Re: A quiet afternoon
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith ignores the balance you mention above because most people in
> America weigh those advantages and disadvantages and choose a car.
If many people "vote" for a car, it's a North Korea style election,
in which the options are stacked, and people who choose "wrong" are
placed at serious risk of injury or death.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
cryptoguy
> David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Keith ignores the balance you mention above because most people in
> > America weigh those advantages and disadvantages and choose a car.
>
> If many people "vote" for a car, it's a North Korea style election,
> in which the options are stacked, and people who choose "wrong" are
> placed at serious risk of injury or death.
I'm trying to parse this. I'm not quite sure what Keith is trying to
say: Does he actually mean that all transportation options, including
those that are used only by a small minority, should get equal
funding?
We're getting back to the area where he seemed to be suggesting that
every road in the country should have public bus service, at least
once an hour, 24/7, with stops not more than a mile apart.
If we're going that way, how about my preferred option, which would
require the construction of parallel bridle trails on every road, with
publicly funded watering and feeding stations for horses every 5
miles?
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm not quite sure what Keith is trying to say: Does he actually
> mean that all transportation options, including those that are used
> only by a small minority, should get equal funding?
By "funding" do you mean government funding? If so, yes, that's
exactly what I mean. Every one of them should get zero.
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Keith ignores the balance you mention above because most people in
>> America weigh those advantages and disadvantages and choose a car.
>
>If many people "vote" for a car, it's a North Korea style election,
>in which the options are stacked, and people who choose "wrong" are
>placed at serious risk of injury or death.
North Koreas has never had an election at any level. It's been in a
constant state of emergency since 1948.
I'd love to hear a story, with citations, of someone being threatened
with injury or death for choosing not to drive a car.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"Well I'm not evil, I'm just good looking." - Alice Cooper
Keith F. Lynch
> I'd love to hear a story, with citations, of someone being
> threatened with injury or death for choosing not to drive a car.
It's non-verbal. To experience it for yourself, walk or bike the
length of Prosperity Avenue here in Northern Virginia.
David Friedman
<1036827a-f92b-4afc...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:53�pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Keith ignores the balance you mention above because most people in
> > > America weigh those advantages and disadvantages and choose a car.
> >
> > If many people "vote" for a car, it's a North Korea style election,
> > in which the options are stacked, and people who choose "wrong" are
> > placed at serious risk of injury or death.
>
> I'm trying to parse this. I'm not quite sure what Keith is trying to
> say: Does he actually mean that all transportation options, including
> those that are used only by a small minority, should get equal
> funding?
I think his point is that the existence of lots of cars makes biking or
walking hazardous.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 8:53�pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> > David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Keith ignores the balance you mention above because most people in
>> > > America weigh those advantages and disadvantages and choose a car.
>> >
>> > If many people "vote" for a car, it's a North Korea style election,
>> > in which the options are stacked, and people who choose "wrong" are
>> > placed at serious risk of injury or death.
>>
>> I'm trying to parse this. I'm not quite sure what Keith is trying to
>> say: Does he actually mean that all transportation options, including
>> those that are used only by a small minority, should get equal
>> funding?
>
>I think his point is that the existence of lots of cars makes biking or
>walking hazardous.
The statistics seem to show that it not quite the case that Keith makes
it out to be.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html
That web page deals mostly with pedestrian deaths, but some of the
information is pretty revealing.
For example, alcohol consumption by pedestrians plays a major role - "In
2007, 37 percent of fatally injured pedestrians 16 and older had blood
alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent. Fifty-four
percent of pedestrians 16 and older who were fatally injured in
nighttime crashes (9 p.m. to 6 a.m.) had high BACs."
Jaywalking plays a major role - "The majority of pedestrian crashes
occur at locations other than intersections, where vehicle speeds may be
higher and where drivers do not expect to have to stop. One common type
of collision can be characterized as a dart out, when a pedestrian
appears suddenly from the roadside, allowing the driver little time to
react. An example is a child running out from between cars parked on a
residential street."
Inadequate lighting conditions play a major role - "Fatal
pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions occur most often between 6 p.m. and
midnight. Pedestrian deaths are most likely to occur on Friday,
Saturday, or Sunday."
The pedestrian is at fault in the majority of cases where fault can be
determined - "A 2002 Institute study of pedestrian deaths in Baltimore
and Washington, DC, revealed that pedestrians were more likely than
drivers to be judged at fault in these collisions (50 percent versus 39
percent with the remainder being either shared or unknown fault)."
Despite all the problems pedestrians present, death rates have declined
faster than all motor vehicle deaths - "Since 1975, the annual number of
pedestrian deaths has declined 38 percent, compared with an 8 percent
decline in all motor vehicle crash deaths. Pedestrian deaths comprised
17 percent of all crash deaths in 1975 and only 11 percent in 2007. The
per capita pedestrian death rate declined 56 percent since 1975 (from
3.5 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000)."
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/hispanic/03p00324/01.cfm
Curiously, the above web page shows that it is much more dangerous to be
black or Hispanic while cycling or walking.
It seems to be more dangerous to be *in* a car than to be a pedestrian
near a car.
--
"On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turn back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
Joy Beeson
> I'd love to hear a story, with citations, of someone being threatened
> with injury or death for choosing not to drive a car.
Check your local newpaper.
But of course it doen't make the news until someone has *experienced*
injury or death for choosing not to drive a car, and mere injuries are
seldom regarded as newsworthy.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Keith F. Lynch
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> I think his point is that the existence of lots of cars makes
>> biking or walking hazardous.
That's a very big part of it, yes. It's also the case that their
ubiquity causes numerous effects that reinforce that ubiquity,
independent of anyone's desires. For instance zoning laws mandate low
housing densities, since with such a high proportion of people having
cars, higher densities would result in traffic gridlock. But the low
housing densities cause everything to be further apart, making walking
and biking less practical.
> The statistics seem to show that it not quite the case that Keith
> makes it out to be.
> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html
> Jaywalking plays a major role - "The majority of pedestrian crashes
> occur at locations other than intersections, where vehicle speeds
> may be higher and where drivers do not expect to have to stop.
To a large extent, jaywalking is an (imperfect) defense against being
struck by cars. I believe it's often safer to cross midblock, i.e.
to jaywalk. You only have to watch for traffic from one direction
at a time, and the motorists will be looking right at you. At
intersections, it's common for a motorist to look left while turning
right. It's rare for pedestrians to get a light which stops turning
traffic; usually they have to share the crosswalk with car traffic
at all times.
> The pedestrian is at fault in the majority of cases where fault can
> be determined - "A 2002 Institute study of pedestrian deaths in
> Baltimore and Washington, DC, revealed that pedestrians were more
> likely than drivers to be judged at fault in these collisions (50
> percent versus 39 percent with the remainder being either shared or
> unknown fault)."
Are they lumping together small children who dart out after their ball
with adult pedestrian commuters? If you lump together enough unlike
things you can prove anything.
After a collision, the pedestrian is often in no condition to give his
side of the story, so whatever the motorist says is likely to be taken
as gospel.
> Despite all the problems pedestrians present, death rates have
> declined faster than all motor vehicle deaths - "Since 1975, the
> annual number of pedestrian deaths has declined 38 percent, ...
What is that per mile? If pedestrian deaths have declined 38 percent,
but walking has declined 70 percent, then the probability of death per
mile walked has more than doubled. The pedestrian death rate could
be reduced to zero if nobody walked anywhere. Without the number of
miles, this statistic is utter garbage, as useless as a screen door
on a submarine.
> http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/hispanic/03p00324/01.cfm
> Curiously, the above web page shows that it is much more dangerous
> to be black or Hispanic while cycling or walking.
Around here, Hispanics mostly bike on sidewalks, and Anglos mostly
bike on roads. The latter is much safer.
> It seems to be more dangerous to be *in* a car than to be a
> pedestrian near a car.
You can't conclude that from anything you quoted. You need to know
the risk per mile, or per hour.
Twelve passengers have died in crashes in Metrorail's 33-year history.
In the same 33 years, about 1.3 million people have died in car
crashes in the US. Does that mean cars are more than 100,000 times
more dangerous than Metrorail? Or is there something else you need
to know before you can estimate the relative risks?
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> I think his point is that the existence of lots of cars makes
>>> biking or walking hazardous.
>
>That's a very big part of it, yes. It's also the case that their
>ubiquity causes numerous effects that reinforce that ubiquity,
>independent of anyone's desires. For instance zoning laws mandate low
>housing densities,
Is that why there are 22 separate dwellings in a space that would hold
two single-family residences here in my apartment complex?
>since with such a high proportion of people having
>cars, higher densities would result in traffic gridlock. But the low
>housing densities cause everything to be further apart, making walking
>and biking less practical.
>
>> The statistics seem to show that it not quite the case that Keith
>> makes it out to be.
>
>> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html
>
>> Jaywalking plays a major role - "The majority of pedestrian crashes
>> occur at locations other than intersections, where vehicle speeds
>> may be higher and where drivers do not expect to have to stop.
>
>To a large extent, jaywalking is an (imperfect) defense against being
>struck by cars.
The data says that it is not. The data says it is more dangerous.
>I believe it's often safer to cross midblock, i.e. to jaywalk.
You believe a LOT of things that are not true.
>You only have to watch for traffic from one direction
>at a time, and the motorists will be looking right at you.
And, as noted above, where they "do not expect to have to stop" the
vehicle suddenly.
>At intersections, it's common for a motorist to look left while
>turning right. It's rare for pedestrians to get a light which stops
>turning traffic; usually they have to share the crosswalk with car
>traffic at all times.
It is amusing to me how you rely on the data when it suits your
assumptions (cycling on the road versus the sidewalk) and ignore it when
it shows you are wrong (as you are about jaywalking).
>> The pedestrian is at fault in the majority of cases where fault can
>> be determined - "A 2002 Institute study of pedestrian deaths in
>> Baltimore and Washington, DC, revealed that pedestrians were more
>> likely than drivers to be judged at fault in these collisions (50
>> percent versus 39 percent with the remainder being either shared or
>> unknown fault)."
>
>Are they lumping together small children who dart out after their ball
>with adult pedestrian commuters? If you lump together enough unlike
>things you can prove anything.
Why don't you *read* the data in the link?
For the record, children under 13 have the *lowest* pedestrian death
rate of any age group.
>After a collision, the pedestrian is often in no condition to give his
>side of the story,
Maybe not.
