causation,
Correlation means we *might* have found a cause and effect, but we can't
be certain that we have found a cause and effect. But if there's no
correlation, then there's NO cause and effect.
> Helmets have never been mentioned as a cause for the
> changes.
It's not helmets, it's helmet LAWS. The study I cited determined that
helmet law changes affect helmet usage (reported by hospitals) which
affected head injury rates (reported by hospitals).
> There is no way you could attribute change in sales to any one
> specific factor.
They (statisticians) do it all the time. Unless you are a statistician
and can explain why this must be "wrong" in every case, I'm going to go
with the peer-reviewed scientific studies on this one.
jc
Frank Krygowski
Some smart people disagree with you.
See http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/0503/041.html
One friend of mine who is a somewhat well-known traffic researcher has
claimed that the most important confounding factor is experience. The
crash rate for novices on motorcycles is far, far higher than that for
experienced riders. And he claimed he had evidence that repeal of a MHL
for motorcyclists greatly increased the appeal - and the novice
population - of motorcycling. He feels that the influx of novices is
far more important than the lack of helmets. Unfortunately, that topic
is not his major interest, and AFAIK he never published the data he found.
Incidentally, he did find some significant protective benefit for
motorcycle helmets, based on his study of crashes where two people were
on a motorcycle, one helmeted and one not. OTOH, he is strongly
skeptical of bicycle helmets, based on his data.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Correlation means we *might* have found a cause and effect, but we can't
> be certain that we have found a cause and effect. But if there's no
> correlation, then there's NO cause and effect.
Not necessarily. Lack of correlation between two variables can be
caused by an unrecognized third variable. False correlation can also
show up, for the same reason.
For example: Many case-control studies of self-selected subjects claimed
that bike helmet use correlated with lower head injuries, but few if any
studies controlled for the confounding factor of alcohol use.
Crocker of Austin set up yet another case-control study of self-selected
subjects but also tracked alcohol use. He found that a) alcohol use is
strongly correlated with lack of helmet; and b) when that was controlled
for, bike helmets had no significant effect on head injuries.
Of course, alcohol use is far from the only potential confounding factor
in a study of self-selected subjects. That's why such studies are
generally considered garbage in the medical field. Unless they're used
to promote bike helmet, that is. Then anything is acceptable.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Jonz
Yep! Reg'lar as clockwork, another pissin' contest about bibycle helmet
laws.
Jonz
SMS
> The study correlates hospital records with the dates that helmet laws
> were enacted or repealed. The types of bikes used can be assumed to
> remain constant when comparing same-year accident rates for state A that
> has a helmet law and state B that does not have a helmet law. The
> primary thing that changes (in any substantial way) is the law, and
> there's a dramatic change in the types of injuries that occur
> before/after these law changes.
Reductions in injury rates and fatalities following the imposition of a
mandatory bicycle helmet law are _always_ disputed with the claim that
cycling rates drastically fell after the law (even though there is
absolutely no evidence this ever occurred, and in fact cycling rates
continued to go up even in jurisdictions that instituted helmet laws).
So while your intent is good, be aware of how it will be challenged.
There is raw data available from many states that includes injury and
fatality rates for helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists, and that also
includes the percentage of cyclists overall that wear helmets so you can
can normalize the data. At least this data can't be claimed to be
influenced by reduced ridership due to helmet laws, though I'm pretty
certain that they'll find other bogus ways to challenge it.
I.e. if you normalize data from Florida (1997) the only significant
difference is in fatalities, where an unhelmeted rider was 3.4 times
more likely to be killed as a helmeted rider (the raw data showed about
21 times as many fatalities). The unhelmeted cyclist was only about 3%
more likely to have a serious injury than a helmeted cyclist, but of
course many of those fatalities of the non-helmeted riders would have
been serious injuries had they been wearing a helmet, so no one should
jump up and down and yell "only 3% fewer serious injuries!"
Most people recognize that it is possible to oppose mandatory helmet
laws, while at the same time recognizing the fact that helmets do have a
positive effect when head-impact crashes occur. The statistical data to
support the latter point is overwhelming and incontravertible (though
each study shows different percentages, every study supports the basic
premise).