"In 2007, 70,000 pedestrians were injured in motor vehicle crashes in
this country, and 4,654 pedestrians were killed."
>so whatever the motorist says is likely to be taken as gospel.
A lot of accidents apparently fall into a default mode. If you get hit
by a car midblock, you are almost certainly going to judged to be at
fault. If a car hits you while turning, the driver is almost certainly
going to judged to be at fault.
"Pedestrians were almost always judged culpable in midblock and
intersection dash crashes, the kind involving a pedestrian who appears
suddenly in the path of a vehicle. Drivers were usually at fault in
other crash types such as when a vehicle is turning or backing up, or
when a vehicle leaves the road and strikes a pedestrian."
>> Despite all the problems pedestrians present, death rates have
>> declined faster than all motor vehicle deaths - "Since 1975, the
>> annual number of pedestrian deaths has declined 38 percent, ...
>
>What is that per mile?
Just where are you going to *get* a mileage figure from Keith?
>If pedestrian deaths have declined 38 percent,
>but walking has declined 70 percent, then the probability of death per
>mile walked has more than doubled. The pedestrian death rate could
>be reduced to zero if nobody walked anywhere. Without the number of
>miles, this statistic is utter garbage, as useless as a screen door
>on a submarine.
>
>> http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/hispanic/03p00324/01.cfm
>
>> Curiously, the above web page shows that it is much more dangerous
>> to be black or Hispanic while cycling or walking.
>
>Around here, Hispanics mostly bike on sidewalks, and Anglos mostly
>bike on roads. The latter is much safer.
>
>> It seems to be more dangerous to be *in* a car than to be a
>> pedestrian near a car.
>
>You can't conclude that from anything you quoted.
Which would be precisely WHY I *didn't* conclude anything. I used those
pesky words "seem" and "seems" instead of making a definitive
declaration.
Once again, I put in limit the subject and you blow right through them.
But God Help anyone who blows through your similar words.
>You need to know the risk per mile, or per hour.
>
>Twelve passengers have died in crashes in Metrorail's 33-year history.
>In the same 33 years, about 1.3 million people have died in car
>crashes in the US. Does that mean cars are more than 100,000 times
>more dangerous than Metrorail? Or is there something else you need
>to know before you can estimate the relative risks?
--
"I looked out this morning and the sun was gone
I turned on some music to start my day
I lost myself in a familiar song
I closed my eyes and I slipped away..."
- Tom Scholz
Keith F. Lynch
>> To a large extent, jaywalking is an (imperfect) defense against
>> being struck by cars.
> The data says that it is not. The data says it is more dangerous.
What data? If more people are killed while jaywalking than while
crossing at intersections, that isn't proof. It's evidence, but not
particularly good evidence. It's about on a par with suggesting that
sick people go to the gym instead of the hospital because gyms have
lower death rates.
>> I believe it's often safer to cross midblock, i.e. to jaywalk.
> You believe a LOT of things that are not true.
The feeling is mutual.
>> You only have to watch for traffic from one direction
>> at a time, and the motorists will be looking right at you.
> And, as noted above, where they "do not expect to have to stop"
> the vehicle suddenly.
I'm not suggesting anyone dart out, but that they wait until it's
clear.
And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
could fall.
> It is amusing to me how you rely on the data when it suits your
> assumptions (cycling on the road versus the sidewalk) and ignore
> it when it shows you are wrong (as you are about jaywalking).
I am not ignoring the data, I'm pointing out that you're
misinterpreting it.
> A lot of accidents apparently fall into a default mode. If you get
> hit by a car midblock, you are almost certainly going to judged to
> be at fault. If a car hits you while turning, the driver is almost
> certainly going to judged to be at fault.
True. And if, as I believe, crossing at midblock is often safer, then
what? Would I I rather cross at midblock, have a one in a thousand
chance of being struck, and judged at fault, or cross at a crosswalk,
have a two in a thousand chance of being struck, and judged blameless?
I'm more interested in not getting hit than in being considered
blameless. The latter will do me little good in a wheelchair, and no
good at all in a coffin.
If 80% of pedestrians jaywalk, and 60% of car-pedestrian collisions
happen to jaywalkers, is that evidence that jaywalking is more
dangerous, or that it's safer?
>> What is that per mile?
> Just where are you going to *get* a mileage figure from Keith?
The fact that you can't get a necessary number doesn't make the
statistic any less useless.
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>> And, as noted above, where they "do not expect to have to stop"
>> the vehicle suddenly.
>
>I'm not suggesting anyone dart out, but that they wait until it's
>clear.
>
>And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
>vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
>could fall.
The odds of that happening are low. Hence, not something that is
normally watched for.
Just to remind you, I'm the guy who drives for a living, and has over
a million accident-free miles. You are the guy who doesn't drive
anything. Got it?
When driving in an city grid, whether that be an actual downtown area
or suburban area, the driver is spending most of his attention on
other cars and watching for traffic signals. We don't look at the
sidewalks. However, at intersections, especially ones with marked
crosswalks, we do check for pedestrians, oncoming traffic, zeppelins,
and the like before turning. Since we're entering another traffic
flow, the risks of collision are higher, and since that is the place
where pedestrians are supposed to cross, we look for them.
Jaywalkers are worth 50 points.
And don't make me laugh about "waiting until it's clear." Jaywalkers
are, in my extensive experience, lousy judges of how fast and close
traffic is. Just today I had to come to a near panic stop because of a
jaywalker deciding she could beat my truck.
I know following laws is anathema to you, Keith, but cross at the
bloody intersections.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
To announce that there must be no criticism of
the president... is morally treasonable to the
American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
dougberry
the mysterious Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> spoke thusly
in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:20:27 -0700, Doug Berry wrote:
>
>> I'd love to hear a story, with citations, of someone being threatened
>> with injury or death for choosing not to drive a car.
>
>Check your local newpaper.
>
>But of course it doen't make the news until someone has *experienced*
>injury or death for choosing not to drive a car, and mere injuries are
>seldom regarded as newsworthy.
I not only read my local newspaper, I'm close friends with several
avid cyclists.
I hear far more stories about dead and injured motorists than cyclists
on a daily basis.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Jette
>
>
> When driving in an city grid, whether that be an actual downtown area
> or suburban area, the driver is spending most of his attention on
> other cars and watching for traffic signals. We don't look at the
> sidewalks.
You'd fail your UK driving test (theory section) then. You're
expected to be aware of pedestrians on pavements (sidewalks) and
anticipate that they /might/ suddenly step out.
>However, at intersections, especially ones with marked
> crosswalks, we do check for pedestrians, oncoming traffic, zeppelins,
> and the like before turning. Since we're entering another traffic
> flow, the risks of collision are higher, and since that is the place
> where pedestrians are supposed to cross, we look for them.
>
In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights are
"stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Paul Dormer
boss...@scotlandmail.com (Jette) wrote:
>
> In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
> pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights are
> "stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
And, of course, we get the controlled crossings in the middle of long
streets, where there are no nearby intersections.
What gets me are the pedestrians who are near controlled crossings and
can't be bothered to use them. I was walking along yesterday and passed
between a woman and the kerb. She suddenly turned to cross the road and
we collided. I just wasn't expecting her to cross there, especially as
we were about 3 metres from a controlled crossing and nobody had pressed
the button on it.
David V. Loewe, Jr
And, of course, Keith ignores bits of evidence that indicate that his
theory is bogus.
For example, the source I cited
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html states that "In
2007, 37 percent of fatally injured pedestrians 16 and older had blood
alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So damned near
two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the numbers are
similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk and cannot exercise
the judgment needed TO adequately judge if it is clear or not.
The facts are that if you cross at an intersection or crosswalk, you
don't walk during periods of low visibility (aka night) and you aren't
drunk, your odds of getting struck go *way* down.
>I know following laws is anathema to you, Keith, but cross at the
>bloody intersections.
--
"A generation that ignores history has no past - and no
future."
-Lazarus Long
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Doug Berry wrote:
>> When driving in an city grid, whether that be an actual downtown area
>> or suburban area, the driver is spending most of his attention on
>> other cars and watching for traffic signals. We don't look at the
>> sidewalks.
>
>You'd fail your UK driving test (theory section) then. You're
>expected to be aware of pedestrians on pavements (sidewalks) and
>anticipate that they /might/ suddenly step out.
Theory is fine, but in practice there is sometimes too much information
that is more urgent to process. At some point you have to trust people
not to do stupid things. Unfortunately, they sometimes will just to
spite you.
>>However, at intersections, especially ones with marked
>> crosswalks, we do check for pedestrians, oncoming traffic, zeppelins,
>> and the like before turning. Since we're entering another traffic
>> flow, the risks of collision are higher, and since that is the place
>> where pedestrians are supposed to cross, we look for them.
>
>In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
>pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights are
>"stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
I've seen this arrangement at Mexican intersections, but I can't recall
seeing it at a US intersection.
<cue poster who has seen one in the US and will let us know where>
--
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
- Arnold Edinborough
David V. Loewe, Jr
Dormer) wrote:
>boss...@scotlandmail.com (Jette) wrote:
>
>> In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
>> pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights are
>> "stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
>
>And, of course, we get the controlled crossings in the middle of long
>streets, where there are no nearby intersections.
While they are somewhat rare, we do have those here in the US.
>What gets me are the pedestrians who are near controlled crossings and
>can't be bothered to use them. I was walking along yesterday and passed
>between a woman and the kerb. She suddenly turned to cross the road and
>we collided. I just wasn't expecting her to cross there, especially as
>we were about 3 metres from a controlled crossing and nobody had pressed
>the button on it.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
Nels E. Satterlund
OK they've got something like that at an intersection in Westwood at
the edge of the UCLA campus, it even has cross walk markings that X
the intersection, indicating you can cross diagonally.
Nels
--
Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company, specially here
Ne...@Starstream.net <-- Use this address for personal Email
My Lurkers motto: I read much better and faster, than I type.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html
>>> To a large extent, jaywalking is an (imperfect) defense against
>>> being struck by cars.
>
>> The data says that it is not. The data says it is more dangerous.
>
>What data? If more people are killed while jaywalking than while
>crossing at intersections, that isn't proof. It's evidence, but not
>particularly good evidence. It's about on a par with suggesting that
>sick people go to the gym instead of the hospital because gyms have
>lower death rates.
Observationally, far more people cross at an intersection than in
midblock. When you couple that with the fact that more incidents occur
midblock, I think the conclusion is obvious.
Nor does it make sense logically.
Let's send someone on a simple walk and see what happens. The WalMart
is about a mile and a quarter away from here. Keith says he often walks
further to shop and would walk to a WalMart if one were that close to
him. Let's also assume that he jaywalks as much as practical.
He comes out of my complex and jaywalks across the street. At this
point, he comes to the major local arterial road. WalMart is on this
road, but it is on the other side of the street. If he continues down
the side of the road that he is on, he'll come to 6 intersections while
if he jaywalks across the arterial almost immediately and proceeds down
that side, he'll come to 9 intersections. To jaywalk the 6 or 9
intersections would involve going far out of the way just to say you had
jaywalked. Realistically, no one is going to do this. So, to walk down
to the WalMart and back, Keith would jaywalk a maximum of 4 times and
cross at an intersection between 12 and 18 times.
People walk down one side of the street (or the other) until they come
to a point where they need to change directions. As they do so, if they
walk any significant distance, they will cross at far more intersections
than they will jaywalk.
More people cross at the intersection than jaywalk.
>>> I believe it's often safer to cross midblock, i.e. to jaywalk.
>
>> You believe a LOT of things that are not true.
>
>The feeling is mutual.
Heh...
Unlike you, I don't have a feeling about my statement, Keith. It is a
stone cold fact.
>>> You only have to watch for traffic from one direction
>>> at a time, and the motorists will be looking right at you.
>
>> And, as noted above, where they "do not expect to have to stop"
>> the vehicle suddenly.
>
>I'm not suggesting anyone dart out, but that they wait until it's
>clear.
Which ignores the fact (that you snipped away) that a significant
percentage (37% of fatalities 16 or older) of pedestrian fatalities were
legally intoxicated. These judgment impaired people are not going to
have the capability to properly decide if it is clear.
>And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
>vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
>could fall.
1) Because every street in America is tree-lined and rural...
2) One has to occasionally assume that people are not going to do
blatantly stupid things like run out in front of a car moving at or near
the speed limit on a major arterial road.
3) It is grimly amusing that you urge people to break the law in a way
that puts their life in danger around automobiles while complaining
about how automobiles make being a pedestrian unsafe. Apparently, YOU
make your being a pedestrian unsafe.
>> It is amusing to me how you rely on the data when it suits your
>> assumptions (cycling on the road versus the sidewalk) and ignore
>> it when it shows you are wrong (as you are about jaywalking).
>
>I am not ignoring the data, I'm pointing out that you're
>misinterpreting it.
In your dreams.
>> A lot of accidents apparently fall into a default mode. If you get
>> hit by a car midblock, you are almost certainly going to judged to
>> be at fault. If a car hits you while turning, the driver is almost
>> certainly going to judged to be at fault.
>
>True. And if, as I believe, crossing at midblock is often safer, then
>what? Would I I rather cross at midblock, have a one in a thousand
>chance of being struck, and judged at fault, or cross at a crosswalk,
>have a two in a thousand chance of being struck, and judged blameless?
The numbers say that you are likely wrong.
>I'm more interested in not getting hit than in being considered
>blameless. The latter will do me little good in a wheelchair, and no
>good at all in a coffin.
A car roaring down the street midblock is almost certain to have much
more force than a car inching forward from a stop at a right hand turn.
>If 80% of pedestrians jaywalk, and 60% of car-pedestrian collisions
>happen to jaywalkers, is that evidence that jaywalking is more
>dangerous, or that it's safer?
You make this stuff as you go, don't you? [1]
>>> What is that per mile?
>
>> Just where are you going to *get* a mileage figure from Keith?
>
>The fact that you can't get a necessary number doesn't make the
>statistic any less useless.
If you can't get data, then it isn't useful.
[1] Just when I thought this was Keith's Howler for the week, he came up
with the "fact" the average mortgage in the US had been written 20 years
ago.
--
"Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne
dougberry
the mysterious "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> spoke thusly
in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
>>pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights are
>>"stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
>
>I've seen this arrangement at Mexican intersections, but I can't recall
>seeing it at a US intersection.
I've seen it few places, most recently in downtown Stockton. All
traffic stops, and pedestrians can cross from (for ex) from the NW
corner to the SE one in one diagonal crossing.
I would note that in California at least, it is legal to make a right
turn on red after stopping to check for traffic, and in intersections
that have dedicated turn and merging lanes, you just need to slow and
make sure you can safely make the turn and enter the traffic flow.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"Well I'm not evil, I'm just good looking." - Alice Cooper
dougberry
the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>And, of course, Keith ignores bits of evidence that indicate that his
>theory is bogus.
>
>For example, the source I cited
>http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html states that "In
>2007, 37 percent of fatally injured pedestrians 16 and older had blood
>alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So damned near
>two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the numbers are
>similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk and cannot exercise
>the judgment needed TO adequately judge if it is clear or not.
>
>The facts are that if you cross at an intersection or crosswalk, you
>don't walk during periods of low visibility (aka night) and you aren't
>drunk, your odds of getting struck go *way* down.
Back when I drove for SuperShuttle, one of our drivers hit and killed
a pedestrian.
1. The pedestrian ran out into the road from behind a taller vehicle.
2. It was dark, late evening and pissing down rain.
3. The ped was legally drunk.
4. Remember the rain? The pedestrian had her jacket covering her head.
Our driver, who was traveling at a safe speed, and was cleared of any
responsibility, had to quit. He couldn't get back in a van. The
woman's family tried to sue him, and the case was thrown out.
During my time driving for SS, I came damn close to hitting more than
one tourist down in the Wharf when they stepped into the street with a
camcorder glued to their faces.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"There's a long drive... it's gonna be, I believe...
THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!! THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!!
THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT! THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!"
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> it's clear.
>> And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
>> vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
>> could fall.
> The odds of that happening are low. Hence, not something that is
> normally watched for.
You'd better not drive around here. Deer dart out frequently. There
are road signs warning of this, but the deer don't just do it near
the signs.
I've had a couple close calls on my bicycle.
> However, at intersections, especially ones with marked crosswalks,
> we do check for pedestrians, oncoming traffic, zeppelins, and the
> like before turning.
Maybe you do. Plenty of motorists don't. As I said, I've been struck
by right-turning left-looking motorists several times. I've never
been struck when crossing mid-block.
If zeppelins are more common than deer, then I think it's *you* who
are posting from an alternate reality. Every SF fan knows that
zeppelins indicate you're in an alternate history.
> Jaywalkers are worth 50 points.
What's this supposed to mean? Some kind of sick joke about running
over people?
> And don't make me laugh about "waiting until it's clear."
> Jaywalkers are, in my extensive experience, lousy judges of how fast
> and close traffic is. Just today I had to come to a near panic stop
> because of a jaywalker deciding she could beat my truck.
Don't judge me by what other jaywalkers do, and I won't judge you
by what other motorists do. Note that when you said you check for
pedestrians at intersections, I didn't say, "Don't make me laugh."
Please extend me the same courtesy.
> I know following laws is anathema to you, Keith, but cross at the
> bloody intersections.
I take extreme offense to that, which is why I'm responding to this
message out of order. I *never* lie, and I *never* break the law.
Never. Can you say the same?
Note that I don't joke about murdering people. You do. ("50 points").
Jaywalking is not illegal here in Virginia. The relevant law is
�46.2-926, which says:
No pedestrian shall step into a highway open to moving vehicular
traffic at any point between intersections where his presence would
be obscured from the vision of drivers of approaching vehicles by a
vehicle or other obstruction at the curb or side.
In other words, darting out is illegal, but crossing at mid-block when
it's safe is not. I only do the latter.
It's true that a pedestrian crossing at mid-block is automatically
at fault if he's struck. But that has to do with civil law, not
criminal law. It just means he can't sue the driver. Similarly, your
unwarranted libel against me subjects you to a civil judgment if I
were to sue, but it isn't *illegal*, i.e. you can't be jailed or fined
by the state for saying it.
Keith F. Lynch
> percentage (37% of fatalities 16 or older) of pedestrian fatalities
> were legally intoxicated. These judgment impaired people are not
> going to have the capability to properly decide if it is clear.
I didn't respond to the mention of drunken pedestrians because I was
not defending them. The only positive thing I will say about them is
at least they aren't driving, so the only person whose life they're
placing at risk is their own.
> 3) It is grimly amusing that you urge people to break the law
> in a way that puts their life in danger around automobiles while
> complaining about how automobiles make being a pedestrian unsafe.
I have not urged anyone to break the law. Jaywalking is not illegal
here. If it's illegal where you live, make up your own mind as to
whether to break that law or not. ("You" meaning the reader, not
just David.)
Jaywalking is more dangerous than not crossing the road at all,
but, when done properly, is less dangerous than crossing at an
intersection, at least in places (such as here) where pedestrians
don't get a dedicated light, but have to share the crosswalk with
turning traffic.
Let me reiterate that I don't advocate that anyone cross the road
while drunk. So what drunks can or cannot do safely isn't relevant.
> Apparently, YOU make your being a pedestrian unsafe.
Sure, because I'm the one who forces them to get drunk. Right.
This is what passes for logic in the Loeweverse.
> A car roaring down the street midblock is almost certain to have
> much more force than a car inching forward from a stop at a right
> hand turn.
Irrelevant to someone who isn't struck.
That's what I just said!
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> <Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I'm not suggesting anyone dart out, but that they wait until
>>> it's clear.
>
>>> And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
>>> vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
>>> could fall.
>
>> The odds of that happening are low. Hence, not something that is
>> normally watched for.
>
> You'd better not drive around here. Deer dart out frequently. There
> are road signs warning of this, but the deer don't just do it near
> the signs.
>
> I've had a couple close calls on my bicycle.
My cousin's daily commute takes her through parts of rural Indiana and
Kentucky. Over the years she's hit or been hit by several deer. Paying
attention is of only limited assistance. In at least one case even
being stopped wouldn't have helped her avoid the collision.
>> Jaywalkers are worth 50 points.
>
> What's this supposed to mean? Some kind of sick joke about running
> over people?
It's a reference to a cult film, Death Race 2000. I've not seen the
film, but I've heard variations of the comment many times.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Keith F. Lynch
> his theory is bogus.
> For example, the source I cited
> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html states that "In
> 2007, 37 percent of fatally injured pedestrians 16 and older had
> blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So
> damned near two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the
> numbers are similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk and
> cannot exercise the judgment needed TO adequately judge if it is
> clear or not.