Frank Krygowski
<sigh> I've cited many studies that absolutely disprove Scharf's "every
study" claim. Still Scharf lies about that point. To save typing,
let's just talk about the national data:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
Scharf still has no explanation of why the numbers don't match his claims.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Yep! Reg'lar as clockwork, another pissin' contest about bibycle helmet
> laws.
>
> Jonz
Reading this is optional, Jonz. If you're not interested, skip it.
--
- Frank Krygowski
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> New vehicle sales are a very good proxy for miles driven. When gas
> prices skyrocketed in the spring and summer 2008 (before the financial
> crisis in the fall of 2008), people stopped driving gas guzzlers, the
> resale value of gas guzzlers dropped dramatically, and the sales of new
> gas guzzlers plummeted. Similarly, if something happened to cause HOGs
> to stop riding, many would put their bikes up for sale, used bike prices
This has already happened to some extent. Only old people wanting old
technology buy H-D: other people wanting a moto designed after 1950 ride
"metric" bikes.
jcdill
> jcdill wrote:
>>
>> Correlation means we *might* have found a cause and effect, but we can't
>> be certain that we have found a cause and effect. But if there's no
>> correlation, then there's NO cause and effect.
>
> Not necessarily. Lack of correlation between two variables can be caused
> by an unrecognized third variable.
Possible, but I'd like to see a cite for it actually happening in The
Real World before I'd give this possibility much consideration. It
would be very unusual for a 3rd variable to *exactly* offset one of the
primary variables being tracked.
> False correlation can also show up,
> for the same reason.
>
> For example: Many case-control studies of self-selected subjects
Self-selected studies are mostly worthless.
> claimed
> that bike helmet use correlated with lower head injuries, but few if any
> studies controlled for the confounding factor of alcohol use.
>
> Crocker of Austin set up yet another case-control study of self-selected
There you go again with the self-selected "studies".
> subjects but also tracked alcohol use. He found that a) alcohol use is
> strongly correlated with lack of helmet; and b) when that was controlled
> for, bike helmets had no significant effect on head injuries.
Do you have a cite for this study?
> Of course, alcohol use is far from the only potential confounding factor
> in a study of self-selected subjects. That's why such studies are
> generally considered garbage in the medical field.
So why are YOU promoting them as an example of anything?
> Unless they're used
> to promote bike helmet, that is. Then anything is acceptable.
Pot, kettle, black.
jc
jcdill
The "smart" people who are members of MENSA are often not very smart in
real life. They tend to be people who are good at taking tests, but
poor at making anything of their intelligence, and also poor at social
interactions, thus the appeal of a social club of similar "smart" people.
(I've been to several MENSA meetings, invited by people who fall into
the category I describe above, and the meetings were full of people who
fall into the category I describe above. There's a reason I don't
belong to MENSA and it's not because I couldn't qualify.)
> One friend of mine who is a somewhat well-known traffic researcher has
> claimed that the most important confounding factor is experience. The
> crash rate for novices on motorcycles is far, far higher than that for
> experienced riders. And he claimed he had evidence that repeal of a MHL
> for motorcyclists greatly increased the appeal - and the novice
> population - of motorcycling. He feels that the influx of novices is far
> more important than the lack of helmets. Unfortunately, that topic is
> not his major interest, and AFAIK he never published the data he found.
>
> Incidentally, he did find some significant protective benefit for
> motorcycle helmets, based on his study of crashes where two people were
> on a motorcycle, one helmeted and one not. OTOH, he is strongly
> skeptical of bicycle helmets, based on his data.
While I have no idea how to find the data, I know that there's strong
evidence that helmets reduce injuries for falls suffered when horseback
riding. There are few helmet "laws" for horseback riding - mostly it's
a matter of competition rules, stable rules, insurance rules. The
situation he describes above, where a bunch of novices would suddenly
change the balance of the population and thus potentially be
disproportionately represented in the accident statistics hasn't
appeared to happen with horse back riding. But we do have clear data
(somewhere - I've seen articles about it over the past 10 years)
regarding horseback riding head injuries that show a very strong
correlation to serious brain injuries with not-wearing a helmet.
jc
Dan O
Largely about image (around here anyway). They want to suck it up and
take it from the man Mon-Fri 9-5, but feel like an outlaw on Sunday
afternoon. Kind of the complement of church folk who stick it to
their fellow man all week long, then wind up their deity Sunday
morning.