What relevance do drunk pedestrians have to sober pedestrians? Do
I really have to spell out that I'm only talking about the latter?
More specifically, I'm talking about what a pedestrian should do to
cross the road safely. It's true that I neglected to add that he
shouldn't be drunk or stoned. I also didn't mention that he shouldn't
wear a paper bag over his head. And that he shouldn't set himself on
fire (though that *would* make him more visible to motorists at night).
Swallowing drain cleaner while crossing is also right out.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> And, of course, Keith ignores bits of evidence that indicate that
>> his theory is bogus.
>
>> For example, the source I cited
>> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html states that "In
>> 2007, 37 percent of fatally injured pedestrians 16 and older had
>> blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So
>> damned near two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the
>> numbers are similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk and
>> cannot exercise the judgment needed TO adequately judge if it is
>> clear or not.
>
>What relevance do drunk pedestrians have to sober pedestrians? Do
>I really have to spell out that I'm only talking about the latter?
Will you be deducting a third or more of your fear of cars because a
third or more of pedestrians who get hit and killed are drunk?
Do you feel a third safer now?
>More specifically, I'm talking about what a pedestrian should do to
>cross the road safely. It's true that I neglected to add that he
>shouldn't be drunk or stoned. I also didn't mention that he shouldn't
>wear a paper bag over his head. And that he shouldn't set himself on
>fire (though that *would* make him more visible to motorists at night).
>Swallowing drain cleaner while crossing is also right out.
They *should* cross at the intersection or crosswalk. That is where the
motorists expect them to be crossing. Despite the fact that people do
get hit there, it *is* much safer. It is also the LAW and it IS the law
for a damned good reason.
Of course, you think you know better than two professional drivers about
road safety.
--
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"
Ian Anderson
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>> <Doug Berry> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm not suggesting anyone dart out, but that they wait until
>>>> it's clear.
>>
>>>> And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
>>>> vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
>>>> could fall.
>>
>>> The odds of that happening are low. Hence, not something that is
>>> normally watched for.
>>
>> You'd better not drive around here. Deer dart out frequently. There
>> are road signs warning of this, but the deer don't just do it near
>> the signs.
>>
>> I've had a couple close calls on my bicycle.
>
>My cousin's daily commute takes her through parts of rural Indiana and
>Kentucky. Over the years she's hit or been hit by several deer. Paying
>attention is of only limited assistance. In at least one case even
>being stopped wouldn't have helped her avoid the collision.
Indeed. The only time I ever hit a live deer, it ran out onto a three
lane west-bound section of Interstate and jumped under the drive tires
of my 18-wheeler.
>>> Jaywalkers are worth 50 points.
>>
>> What's this supposed to mean? Some kind of sick joke about running
>> over people?
>
>It's a reference to a cult film, Death Race 2000. I've not seen the
>film, but I've heard variations of the comment many times.
So, I guess dead baby jokes and para/quadriplegic jokes are right out
with Keith on the case?
--
"And if the lowly Italians, the lamest, silliest, least stable of
our NATO allies, can build a machine like this, just think what
*we* can do."
- P. J. O'Rourke on driving a Ferrari 308
Andy Leighton
> The scrolls speak of the day, Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:29 -0500, when
> the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
> thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So damned near
>>two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the numbers are
>>similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk ...
[snip]
> 3. The ped was legally drunk.
Again the pedestrian was legally drunk? Is there really a legal
definition of drunk for pedestrians based on the amount of alcohol
in the blood? There isn't in the UK for pedestrians (or cyclists
or horse-riders or horse and carriage for that matter). Although
there are offences of being drunk in a public place, drunk in charge
of a cycle/horse/carriage it is based upon observed behaviour and
control of themselves (or their vehicle) falling far below what is
normal. A breath specimen or blood test cannot be demanded from
peds or cyclists or horsey-people.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Ben Yalow
>The scrolls speak of the day, Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:53:27 -0500, when
>the mysterious "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> spoke thusly
>in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>>In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
>>>pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights are
>>>"stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
>>
>>I've seen this arrangement at Mexican intersections, but I can't recall
>>seeing it at a US intersection.
>I've seen it few places, most recently in downtown Stockton. All
>traffic stops, and pedestrians can cross from (for ex) from the NW
>corner to the SE one in one diagonal crossing.
>I would note that in California at least, it is legal to make a right
>turn on red after stopping to check for traffic, and in intersections
>that have dedicated turn and merging lanes, you just need to slow and
>make sure you can safely make the turn and enter the traffic flow.
Right turn on red is the default for all of the US *except* for New York
City, although signage overrides the default.
So New York pedestrians keep an eye out for non-natives who forget (and
don't look at the signs on the main roads, and exits, that remind them of
"no right on red"), and New York City drivers stall traffic by sitting in
the right lane waiting for the light to change before turning.
As a New York City native, who does a lot of driving outside the city, I
try to keep a mental switch as to which pattern of driving to use.
(Of course, I still walk like a New York pedestrian -- if it's safe to
cross, I do. "Look at the cars, not the lights --nobody ever got run over
by a light." That also tends to make New York City native drivers assume
that all pedestrians can dart out into the street anytime, which is what
makes driving in the city particularly difficult.)
>--
>Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
dougberry
>Of course, you think you know better than two professional drivers about
>road safety.
But of course!
We need to remember that Keith knows more than the rest of us, our
combined experiences and access to data be damned!
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On leather steeds they ride
They've come to take your life
On through the dead of night
With the Four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die"
Cryptoengineer
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:10:53 -0700, Doug Berry <Doug> wrote:
> > The scrolls speak of the day, Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:29 -0500, when
> > thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> >>alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So damned near
> >>two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the numbers are
> >>similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk ...
>
> [snip]
>
> > 3. The ped was legally drunk.
>
> Again the pedestrian was legally drunk? Is there really a legal
> definition of drunk for pedestrians based on the amount of alcohol
> in the blood? There isn't in the UK for pedestrians (or cyclists
> or horse-riders or horse and carriage for that matter). Although
> there are offences of being drunk in a public place, drunk in charge
> of a cycle/horse/carriage it is based upon observed behaviour and
> control of themselves (or their vehicle) falling far below what is
> normal. A breath specimen or blood test cannot be demanded from
> peds or cyclists or horsey-people.
Ah, but what if the horse is drunk? (Yes, it can happen).
Seriously, this is a matter of local laws. In Poland there are a lot
of drunk cyclists serving serious jail time.
It seems reasonable to place more blame for an accident caused by
irresponsible behaviour on the party who has drunk themselves into
irresponsibility. Avoiding accidents is the responsibility of both
parties.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> third or more of pedestrians who get hit and killed are drunk?
> Do you feel a third safer now?
What makes you think I didn't already have an accurate estimate of
what my risk was?
> They *should* cross at the intersection or crosswalk. That is where
> the motorists expect them to be crossing. Despite the fact that
> people do get hit there, it *is* much safer.
Repeating yourself won't change my mind. Neither will quoting
statistics that don't mean what you think they do.
> It is also the LAW and it IS the law for a damned good reason.
As I said, crossing mid-block is perfectly legal here in Virginia.
> Of course, you think you know better than two professional drivers
> about road safety.
I don't tell you how to drive. Don't tell me how to walk. I think I
know a hell of a lot more than both of you about road safety from a
pedestrian's point of view. If I start spouting opinions on what a
driver should do when his tire blows out, then you can criticize.
Keith F. Lynch
> In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
> pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights
> are "stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
I wish they were like that here. But they aren't. Pedestrians always
have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when motorists
don't just drive right into where you are if you don't jump out of
their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind you. Often, they
stop in the middle of their turn due to other traffic, trapping you
in the middle of the crosswalk until after the light changes. And
when the light changes, it's rare for a motorist to wait until the
crosswalk is clear before they go. They're obviously looking at the
light, not at the road. Sometimes one will "helpfully" pound on his
horn, so at least you know he's seen you.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
It is amusing that when you spout your numbers about how many lives have
been lost since <year x>, you don't delete the drunk drivers from your
totals. But, when we discuss the safety of pedestrians, you want to
deduct them out. Do you even begin to understand how hypocritical this
is?
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Will you be deducting a third or more of your fear of cars because a
>> third or more of pedestrians who get hit and killed are drunk?
>
>> Do you feel a third safer now?
>
>What makes you think I didn't already have an accurate estimate of
>what my risk was?
I can only go by what you write.
Less than 50,000 non-drunk pedestrians a year in the US are injured in
collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300 million
plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people are in *grave,
mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
Pedestrian deaths in the US are on a rough par with accidental
drownings.
>> They *should* cross at the intersection or crosswalk. That is where
>> the motorists expect them to be crossing. Despite the fact that
>> people do get hit there, it *is* much safer.
>
>Repeating yourself won't change my mind. Neither will quoting
>statistics that don't mean what you think they do.
And just where have you *proven* that they don't mean what I think they
do, Keith?
I'll say it again, *observationally*, far more people cross at
intersections and crosswalks than jaywalk. And, logically, the way most
people actually walk along roads means that they will cross
intersections far more often that they will jaywalk (until they have a
fetish for meandering from one side of the street to the other).
>> It is also the LAW and it IS the law for a damned good reason.
>
>As I said, crossing mid-block is perfectly legal here in Virginia.
It's all about Keith, isn't it?
>> Of course, you think you know better than two professional drivers
>> about road safety.
>
>I don't tell you how to drive. Don't tell me how to walk.
1) *I* walk.
2) I can tell you how to lower your chances of getting run over -
because I know how the driver is going to react.
>I think I
>know a hell of a lot more than both of you about road safety from a
>pedestrian's point of view.
Not if you believe that it is safer to jaywalk.
>If I start spouting opinions on what a
>driver should do when his tire blows out, then you can criticize.
This is a free country and Giganews is a pretty free (in regards to
freedom of speech) service. I can criticize you as much as I please.
God knows that you return the favor.
--
"I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't
for my lucky astrology mood watch."
- Steve Martin
Keith F. Lynch
> in collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300
> million plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people
> are in *grave, mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
That's 50,000 too many. And it would be a lot more except that people
walk less to avoid being run over. You don't seem to account for that
enormous lost opportunity cost at all. If instead of walking they
drive, they're increasing the risk for everyone else -- a vicious
positive feedback loop. And when people don't walk, they increase
their risk of heart disease, cancer, and stroke, the number one, two,
and three killers of Americans.
> And just where have you *proven* that they don't mean what I think
> they do, Keith?
The same place you proved they do mean what you think they do.