Frank Krygowski
> On 18/08/11 11:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> jcdill wrote:
>>>
>>> Correlation means we *might* have found a cause and effect, but we can't
>>> be certain that we have found a cause and effect. But if there's no
>>> correlation, then there's NO cause and effect.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Lack of correlation between two variables can be caused
>> by an unrecognized third variable.
>
> Possible, but I'd like to see a cite for it actually happening in The
> Real World before I'd give this possibility much consideration. It would
> be very unusual for a 3rd variable to *exactly* offset one of the
> primary variables being tracked.
In general, "exactly" isn't required. The countering effect just needs
to be great enough to remove apparent statistical significance. That's
an easier target.
>
>> False correlation can also show up,
>> for the same reason.
>>
>> For example: Many case-control studies of self-selected subjects
>
> Self-selected studies are mostly worthless.
Agreed.
>> claimed
>> that bike helmet use correlated with lower head injuries, but few if any
>> studies controlled for the confounding factor of alcohol use.
>>
>> Crocker of Austin set up yet another case-control study of self-selected
>
> There you go again with the self-selected "studies".
I'm saying Crocker deliberately set this up hoping to dishonestly sell
his MHL idea. But even this faulty study design, a type known to
over-estimate helmet benefits, betrayed him because he tracked another
variable as well.
>
>> subjects but also tracked alcohol use. He found that a) alcohol use is
>> strongly correlated with lack of helmet; and b) when that was controlled
>> for, bike helmets had no significant effect on head injuries.
>
> Do you have a cite for this study?
Crocker, Patrick et.al., "Alcohol, bicycling, and head and brain injury:
a study of impaired cyclists' riding patterns," American Journal of
Emergency Medicine (2010) 28,68–72
However, the paper doesn't tell the entire saga. You'd have to be aware
of Crocker's helmet promotion history, his attempt to extend the study
to find the results he wanted, etc.
>
>> Of course, alcohol use is far from the only potential confounding factor
>> in a study of self-selected subjects. That's why such studies are
>> generally considered garbage in the medical field.
>
> So why are YOU promoting them as an example of anything?
Again, I'm showing that even a study type known to erroneously credit
helmets for great protection gives different results when another
relevant variable (in this case, alcohol use) is properly accounted for.
--
- Frank Krygowski
jcdill
> Again, I'm showing that even a study type known to erroneously credit
> helmets for great protection gives different results when another
> relevant variable (in this case, alcohol use) is properly accounted for.
Funny, it looks like you are simply showing that a poor study is a poor
study.
jc
SMS
> Funny, it looks like you are simply showing that a poor study is a poor
> study.
That study was so poorly done that it does not show anything.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
I really do not hate H-D motorcycles, but cannot stand the ignorant H-D
fans who go around denigrating other bikes based on nothing by brand
bigotry.
It is interesting that the current standard H-D engine is the 103 c.i.
(1.7 L) "Twin Cam", which has almost the same displacement as my 2005
Honda Civic. A few comparisons:
- Hard to get figures for H-D, but around 65-75 Hp and 90-100 lb-ft of
torque, depending on specific tune
- Civic: 127 Hp and 114 lb-ft torque
H-D: Meets motorcycle emissions standards
Civic: Meets California ULEV standards
H-D: Overheating issues at low speeds
Civic: Will sit idling in the July sun with the A/C at full blast, and
the coolant temperature gauge does not budge
H-D: Vibrates like crazy while idling at 1,000+ rpm
Civic: Idles with minimal vibration at 500 rpm
H-D: Loud and obnoxious exhaust
Civic: Quite enough you can run it hard without attracting undue attention
H-D: Some durability concerns expressed due to hot running
Civic: Easy 250,000+ miles with hard running (and much less frequent
maintenance
H-D: 750-850 pounds, seats 2 and a little bit of luggage, mid 30's mpg
Civic: 2400+ pounds, seats 4 to 5, considerable luggage space, mid 30's mpg
Or another comparison:
H-D: Air-cooled 2-cylinder, about 40 Hp/L and 55 lb-ft/L
Honda Elite: Air-cooled single cylinder, about 82.4 Hp/L and 64 lb-ft/L
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Just like Scharf's website then, eh?