>>> It is also the LAW and it IS the law for a damned good reason.
>> As I said, crossing mid-block is perfectly legal here in Virginia.
> It's all about Keith, isn't it?
When I am implicitly accused of breaking the law, yes it is.
I haven't memorized the laws of all fifty states, but I know there are
a lot of commonalities. If it's legal here, it's probably legal in
most places.
If you don't think it's legal where you are, cite the law.
> 2) I can tell you how to lower your chances of getting run over -
> because I know how the driver is going to react.
Maybe you know how *you* will react. It's not all about you. There
are other drivers. And while I can disregard drunk pedestrians when
planning my walk, I unfortunately cannot disregard drunk motorists.
Keith F. Lynch
> I not only read my local newspaper, I'm close friends with several
> avid cyclists.
> I hear far more stories about dead and injured motorists than
> cyclists on a daily basis.
That would prove that driving is more dangerous than cycing, if:
* Personal anecdotes are a good substitute for statistics.
(I'm always being raked over the coals for this one.)
* As many miles are ridden on bike as are driven in cars.
I almost never hear of a nude pedestrian being killed by a car. So I
guess to be safe I'd better only walk naked. It's been good weather
for it here lately -- if I don't mind a little sunburn.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> > Less than 50,000 non-drunk pedestrians a year in the US are injured
> > in collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300
> > million plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people
> > are in *grave, mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
>
> That's 50,000 too many. And it would be a lot more except that people
> walk less to avoid being run over. You don't seem to account for that
> enormous lost opportunity cost at all.
The figures David gave imply a per capita risk of about one chance in
6000 per year of some injury to a non-drunk pedestrian. Let me guess
that the average American walks a couple of miles a week on sidewalks
adjacent to roads, for a total of about 100 miles/year. Let me guess
that the average injury corresponds to a cost of a thousand dollars,
which strikes me as high--but I don't know what fraction of the injuries
are lethal, which would push it up. Then the per/mile cost is about .2
cents/mile. I don't think that would significantly deter walking.
These are very much guesswork back of the envelope numbers, but even an
increase of an order of magnitude leaves the cost trivial.
So what's your basis for thinking that it is a major deterrent, and
creates an enormous lost opportunity cost?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
>I wish they were like that here. But they aren't. Pedestrians always
>have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when motorists
>don't just drive right into where you are if you don't jump out of
>their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind you. Often, they
>stop in the middle of their turn due to other traffic, trapping you
>in the middle of the crosswalk until after the light changes.
Walk around the back of the car blocking the crosswalk.
I figured this trick out when I was eight. HTH.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"Well I'm not evil, I'm just good looking." - Alice Cooper
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> always have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when
>> motorists don't just drive right into where you are if you don't
>> jump out of their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind
>> you. Often, they stop in the middle of their turn due to other
>> traffic, trapping you in the middle of the crosswalk until after
>> the light changes.
> Walk around the back of the car blocking the crosswalk.
> I figured this trick out when I was eight. HTH.
So did I. And when I was a little older, I figured out that if
there's a car right behind the blocking car, both cars might suddenly
move forwards. And that if there *isn't* a car right behind the
blocking car, the blocking car might suddenly move backwards.
So the safest thing to do is to remain within the crosswalk.
If nothing else, it gives me the legal right of way. If I step out
of it and am hit, I can no longer sue.
Analogously, aren't truckers taught that if there's an oncoming car
driving on the wrong side, you should always stay in your lane rather
than veer over to where the car should have been to get around it?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
It is amusing that I am probably the only American regular poster
besides Keith who has not driven a car in over a year.
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Less than 50,000 non-drunk pedestrians a year in the US are injured
>> in collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300
>> million plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people
>> are in *grave, mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
>
>That's 50,000 too many.
Life has risks.
For example, you have foolishly built your life around your ability to
walk or bicycle great distances. Take that away and your whole
structured existence falls apart. I met people at the orthopedic
surgeon's office when I had my broken ankle who simply stepped wrong and
rolled their ankle. Once. This tore their tendons so badly that they
were saying that they would never be able to walk normally for any
significant distance again in their lives.
And there are infectious diseases out there - like the H1N1 strain of
influenza. Greg Dean, the author/artist for the web comic Real Life
(http://www.reallifecomics.com/) and regular participant in comics and
anime type cons, recently (Tuesday) had a friend of his die from H1N1.
She was 24. [1]
Thousands drown accidentally in swimming pools or even bathtub every
year.
Maybe you should stay home and live like Howard.
>And it would be a lot more except that people
>walk less to avoid being run over.
You don't know that. You've no idea why people are walking less.
>You don't seem to account for that
>enormous lost opportunity cost at all.
Maybe you haven't convinced me that the lost opportunity is "enormous."
>If instead of walking they drive, they're increasing the risk for
>everyone else -- a vicious positive feedback loop.
The risk is minimal.
>And when people don't walk, they increase
>their risk of heart disease, cancer, and stroke, the number one, two,
>and three killers of Americans.
Walking along roads is the only way to get exercise?
I used to get up every morning and drive down to Mastodon State Historic
Site in Imperial and walk the Limestone Hill Trail. It was more of a
workout, because of the elevation changes, than walking a relatively
flat road would have been and, with the flora and fauna that abounded
there, much more interesting as well.
http://www.mostateparks.com/mastodon/trails.htm
My father used to walk it with a full backpack in order to prepare
himself for the fall hunting season.
And then there are those who have workout equipment at home, use the
equipment in the community center in their condo or apartment complex OR
belong to a commercial gym (like, say, Gold's).
>> And just where have you *proven* that they don't mean what I think
>> they do, Keith?
>
>The same place you proved they do mean what you think they do.
You claim that more people jaywalk than cross at an intersection or
crosswalk.
I have shown that it is not logical to think this. I have related that,
from my observations (in far more cities than you have lived in), it is
not true.
Now, do you have *any* sort of countervailing evidence to present?
Moreover, you have not addressed the fact that vehicles at midblock are
likely to be traveling at a much higher speed than vehicles turning at
an intersection. If you *do* get struck at midblock, your chances for
serious injury, because of the greater force with which are likely to be
hit, climb dramatically.
>>>> It is also the LAW and it IS the law for a damned good reason.
>
>>> As I said, crossing mid-block is perfectly legal here in Virginia.
>
>> It's all about Keith, isn't it?
>
>When I am implicitly accused of breaking the law, yes it is.
You were still urging others to break the law.
>I haven't memorized the laws of all fifty states, but I know there are
>a lot of commonalities. If it's legal here, it's probably legal in
>most places.
Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Do you assume it is legal in all
jurisdictions?
>If you don't think it's legal where you are, cite the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#North_America
Moreover, I have received a ticket *for* jaywalking (not *here*, but in
Seattle). [2]
>> 2) I can tell you how to lower your chances of getting run over -
>> because I know how the driver is going to react.
>
>Maybe you know how *you* will react. It's not all about you.
Most drivers are taught and tested on the exact same things I was,
Keith.
>There
>are other drivers. And while I can disregard drunk pedestrians when
>planning my walk, I unfortunately cannot disregard drunk motorists.
[1] Mr. Dean gives an account of her death and how it was impacting him
on his web site.
[2] At First Ave and University downtown, IIRC. This is a T
Intersection. It has (had?) a stoplight. I was walking north(west for
the really pedantic) along First Ave which is the cross-piece of the T.
University is a one way street that leads away from First Ave. I
crossed on the red. My reasoning was (and remains to this day) that any
vehicle that might hit me was required to stop by the red light on First
Ave or would be violating the law by going the wrong way on the one-way
University. IMO, this was safer. The cop, who wanted me to bow and
scrape and promise not to do it again, didn't like that.
--
"For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
citizenry."
- Gregory V. Helvering
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I wish they were like that here. But they aren't. Pedestrians
>>> always have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when
>>> motorists don't just drive right into where you are if you don't
>>> jump out of their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind
>>> you. Often, they stop in the middle of their turn due to other
>>> traffic, trapping you in the middle of the crosswalk until after
>>> the light changes.
>
>> Walk around the back of the car blocking the crosswalk.
>> I figured this trick out when I was eight. HTH.
>
>So did I. And when I was a little older, I figured out that if
>there's a car right behind the blocking car,
That shaking you felt was not an earthquake, folks. It was Keith, once
again, shifting the goalposts.
>both cars might suddenly
>move forwards. And that if there *isn't* a car right behind the
>blocking car, the blocking car might suddenly move backwards.
Unlikely.
For the car to suddenly go backwards, it would have to shifted into
reverse.
Moreover, if the car IS shifted into reverse, if it is operating
correctly, the back up lights will come on - giving you warning.
>So the safest thing to do is to remain within the crosswalk.
The safest thing to do is for you to remain home.
>If nothing else, it gives me the legal right of way. If I step out
>of it and am hit, I can no longer sue.
>
>Analogously, aren't truckers taught that if there's an oncoming car
>driving on the wrong side, you should always stay in your lane rather
>than veer over to where the car should have been to get around it?
Drivers (not just truck drivers) are instructed to get out of his way as
much as you can - preferably to the right-hand shoulder.
--
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I
would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a
quiet place and kill him."
- Mark Twain
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> > Less than 50,000 non-drunk pedestrians a year in the US are injured
>> > in collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300
>> > million plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people
>> > are in *grave, mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
>>
>> That's 50,000 too many. And it would be a lot more except that people
>> walk less to avoid being run over. You don't seem to account for that
>> enormous lost opportunity cost at all.
>
>The figures David gave imply a per capita risk of about one chance in
>6000 per year of some injury to a non-drunk pedestrian. Let me guess
>that the average American walks a couple of miles a week on sidewalks
>adjacent to roads, for a total of about 100 miles/year. Let me guess
>that the average injury corresponds to a cost of a thousand dollars,
>which strikes me as high--but I don't know what fraction of the injuries
>are lethal, which would push it up.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html
"In 2007, 70,000 pedestrians were injured in motor vehicle crashes in
this country, and 4,654 pedestrians were killed."
HTH
>Then the per/mile cost is about .2
>cents/mile. I don't think that would significantly deter walking.
>
>These are very much guesswork back of the envelope numbers, but even an
>increase of an order of magnitude leaves the cost trivial.
>
>So what's your basis for thinking that it is a major deterrent, and
>creates an enormous lost opportunity cost?
--
"A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is
shining and wants it back the minute it begins to rain."
- Mark Twain
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I wish they were like that here. But they aren't. Pedestrians
>>> always have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when
>>> motorists don't just drive right into where you are if you don't
>>> jump out of their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind
>>> you. Often, they stop in the middle of their turn due to other
>>> traffic, trapping you in the middle of the crosswalk until after
>>> the light changes.
>
>> Walk around the back of the car blocking the crosswalk.
>> I figured this trick out when I was eight. HTH.
>
>So did I. And when I was a little older, I figured out that if
>there's a car right behind the blocking car, both cars might suddenly
>move forwards. And that if there *isn't* a car right behind the
>blocking car, the blocking car might suddenly move backwards.
>So the safest thing to do is to remain within the crosswalk.
Folks, I am actually laughing loud here. Keith has it pointed out
that the problem that "traps" him in the sidewalk is easily
circumvented, and he grabs those goal posts and races around trying to
find someplace for them to stick.
Your original comment concerned *one* car blocking the crosswalk. Not
a line waiting to turn, not a car that might for no reason back up.
If there's a line, make eye contact with the person in the car you
need to get past. Or just hustle. Cars are about eight feet wide, how
long were you planning on loitering?
>If nothing else, it gives me the legal right of way. If I step out
>of it and am hit, I can no longer sue.
And when the light changes with you standing there while this line of
cars making right turns suddenly have the legal right to do so
*without* stopping?
>Analogously, aren't truckers taught that if there's an oncoming car
>driving on the wrong side, you should always stay in your lane rather
>than veer over to where the car should have been to get around it?
No you get as far to the right in your lane and try to avoid a direct
head on collision. You also sound your horn and begin safe braking
maneuvers to lessen any potential impact. If necessary and safe, you
drive on the shoulder.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
To announce that there must be no criticism of
the president... is morally treasonable to the
American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Which ignores the fact (that you snipped away) that a significant
>> percentage (37% of fatalities 16 or older) of pedestrian fatalities
>> were legally intoxicated. These judgment impaired people are not
>> going to have the capability to properly decide if it is clear.
>
>I didn't respond to the mention of drunken pedestrians because I was
>not defending them. The only positive thing I will say about them is
>at least they aren't driving, so the only person whose life they're
>placing at risk is their own.
It is not about defending them, Keith. It is about them being part of
the statistical pool.
Do you delete drunk drivers out of the total when you cite how many
people have died in car wrecks since <time x>? No, you do not.
Quit shifting the damned goalposts.
>> 3) It is grimly amusing that you urge people to break the law
>> in a way that puts their life in danger around automobiles while
>> complaining about how automobiles make being a pedestrian unsafe.
>
>I have not urged anyone to break the law. Jaywalking is not illegal
>here.
We aren't just talking about *there* and you know that.
>If it's illegal where you live, make up your own mind as to
>whether to break that law or not. ("You" meaning the reader, not
>just David.)
>
>Jaywalking is more dangerous than not crossing the road at all,
>but, when done properly, is less dangerous than crossing at an
>intersection, at least in places (such as here) where pedestrians
>don't get a dedicated light, but have to share the crosswalk with
>turning traffic.
>
>Let me reiterate that I don't advocate that anyone cross the road
>while drunk. So what drunks can or cannot do safely isn't relevant.
You're a piece of work...
>> Apparently, YOU make your being a pedestrian unsafe.
>
>Sure, because I'm the one who forces them to get drunk. Right.
No. Because you urge them to cross at places other than the crosswalk
or intersection.
>This is what passes for logic in the Loeweverse.
It is continually amusing to me that you complain vociferously when
someone misinterprets your statements and you excise and ignore when it
is pointed out to you that have done this to another poster.
>> A car roaring down the street midblock is almost certain to have
>> much more force than a car inching forward from a stop at a right
>> hand turn.
>
>Irrelevant to someone who isn't struck.
You've got to love the sheer gall of this line. You urge people to
cross at midblock, despite the evidence that says that it is less safe.
When it is explained to you that, because of the laws of physics, those
who do get struck are almost certainly going to end up with worse
injuries, you figuratively disown those who get struck as having done it
wrong.
Can I wave away all those motorists who get into accidents as having
done something wrong, Keith/ Will that argument fly with you?
>>> The fact that you can't get a necessary number doesn't make the
>>> statistic any less useless.
>
>> If you can't get data, then it isn't useful.
>
>That's what I just said!
Once again, a whole line of discussion eludes you - after you make yet
another of your context-destroying edits.
It's been rather warm here in St. Louis for a week solid (or more). heat
indexes have been in excess of 100 degrees on most days. yet another
advantage of a car. You can go out in this weather and go a
considerable distance without risking heat stroke - because most cars
have air conditioning.
--
"The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I figured out,
I have to learn again"
Don Henley, Mike Campbell & JD Souther
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:49:55 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Less than 50,000 non-drunk pedestrians a year in the US are injured
> >> > in collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300
> >> > million plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people
> >> > are in *grave, mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
> >>
> >> That's 50,000 too many. And it would be a lot more except that people
> >> walk less to avoid being run over. You don't seem to account for that
> >> enormous lost opportunity cost at all.
> >
> >The figures David gave imply a per capita risk of about one chance in
> >6000 per year of some injury to a non-drunk pedestrian. Let me guess
> >that the average American walks a couple of miles a week on sidewalks
> >adjacent to roads, for a total of about 100 miles/year. Let me guess
> >that the average injury corresponds to a cost of a thousand dollars,
> >which strikes me as high--but I don't know what fraction of the injuries
> >are lethal, which would push it up.
>
> http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html
>
> "In 2007, 70,000 pedestrians were injured in motor vehicle crashes in
> this country, and 4,654 pedestrians were killed."
Then I underestimated the per mile cost by more than an order of
magnitude. If we take a million dollars as a typical value for life
figure--I think if anything that's now on the low side--that makes a per
injury cost, from risk to life alone, of about $70,000. So my per mile
cost of walking via risk of accidents should have been about fifteen or
twenty cents. I still doubt that's enough to have much effect on the
amount people walk.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:10:53 -0700, Doug Berry <Doug> wrote:
>> The scrolls speak of the day, Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:29 -0500, when
>> the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
>> thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
>>>alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So damned near
>>>two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the numbers are
>>>similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk ...
>
>[snip]
>
>> 3. The ped was legally drunk.
>
>Again the pedestrian was legally drunk?
Of course, this is based on the level of intoxication where the default
charge of DUI kicks in.
If you are at or above the limit to operate a motor vehicle, it makes
sense to assume that you are impaired in walking (being a pedestrian) or
operating a bicycle.
>Is there really a legal
>definition of drunk for pedestrians based on the amount of alcohol
>in the blood? There isn't in the UK for pedestrians (or cyclists
>or horse-riders or horse and carriage for that matter). Although
>there are offences of being drunk in a public place, drunk in charge
>of a cycle/horse/carriage it is based upon observed behaviour and
>control of themselves (or their vehicle) falling far below what is
>normal. A breath specimen or blood test cannot be demanded from
>peds or cyclists or horsey-people.
I don't think we have that limitation here.
<Googles it up>
Apparently, in some jurisdictions, you can be arrested for operating a
bicycle or riding a horse while intoxicated.
http://www.wisegeek.com/can-you-really-get-a-dui-on-a-horse-or-bicycle.htm
http://www.njcriminaldefenselawblog.com/tags/bicycling-while-intoxicated/
I *think* I'd rather have to fail some standard of testing to be charged
rather than just have some policeman's opinion be enough.
--
"Same dances in the same old shoes
Some habits that you just can't lose.
There's no telling what a man might lose,
After the thrill is gone."
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
David Harmon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>I take extreme offense to that, which is why I'm responding to this
>message out of order. I *never* lie, and I *never* break the law.
You said you are a jaywalker. What are we supposed to think?
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/jaywalk
jay�walk intr.v.
To cross a street illegally or in a reckless manner.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jaywalk
jay�walk: to cross a street carelessly or in an illegal manner so as to
be endangered by traffic
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42505&dict=CALD
jaywalk
to walk across a road at a place where it is not allowed or without
taking care to avoid the traffic
http://www.yourdictionary.com/jaywalk
jay�walk
to walk in or across a street without obeying traffic rules and signals,
esp. at other than proper crossing places
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jaywalk?jss=0
jay?walk
to cross a street at a place other than a regular crossing or in a
heedless manner, as diagonally or against a traffic light.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
1) Good luck convincing Keith of that.
2) I should think that vanishingly few even have a ballpark estimate of
the risk.
For example, we have very little violent crime compared to historic
levels. Much of the violent crime that does occur is one of our ethic
groups preying on itself. Yet, people live in fear because they see
every crime splashed all over the media. As long as Keith couches his
argument in how much fear cars cause amongst pedestrians, he is going to
believe that he has some sort of meaningful point - never mind that the
fear is largely unjustified.
--
"What can you do when your dreams come true
And it's not quite like you planned?
What have you done to be losing the one
You held it so tight in your hand?"
David V. Loewe, Jr
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> For example, we have very little violent crime compared to historic
> levels.
Depends what you mean by "historic levels."
The U.S. murder rate peaked nearly twenty years ago and is now at a
little over half its high point. But it's still above its level from
about 1940 to 1966 and I think also above the level in the early years
of the 20th century.
I don't know what murder rates were in the U.S. in the 19th century, but
if you go a good deal farther back British murder rates seem to have
been much higher than modern figures, here or there.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>> In the UK at intersections with pedestrian crossings, when the
>> pedestrian crossing is "go" for the pedestrian, then the lights
>> are "stop" for ALL vehicular traffic.
>
>I wish they were like that here. But they aren't. Pedestrians always
>have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when motorists
>don't just drive right into where you are if you don't jump out of
>their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind you.
They are allowed to in many areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_crossing
"In most states, drivers only have to wait until the pedestrian has
finished crossing the half of the crosswalk that the driver in driving
on, after which the driver may proceed."
Deal with it.
>Often, they
>stop in the middle of their turn due to other traffic, trapping you
>in the middle of the crosswalk until after the light changes.
I don't get this.
You can't walk around a car? They're generally not that large.
>And when the light changes, it's rare for a motorist to wait until
>the crosswalk is clear before they go.
As long as they don't hit you, so what?
>They're obviously looking at the
>light, not at the road. Sometimes one will "helpfully" pound on his
>horn, so at least you know he's seen you.
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I'm not suggesting anyone dart out, but that they wait until
>>> it's clear.