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
[...]
> Incidentally, he did find some significant protective benefit for
> motorcycle helmets, based on his study of crashes where two people were
> on a motorcycle, one helmeted and one not. OTOH, he is strongly
On a modern large displacement bike, you can get pretty good
helmet-to-helmet contact by goosing the controls.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> While I have no idea how to find the data, I know that there's strong
> evidence that helmets reduce injuries for falls suffered when horseback
> riding. There are few helmet "laws" for horseback riding - mostly it's
> a matter of competition rules, stable rules, insurance rules. The
> situation he describes above, where a bunch of novices would suddenly
> change the balance of the population and thus potentially be
> disproportionately represented in the accident statistics hasn't
> appeared to happen with horse back riding. But we do have clear data
> (somewhere - I've seen articles about it over the past 10 years)
> regarding horseback riding head injuries that show a very strong
Equestrians are generally rich, so lawmakers are *not* going to impose
onerous rules on them.
Same thing with motorcycle MHL repeals: the politicians are afraid of
all the "weekend warrior" lawyers, accountants, etc who ride H-D lidless.
Bicyclists lack the political clout of the first two groups, so the
lawmakers will take contributions from the lid sellers and screw over
cyclists.
AMuzi
I'm not saying anything about Hondas either way but isn't
this just stunningly beautiful?
http://www.milestonemotorcyclerestoration.com/files/1923319/uploaded/37%20knucklehead%202%20010.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
AMuzi
Up nort' here, we do mass demonstrations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM
Unlike some, this was highly successful; helmet law was not
passed. Also unlike some, the motorcyclists didn't leave
huge piles of garbage everywhere when they left. Good crowd,
IMHO.
Tom, spot the idle rich in that video please.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> T°m Sherm@n > wrote:
>> [...]
> I'm not saying anything about Hondas either way but isn't this just
> stunningly beautiful?
>
> http://www.milestonemotorcyclerestoration.com/files/1923319/uploaded/37%20knucklehead%202%20010.JPG
>
Was state of the art 80+ years ago, which cannot be said about current
versions.
This is near perfection in looks:
<http://www.g4izh.com/resources/honda-cbr-400-rr-1993.jpg>.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Uh, read what I wrote again - the H-D riders were categorized as
middle-class professionals, not idle rich (or the 1%ers they pretend to
be on weekends).
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> Or another comparison:
>
> H-D: Air-cooled 2-cylinder, about 40 Hp/L and 55 lb-ft/L
>
D'oh!
Frank Krygowski
That's SMS's typical criterion: If a study proves he was wrong yet
again, it's a bad study.
Step one is to proclaim it bad. Step two (usually scheduled to happen
within a week) is to pretend it doesn't exist at all - as in "Every
single study ever done anywhere proves I'm right."
--
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
> yourself with.
Tonight while driving home there were two teenage cyclists riding in the
middle of the road, with their helmets hanging on the handlebars, with
no lights, and one was texting on a smart phone.
A 1/2 mile away there were six sheriff's deputies doing a sobriety
checkpoint by a shopping center with two hole-in-the-wall Chinese
restaurants and one hole-in-the-wall Japanese restaurant, none of which
sell very much alcohol.
Michael Press
wrote:
> I'm not saying anything about Hondas either way but isn't
> this just stunningly beautiful?
>
> http://www.milestonemotorcyclerestoration.com/files/1923319/uploaded/37%20knucklehead%202%20010.JPG
Ever kick start a 600 cc engine on a cold morning? 1200 cc?
--
Michael Press
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
spoiled I am by a modern Honda with an electric starter, fuel injection
and an ECM with an automatic choke. No warm-up required before riding off.
Pre-WW2 Mercedes-Benz diesels had hand cranks. Never had the
opportunity to use one, but cannot have been something for the weak-armed.
Still better than hand propping an airplane, as the motorcycle or car
lacks the potential to cut you into several pieces if you screw up.