>
>>> And motorists had better always be prepared to have to stop the
>>> vehicle suddenly. A deer could dart out at any time, or a tree
>>> could fall.
>
>> The odds of that happening are low. Hence, not something that is
>> normally watched for.
>
>You'd better not drive around here. Deer dart out frequently.
4-5000 a year for Fairfax County spread out over how many miles driven?
>There are road signs warning of this, but the deer don't just do it
>near the signs.
>
>I've had a couple close calls on my bicycle.
Then you know that deer are very stupid when it comes to vehicles.
The deer I hit had to *work* to get hit, so work it did.
>> However, at intersections, especially ones with marked crosswalks,
>> we do check for pedestrians, oncoming traffic, zeppelins, and the
>> like before turning.
>
>Maybe you do. Plenty of motorists don't. As I said, I've been struck
>by right-turning left-looking motorists several times.
And, how hard were you struck? IME, people looking left and turning
right generally creep along for most of the turn.
It is amusing that you want us to be accountable (as generic drivers)
for the idiocy of other drivers, but you balk and stammer when asked to
take a similar burden for incompetent pedestrians.
You're are the biggest hypocrite...
>I've never been struck when crossing mid-block.
You're extremely lucky. If you had, you'd likely be crippled or dead.
>If zeppelins are more common than deer, then I think it's *you* who
>are posting from an alternate reality.
And Keith has the gall to complain when others don't get his jokes...
>Every SF fan knows that zeppelins indicate you're in an alternate history.
>
>> Jaywalkers are worth 50 points.
>
>What's this supposed to mean? Some kind of sick joke about running
>over people?
Heh...
>> And don't make me laugh about "waiting until it's clear."
>> Jaywalkers are, in my extensive experience, lousy judges of how fast
>> and close traffic is. Just today I had to come to a near panic stop
>> because of a jaywalker deciding she could beat my truck.
>
>Don't judge me by what other jaywalkers do, and I won't judge you
>by what other motorists do. Note that when you said you check for
>pedestrians at intersections, I didn't say, "Don't make me laugh."
>Please extend me the same courtesy.
So...
All of this blather about how safe it is to cross midblock only applies
to you then, correct?
>> I know following laws is anathema to you, Keith, but cross at the
>> bloody intersections.
>
>I take extreme offense to that, which is why I'm responding to this
>message out of order. I *never* lie,
<snerk>
You say things that are not true.
Those are lies - whether you believed they were true or not.
I can produce the relevant definition if you'd like.
>and I *never* break the law.
>Never. Can you say the same?
>
>Note that I don't joke about murdering people. You do. ("50 points").
>
>Jaywalking is not illegal here in Virginia. The relevant law is
>�46.2-926, which says:
>
> No pedestrian shall step into a highway open to moving vehicular
> traffic at any point between intersections where his presence would
> be obscured from the vision of drivers of approaching vehicles by a
> vehicle or other obstruction at the curb or side.
>
>In other words, darting out is illegal, but crossing at mid-block when
>it's safe is not. I only do the latter.
>
>It's true that a pedestrian crossing at mid-block is automatically
>at fault if he's struck. But that has to do with civil law, not
>criminal law. It just means he can't sue the driver.
No. At fault also affects whether or not he can be charged with a crime
(like, oh say, manslaughter) in connection with the incident.
Yet another howler of a Keithssertion that does not stand up to logic or
facts.
>Similarly, your
>unwarranted libel against me subjects you to a civil judgment if I
>were to sue, but it isn't *illegal*, i.e. you can't be jailed or fined
>by the state for saying it.
Bluster, bluster, bluster.
--
"I looked out this morning and the sun was gone
I turned on some music to start my day
I lost myself in a familiar song
I closed my eyes and I slipped away..."
- Tom Scholz
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> For example, we have very little violent crime compared to historic
>> levels.
>
>Depends what you mean by "historic levels."
Levels within the memory of a significant number of people alive.
>The U.S. murder rate peaked nearly twenty years ago and is now at a
>little over half its high point.
Exactly what I'm talking about.
>But it's still above its level from
>about 1940 to 1966 and I think also above the level in the early years
>of the 20th century.
>
>I don't know what murder rates were in the U.S. in the 19th century, but
>if you go a good deal farther back British murder rates seem to have
>been much higher than modern figures, here or there.
--
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven and you can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing come the Judgement Day
And on the bloody morning after....One Tin Soldier rides away."
One Tin Soldier - The Legend Of Billy Jack
cryptoguy
> The scrolls speak of the day, 27 Jun 2009 13:08:56 -0400, when the
> mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
> rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
>
>
> >I wish they were like that here. But they aren't. Pedestrians always
> >have to share the crosswalk with turning traffic. Even when motorists
> >don't just drive right into where you are if you don't jump out of
> >their way, they'll turn close in front of or behind you. Often, they
> >stop in the middle of their turn due to other traffic, trapping you
> >in the middle of the crosswalk until after the light changes.
>
> Walk around the back of the car blocking the crosswalk.
>
> I figured this trick out when I was eight. HTH.
I sometimes add a slap to the trunk of the car when I do this, to make
the point to the driver that they are in the wrong place.
pt
Kip Williams
I did that once and got an unceasing stream of profanity from the, uh,
woman driving the car that was sitting across the sidewalk in my right
of way. One of those times I regret that I didn't at least try to
scratch the idiot's car with something.
Kip W
Andy Leighton
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:10:53 -0700, Doug Berry <Doug> wrote:
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:29 -0500, when
>>> the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
>>> thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>
>>>>alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." So damned near
>>>>two fifths of those who are killed (and you can bet the numbers are
>>>>similar for the merely injured) are legally drunk ...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> 3. The ped was legally drunk.
>>
>>Again the pedestrian was legally drunk?
>
> Of course, this is based on the level of intoxication where the default
> charge of DUI kicks in.
>
> If you are at or above the limit to operate a motor vehicle, it makes
> sense to assume that you are impaired in walking (being a pedestrian) or
> operating a bicycle.
Doesn't to me. It seems more sensible that differing modes of transport
have differing levels at which one becomes impaired to the point of
being called drunk. I certainly wouldn't consider the legal drink-drive
limit (about 2 pints of beer) to impair my walking ability significantly
(certainly not to the same point it would impair my driving ability) -
although of course I'm not an impartial observer.
>>Is there really a legal
>>definition of drunk for pedestrians based on the amount of alcohol
>>in the blood? There isn't in the UK for pedestrians (or cyclists
>>or horse-riders or horse and carriage for that matter). Although
>>there are offences of being drunk in a public place, drunk in charge
>>of a cycle/horse/carriage it is based upon observed behaviour and
>>control of themselves (or their vehicle) falling far below what is
>>normal. A breath specimen or blood test cannot be demanded from
>>peds or cyclists or horsey-people.
>
> I don't think we have that limitation here.
>
><Googles it up>
>
> Apparently, in some jurisdictions, you can be arrested for operating a
> bicycle or riding a horse while intoxicated.
Apparently with a bit more googling I have found that Kansas defines
public intoxication has having a BAC of 0.08% (even for peds).
> I *think* I'd rather have to fail some standard of testing to be charged
> rather than just have some policeman's opinion be enough.
Well very few people get charged for drunk cycling or drunk in charge of
a horse. I would also not that even pushing your bike and not riding it
is still enough for a possible prosecution in law (or a pushchair or I
guess one of those shopping bags with wheels). Generally the police
take a sympathetic view and suggest walking the bike home, or sometimes
even helping the person home (if they are bored). It is only in extreme
cases, or where the person becomes abusive or otherwise disorderly, that
they tend to bring a charge.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
Ah...
But, remember, we're talking about having the judgment to be able to
tell if it is safe to cross.
It is not just your ability to physically walk (although, the sobriety
tests check your ability to walk in a straight line).
--
"Listen to the tide slowly turning
Wash all our heartaches away
We're part of the fire that is burning
And from the ashes we can build another day"
David J. Hayward
Karl Johanson
>> Less than 50,000 non-drunk pedestrians a year in the US are injured
>> in collisions with motor vehicles. Out of a population of 300
>> million plus. yet, to read your missives on the subject, people
>> are in *grave, mortal danger* every moment they are walking.
>
> That's 50,000 too many.
Yes it is. A fair percentage of drivers would lose their licenses if I were
in charge of the driving standards.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> cryptoguy wrote:
>> I sometimes add a slap to the trunk of the car when I do this, to
>> make the point to the driver that they are in the wrong place.
> I did that once and got an unceasing stream of profanity from the,
> uh, woman driving the car that was sitting across the sidewalk in my
> right of way. One of those times I regret that I didn't at least
> try to scratch the idiot's car with something.
A lot of drivers are not only very short-tempered, but armed, at least
around here.
If I recall correctly, Seth has claimed that he has climbed *through*
cars that were paused in his path. That's not something I'd recommend
either.
David Loewe, Jr.
What standards will you be using Czar Johanson?
Keep in mind that "A 2002 Institute study of pedestrian deaths in
Baltimore and Washington, DC, revealed that pedestrians were more likely
than drivers to be judged at fault in these collisions (50 percent
versus 39 percent with the remainder being either shared or unknown
fault)."
And keep in mind that, despite the insinuations of Keith, drivers do
quite often lose their driving privileges for some length of time if
they are at fault in a crash that results in a death. Many serve time
in jail or prison. There are consequences.
--
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Keith F. Lynch
I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists to
the same standards as gun owners?
Keith F. Lynch
I've never claimed otherwise.
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Maybe you do. Plenty of motorists don't. As I said, I've been
>> struck by right-turning left-looking motorists several times.
> And, how hard were you struck? IME, people looking left and turning
> right generally creep along for most of the turn.
Not very hard, obviously, or I wouldn't be in a condition to be
posting about it. But if I were ever to be struck by an SUV, I'd
probably go under it, not over it, and when I'm run over by a couple
tons, speed doesn't really matter.
> It is amusing that you want us to be accountable (as generic
> drivers) for the idiocy of other drivers, but you balk and stammer
> when asked to take a similar burden for incompetent pedestrians.
> You're are the biggest hypocrite...
As you know perfectly well, I've never said you were responsible for
the actions of other drivers. You're responsible for what you do.
I'm responsible for what I do.
>> I've never been struck when crossing mid-block.
> You're extremely lucky. If you had, you'd likely be crippled
> or dead.
Luck doesn't enter into it. As I've repeatedly said, I only cross
when it's clear. Which part of this don't you understand?