Dan O
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 8/20/2011 4:24 AM, Michael Press wrote:> In article<j2n1cc$59...@dont-email.me>, AMuzi<a...@yellowjersey.org>
> > wrote:
>
> >> I'm not saying anything about Hondas either way but isn't
> >> this just stunningly beautiful?
>
>
http://www.milestonemotorcyclerestoration.com/files/1923319/uploaded/37%20knucklehead%202%20010.JPG
It *is* beautiful - especially compared to the ubiquitious chromed-to-
the-max hog I see with ape-hanger bars, etc.
> > Ever kick start a 600 cc engine on a cold morning? 1200 cc?
>
> Helps to be a large person, but still no fun.
If the engine is tuned and the fuel is good, you just have to get it
to the right part of the stroke and give it a good push through one
compression - spark cycle.
> Makes me realize how
> spoiled I am by a modern Honda with an electric starter, fuel injection
> and an ECM with an automatic choke. No warm-up required before riding off.
>
I feel the same way about the family truckster (2000 Dodge Grand
Caravan). Having had '67 Ford and '68 and '73 Dodge vans, I have the
perspective to appreciate the advances in convenience and reliability.
> Pre-WW2 Mercedes-Benz diesels had hand cranks. Never had the
> opportunity to use one, but cannot have been something for the weak-armed.
>
I never had one, either; but again, I *imagine* it's a matter of
knowing how to find the right point in the stroke and giving it a push
(and again, wish for a well tuned engine). (Does that use glo-plugs
or whatever? Do they need pre-heating? How does that work? I am
obviously not so knowledgable around diesel engines.)
> Still better than hand propping an airplane, as the motorcycle or car
> lacks the potential to cut you into several pieces if you screw up.
>
Yes, due care is definitely called for there; but *again* - "screw up"
implies lack of cognizance re; the state of the combustion chamber(s),
ignition timing, and related valves.
Hmm... anthropomorphic that I am, thinking about the man - machine
relationship - having a moment... like a realization is near about
intimacy, understanding, and response - whoa! :-)
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>On 8/16/2011 12:15 PM, Chalo wrote:
>
>> But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
>> yourself with.
>
>Tonight while driving home there were two teenage cyclists riding in the
>middle of the road, with their helmets hanging on the handlebars, with
>no lights, and one was texting on a smart phone.
I was going to mention that I have never seen anyone on a bicycle
talking on a cell phone, much less texting. I must not have been
paying attention because yesterday, I saw two riders with one hand on
the handle bar, and the other holding a phone to their ear. One was
about 17, while the other was about 35. However, I'm not worried.
Darwin's natural selection mechanism should take care of the problem.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
jcdill
> On 8/19/2011 1:20 AM, jcdill wrote:
>> [...]
>> While I have no idea how to find the data, I know that there's strong
>> evidence that helmets reduce injuries for falls suffered when horseback
>> riding. There are few helmet "laws" for horseback riding - mostly it's
>> a matter of competition rules, stable rules, insurance rules. The
>> situation he describes above, where a bunch of novices would suddenly
>> change the balance of the population and thus potentially be
>> disproportionately represented in the accident statistics hasn't
>> appeared to happen with horse back riding. But we do have clear data
>> (somewhere - I've seen articles about it over the past 10 years)
>> regarding horseback riding head injuries that show a very strong
>> correlation to serious brain injuries with not-wearing a helmet.[...]
>
> Equestrians are generally rich,
No, they aren't. Many are barely making ends meet. The rich ones are
the ones you see at horse shows on TV, but very VERY few people show at
those levels. Just as not every person who rides a bike is like Lance
Armstrong, not every person who owns a horse is like the rich people you
see on TV.
> so lawmakers are *not* going to impose
> onerous rules on them.
Wrong again. They attempt to impose onerous rules all the time, and we
have to be very vigilant to fight for our rights. Google NAIS to see
the latest issue.
> Same thing with motorcycle MHL repeals: the politicians are afraid of
> all the "weekend warrior" lawyers, accountants, etc who ride H-D lidless.
>
> Bicyclists lack the political clout of the first two groups, so the
> lawmakers will take contributions from the lid sellers and screw over
> cyclists.
I dunno, looks like bicyclists in SF have a LOT of political clout,
certainly a lot more than the horse owners in SF.
http://tonyhallsf.wordpress.com/
Quote:
Observation No. 2; The Golden Gate Park Stables: A unique San Francisco
tradition since 1875, the stables in the park were shut down on
“temporary basis for repair” in September of 2001. The last of 22 public
stables in San Francisco, the park stables, during its 130 years of
existence, had housed many public, private and polo ponies for
equestrian enjoyment and had introduced dozens of generations of school
children and adults to the joys of horseback-riding. As a Supervisor and
30-year City employee, I sensed that the so-called “temporary shut down”
was nothing more than an excuse for the Dept. of Recreation and Parks to
shed its responsibility of the maintenance of this time-treasured
institution. I called for a series of public hearings and had received
the assurances and guarantees from the then-General Manager of Rec. and
Park, Elizabeth Goldstein, that monies were available for the
reconstruction of the stables and that construction would commence as
soon as architectural drawings and permits were produced. Seeing no
action, on July 23rd of the following year, I introduced two resolutions
that were passed at the Board of Supervisors. The first established a
working group of experienced people to work with the Department to
evaluate the most efficient and effective manner to repair and improve
the stables. The second resolution which I introduced and passed, is
still relevant today and is part of THE SOLUTION: It is based on the
voter approved 1998’s Proposition J, It urged the Recreation and Park
Department to allocate existing funds to repair and improve the stables
and, if necessary, repay the monies expended by soliciting funds from
the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority. To date, the stables sit in
abandonment due to the incompetence of city bureaucrats who have ignored
the legislative mandates and no doubt misspent the monies that were
once—and could again—be available.
jc
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> On 19/08/11 6:00 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>> On 8/19/2011 1:20 AM, jcdill wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> While I have no idea how to find the data, I know that there's strong
>>> evidence that helmets reduce injuries for falls suffered when horseback
>>> riding. There are few helmet "laws" for horseback riding - mostly it's
>>> a matter of competition rules, stable rules, insurance rules. The
>>> situation he describes above, where a bunch of novices would suddenly
>>> change the balance of the population and thus potentially be
>>> disproportionately represented in the accident statistics hasn't
>>> appeared to happen with horse back riding. But we do have clear data
>>> (somewhere - I've seen articles about it over the past 10 years)
>>> regarding horseback riding head injuries that show a very strong
>>> correlation to serious brain injuries with not-wearing a helmet.[...]
>>
>> Equestrians are generally rich,
>
> No, they aren't. Many are barely making ends meet. The rich ones are the
> ones you see at horse shows on TV, but very VERY few people show at
> those levels. Just as not every person who rides a bike is like Lance
> Armstrong, not every person who owns a horse is like the rich people you
> see on TV.
>
less wealthy equestrians benefit from the trickle-down.
If equestrians were really poor, they would be selling the horses, not
riding them.
>> so lawmakers are *not* going to impose
>> onerous rules on them.
>
> Wrong again. They attempt to impose onerous rules all the time, and we
> have to be very vigilant to fight for our rights. Google NAIS to see the
> latest issue.
>
butbutbut, rich equestrians can ride on private land where they do not
have to worry about mingling with the lower classes.
Why would rich equestrians want to fund greater access to horse riding
with tax money - that goes against the goal of the rich to exclude us
unwashed "worthless eaters"? The rich do not need or want public
facilities.
jcdill
> On 8/20/2011 11:09 AM, jcdill wrote:
>> On 19/08/11 6:00 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>>> On 8/19/2011 1:20 AM, jcdill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> While I have no idea how to find the data, I know that there's strong
>>>> evidence that helmets reduce injuries for falls suffered when horseback
>>>> riding. There are few helmet "laws" for horseback riding - mostly it's
>>>> a matter of competition rules, stable rules, insurance rules. The
>>>> situation he describes above, where a bunch of novices would suddenly
>>>> change the balance of the population and thus potentially be
>>>> disproportionately represented in the accident statistics hasn't
>>>> appeared to happen with horse back riding. But we do have clear data
>>>> (somewhere - I've seen articles about it over the past 10 years)
>>>> regarding horseback riding head injuries that show a very strong
>>>> correlation to serious brain injuries with not-wearing a helmet.[...]
>>>
>>> Equestrians are generally rich,
>>
>> No, they aren't. Many are barely making ends meet. The rich ones are the
>> ones you see at horse shows on TV, but very VERY few people show at
>> those levels. Just as not every person who rides a bike is like Lance
>> Armstrong, not every person who owns a horse is like the rich people you
>> see on TV.
>>
> The few rich horse owners are the ones the politicians care about. The
> less wealthy equestrians benefit from the trickle-down.
NO, they don't benefit from laws enacted to benefit the wealthy, any
more than non-horse owners benefit from laws enacted to benefit the wealthy!
> If equestrians were really poor, they would be selling the horses, not
> riding them.
You obviously don't know many horse owners. Where most people would
spend money on cars or dining out, many "dirt poor" horse owners will
drive ancient heaps and live on oatmeal in order to spend that money on
their horses instead. There's also a very big problem with trying to
sell horses right now. You might not care if someone buys your bike and
dismantles it and sells it for parts, but most horse owners don't want
to see their horse sold "for parts" (sold to slaughter) and will cut
costs elsewhere to keep paying to feed the horse rather than see it go
to a bad home or bad end.
>>> so lawmakers are *not* going to impose
>>> onerous rules on them.
>>
>> Wrong again. They attempt to impose onerous rules all the time, and we
>> have to be very vigilant to fight for our rights. Google NAIS to see the
>> latest issue.
>>
> butbutbut, rich equestrians can ride on private land where they do not
> have to worry about mingling with the lower classes.
Again, you obviously don't know anything about this topic. Most
equestrians are not rich, and most who ride outside of an arena ride on
public land (park land).
Why do you keep assuming that all horse owners are rich? Most are NOT
rich. Period.
The people who boarded at the Golden Gate Stables before it was closed
paid an extra fee that was supposed to go into a fund to pay for the
repairs, but the repairs were never done and the money was used for
other purposes, in violation of their boarding contract. All they want
is the opportunity to repair and use the stable. They aren't asking for
public funds to be used for that, they are asking for the funds THEY
PAID which were supposed to be allocated to this repair BE used for this
repair. They are happy to do further fund-raising and to have all
repairs done with privately raised funds but ONLY if there's a guarantee
that the repairs will be done AND that they can continue to use the
stables they have paid to have repaired. Instead, the stables sit in
disrepair, more than 10 years later. Currently there are no privately
owned horses stabled anywhere in SF (at private or public barns) - only
police horses. In a city of 700,000+ people, with a huge public park
that has bridle trails, riding arenas, and a polo field, the public
can't use these horse facilities because the boarding barn was allowed
to lapse into disrepair and the city has refused to let the horse owners
restore it.
jc
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
>> If equestrians were really poor, they would be selling the horses, not
>> riding them.
>
> You obviously don't know many horse owners. Where most people would
> spend money on cars or dining out, many "dirt poor" horse owners will
> drive ancient heaps and live on oatmeal in order to spend that money on
> their horses instead. There's also a very big problem with trying to
> sell horses right now. You might not care if someone buys your bike and
> dismantles it and sells it for parts, but most horse owners don't want
> to see their horse sold "for parts" (sold to slaughter) and will cut
> costs elsewhere to keep paying to feed the horse rather than see it go
> to a bad home or bad end.
>
butbutbut, horseflesh is tasty! Mmmm....
Honda Elite - Not so tasty. :)
>>>> so lawmakers are *not* going to impose
>>>> onerous rules on them.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. They attempt to impose onerous rules all the time, and we
>>> have to be very vigilant to fight for our rights. Google NAIS to see the
>>> latest issue.
>>>
>> butbutbut, rich equestrians can ride on private land where they do not
>> have to worry about mingling with the lower classes.
>
> Again, you obviously don't know anything about this topic. Most
> equestrians are not rich, and most who ride outside of an arena ride on
> public land (park land).
>
The rich keep their horses in private stables with private riding
grounds that keep the proletariat out. The really rich have stables and
riding grounds as part of their estate(s).
I never made that assumption. Reading Comprehension 101?
The point is as long as rich equestrians get what they want, the
politicians are safe in our plutocracy.
> The people who boarded at the Golden Gate Stables before it was closed
> paid an extra fee that was supposed to go into a fund to pay for the
> repairs, but the repairs were never done and the money was used for
> other purposes, in violation of their boarding contract. All they want
> is the opportunity to repair and use the stable. They aren't asking for
> public funds to be used for that, they are asking for the funds THEY
> PAID which were supposed to be allocated to this repair BE used for this
> repair. They are happy to do further fund-raising and to have all
> repairs done with privately raised funds but ONLY if there's a guarantee
> that the repairs will be done AND that they can continue to use the
> stables they have paid to have repaired. Instead, the stables sit in
> disrepair, more than 10 years later. Currently there are no privately
> owned horses stabled anywhere in SF (at private or public barns) - only
> police horses. In a city of 700,000+ people, with a huge public park
> that has bridle trails, riding arenas, and a polo field, the public
> can't use these horse facilities because the boarding barn was allowed
> to lapse into disrepair and the city has refused to let the horse owners
> restore it.
Maybe if they used horse diapers?
<http://www.equisan.com.au/>
AMuzi
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:44:10 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2011 12:15 PM, Chalo wrote:
>>
>>> But yes, riding distracted is dumb regardless what you distract
>>> yourself with.
>> Tonight while driving home there were two teenage cyclists riding in the
>> middle of the road, with their helmets hanging on the handlebars, with
>> no lights, and one was texting on a smart phone.
>
> I was going to mention that I have never seen anyone on a bicycle
> talking on a cell phone, much less texting. I must not have been
> paying attention because yesterday, I saw two riders with one hand on
> the handle bar, and the other holding a phone to their ear. One was
> about 17, while the other was about 35. However, I'm not worried.
> Darwin's natural selection mechanism should take care of the problem.
Well, in theory. Sadly neither sure nor swift.
Don Freeman
I used to go to those stables at least twice a month as they were one of
my kids favorite places, I never saw any of the borders that looked like
they were rich. But, more importantly, none with the attitude that you
associate them with.
--
__
(oO) www.cosmoslair.com
/||\ Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)
AMuzi
> On 20/08/11 10:22 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>> On 8/20/2011 11:09 AM, jcdill wrote:
>>> stables in San Francisco, the park stables, during its 130 years of
>>> existence, had housed many public, private and polo ponies for
>>> equestrian enjoyment and had introduced dozens of generations of school
>>> children and adults to the joys of horseback-riding. As a Supervisor and
>>> shut downâ€
>>> shed its responsibility of the maintenance of this time-treasured
>>> institution. I called for a series of public hearings and had received
>>> the assurances and guarantees from the then-General Manager of Rec. and
>>> Park, Elizabeth Goldstein, that monies were available for the
>>> reconstruction of the stables and that construction would commence as
>>> soon as architectural drawings and permits were produced. Seeing no
>>> action, on July 23rd of the following year, I introduced two resolutions
>>> that were passed at the Board of Supervisors. The first established a
>>> working group of experienced people to work with the Department to
>>> evaluate the most efficient and effective manner to repair and improve
>>> the stables. The second resolution which I introduced and passed, is
>>> still relevant today and is part of THE SOLUTION: It is based on the
>>> Department to allocate existing funds to repair and improve the stables
>>> and, if necessary, repay the monies expended by soliciting funds from
>>> the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority. To date, the stables sit in
>>> abandonment due to the incompetence of city bureaucrats who have ignored
>>> the legislative mandates and no doubt misspent the monies that were
Indeed I know horse owners who make about the same as I and
live very cheaply in order to support their animals
(including one of my current employees). If you think
cyclists are obsessive and driven, you haven't met them.
And this is merely Wisconsin, not Wyoming or Montana. You're
just dead wrong about this.
Barry
> cheaply in order to support their animals (including one of my current
> employees). If you think cyclists are obsessive and driven, you haven't met
> them.
But they're probably not obsessed about buying the lightest possible horse.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
7 minutes per pound at 350°F works for both horses and children.