> All of this blather about how safe it is to cross midblock only
> applies to you then, correct?
It applies to everyone who only crosses when it's clear. What have I
ever said that would cause you to think otherwise?
>> It's true that a pedestrian crossing at mid-block is automatically
>> at fault if he's struck. But that has to do with civil law, not
>> criminal law. It just means he can't sue the driver.
> No. At fault also affects whether or not he can be charged with a
> crime (like, oh say, manslaughter) in connection with the incident.
Yes, in principle. But how often is a motorist killed by running
into a pedestrian? What I obviously meant was that the fact that the
pedestrian would be at fault if struck mid-block doesn't make him
guilty of a crime for crossing mid-block, whether or not he is struck.
I think you know perfectly well that was what I meant.
> Yet another howler of a Keithssertion that does not stand up to
> logic or facts.
But by deliberately misinterpreting it, you can yet again say that.
Look, it gets old, okay? It doesn't add anything to the discussion.
It makes you, not me, look stupid.
The first couple times you said that, I took it seriously, and
carefully examined what I had thought and what I had written. I even
ran it by a few friends. But with repetition, and with use not only
in the few cases where I made a mistake but in the many cases where I
was right and you were wrong, it has lost all impact.
It's much like Godwin's law -- an implicit admission that you have
lost the argument, and have nothing to say except insults.
From now on, I will treat any such insult as an an admission that you
were wrong and that the argument is over. I'll call it Loewe's law.
mor...@epsilon3.com
On 28-Jun-2009, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > What standards will you be using Czar Johanson?
>
> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists to
> the same standards as gun owners?
Well, in Vermont and Alaska there is no required training or licensing to
carry either concealed or open so you think in those states people should be
able to drive without any training or licensing?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> cryptoguy wrote:
>>> I sometimes add a slap to the trunk of the car when I do this, to
>>> make the point to the driver that they are in the wrong place.
>
>> I did that once and got an unceasing stream of profanity from the,
>> uh, woman driving the car that was sitting across the sidewalk in my
>> right of way. One of those times I regret that I didn't at least
>> try to scratch the idiot's car with something.
>
>A lot
There is that vague statement again that Keith can say means whatever
gets (eventually) proven as the right number.
>of drivers are not only very short-tempered, but armed,
Proof?
>at least around here.
--
"Many receive advice, few profit by it."
Publius Syrus
Keith F. Lynch
> "In most states, drivers only have to wait until the pedestrian
> has finished crossing the half of the crosswalk that the driver
> in driving on, after which the driver may proceed."
> Deal with it.
I do, obviously. And with the cases where the turning car passes just
inches in front of or behind me. And with the cases where the car
would apparently pass right through where I was if I didn't quickly
get out of the way. What does "Deal with it" add to the conversation?
Even when a policeman is present, I've never seen a motorist get a
ticket for this.
>> And when the light changes, it's rare for a motorist to wait until
>> the crosswalk is clear before they go.
> As long as they don't hit you, so what?
That's the opposite of your attitude about mid-block crossing. There,
I'm "extremely lucky" not to be struck, even if no car is within a
mile of me. But if I'm in a crosswalk, suddenly it's no harm no foul,
even if cars pass within inches of me at high speed.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> What standards will you be using Czar Johanson?
>
>I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists to
>the same standards as gun owners?
1) Which are?
2) Do you have *any* proof that they are not currently?
--
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"
Hosea 8:7
Keith F. Lynch
Yes. I don't think licensing accomplishes anything except softening
people up for a national ID card. Training is a good idea, but it
doesn't really matter how someone learns to drive so long as they can
do so with reasonable safety.
That is, nobody should ever be banned from driving simply because they
lack some formal credential such as a license or a certificate that
they went to driving school or passed drivers' ed in high school.
Instead, they should be judged based on how they drive.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, as most people do, that the legal
system functions properly and there are no false convictions, why not
seize their car and ban them from driving for a year on first offense
for any crime that puts others at risk (i.e. a moving violation, not
a parking violation, and excluding moving violations where nobody
was nearby, such as a slow roll through a stop sign if no motorists,
pedestrians, cyclists, or others are nearby)? For a second offense,
jail them for a year and ban them from driving for a decade, and for a
third offense, jail them for a decade and ban them from driving for
life. If they drive during a lifetime driving ban, lock them up and
throw away the key.
What typically happens to a person who uses their gun recklessly in
Vermont or Alaska?
Keith F. Lynch
>> A lot
> There is that vague statement again that Keith can say means
> whatever gets (eventually) proven as the right number.
>> of drivers are not only very short-tempered, but armed,
> Proof?
>> at least around here.
As you know perfectly well, I don' thave those numbers. If you're
skeptical, go right ahead and bang on hoods of cars. See if I care
what happens to you as a result.
Keith F. Lynch
>> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
>> to the same standards as gun owners?
> 1) Which are?
They vary between states, but generally gun owners are held to much
stricter standards than car owners, even though cars kill a lot more
people in the US than guns do.
> 2) Do you have *any* proof that they are not currently?
I could spend an hour or two digging up numerous cites, but why
bother? You'd ignore them and spew more insults. I think you
already know that gun standards are stricter.
For instance it's not a car that I'm permanently banned from ever
owning, on penalty of a mandatory five-year prison sentence, even
if I never use it.
Keith F. Lynch
> For example, we have very little violent crime compared to historic
> levels. Much of the violent crime that does occur is one of our
> ethic groups preying on itself. Yet, people live in fear because
> they see every crime splashed all over the media.
I don't. I've walked through bad neighborhoods in the middle of the
night. I helped unload trucks in front of the Capclave hotel at the
height of the 2002 sniper scare -- and that hotel was just a couple
blocks from two of the shootings.
> As long as Keith couches his argument in how much fear cars cause
> amongst pedestrians, he is going to believe that he has some sort of
> meaningful point - never mind that the fear is largely unjustified.
The important question isn't how many pedestrians *are* killed,
but how many *would be* killed if they didn't take precautions --
precautions that all too often consist of ceasing being pedestrians.
When deciding whether to play golf in a thunderstorm, the relevant
number isn't how many golfers are struck by lightning.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> message out of order. I *never* lie, and I *never* break the law.
> You said you are a jaywalker. What are we supposed to think?
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/jaywalk
> jay�walk intr.v.
> To cross a street illegally or in a reckless manner.
Perhaps I used the wrong term. Is there a term for safely and legally
crossing a road mid-block? Or for ignoring the state of the WALK
light when there's no traffic?
Keith F. Lynch
> a bicycle or riding a horse while intoxicated.
> I *think* I'd rather have to fail some standard of testing to be
> charged rather than just have some policeman's opinion be enough.
To get a driver's license, you have to consent to being tested for
alcohol at a policeman's whim. Cyclists and equestrians without
licenses have not given such consent, and can refuse such a test.
So the police have to use some other standard, otherwise it would
be impossible ever to charge anyone with drunk riding unless they
stupidly consented to being tested.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Apparently, in some jurisdictions, you can be arrested for operating
>> a bicycle or riding a horse while intoxicated.
>
>> I *think* I'd rather have to fail some standard of testing to be
>> charged rather than just have some policeman's opinion be enough.
>
>To get a driver's license, you have to consent to being tested for
>alcohol at a policeman's whim. Cyclists and equestrians without
>licenses have not given such consent, and can refuse such a test.
>So the police have to use some other standard, otherwise it would
>be impossible ever to charge anyone with drunk riding unless they
>stupidly consented to being tested.
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
Keith F. Lynch
>> Sure, because I'm the one who forces them to get drunk. Right.
> No. Because you urge them to cross at places other than the
> crosswalk or intersection.
Urge who? Drunks? No. I don't think it's safe for drunks to
walk anywhere.
Or are you just assuming your conclusion, that it's always safer to
cross in a crosswalk than mid-block?
> When it is explained to you that, because of the laws of physics,
> those who do get struck are almost certainly going to end up with
> worse injuries, you figuratively disown those who get struck as
> having done it wrong.
Correct. If you don't cross until it's clear, you're not going to be
struck. Period. So the physics of what would happen if a car *did*
hit you is irrelevant.
You might as well argue that flying is much more dangerous than
driving because planes go faster than cars. Yes, it's worse to be in
a plane crash than a car crash, especially at full speed, but the odds
of a plane crashing are much lower.
> Can I wave away all those motorists who get into accidents as having
> done something wrong, Keith/ Will that argument fly with you?
I thought *I* was the one who claimed that a large proportion of
motorists are doing it wrong, and that you were the one who defended
them and said that crashes are almost always the other guy's fault.
> It's been rather warm here in St. Louis for a week solid (or more).
> heat indexes have been in excess of 100 degrees on most days.
The weather has been nice here too. I actually have the heat off and
my windows open. It's a wonder they hadn't rusted shut over the fall,
winter, and spring.
> yet another advantage of a car. You can go out in this weather and
> go a considerable distance without risking heat stroke - because
> most cars have air conditioning.
The next time I get heat stroke will be the first. I don't even
bother to drink extra water before I head out the door. At most, I'll
carry my sweater with me rather than wearing it. (I'll need it if I'm
going to be indoors anywhere except at home.)
Keith F. Lynch
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Apparently, in some jurisdictions, you can be arrested for
>>> operating a bicycle or riding a horse while intoxicated.
>>> I *think* I'd rather have to fail some standard of testing to be
>>> charged rather than just have some policeman's opinion be enough.
>> To get a driver's license, you have to consent to being tested for
>> alcohol at a policeman's whim. Cyclists and equestrians without
>> licenses have not given such consent, and can refuse such a test.
>> So the police have to use some other standard, otherwise it would
>> be impossible ever to charge anyone with drunk riding unless they
>> stupidly consented to being tested.
> Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Let me try again.
A law that said you can't be charged with drunk riding unless you flunk
an alcohol breath test would be unworkable if you were free to refuse
such a test. Non-motorists are free to refuse such a test.
Keith F. Lynch
> Folks, I am actually laughing loud here. Keith has it pointed
> out that the problem that "traps" him in the sidewalk is easily
> circumvented, and he grabs those goal posts and races around trying
> to find someplace for them to stick.
"Loewe's law" applies to you, too. This is your only warning.
> Your original comment concerned *one* car blocking the crosswalk.
> Not a line waiting to turn,
Well, when there's a car blocking the crosswalk, there are often more
cars behind it. Sorry if I didn't spell it out. I also neglected to
say that sometimes when this happens the sun is shining, the road is
made of asphalt, and there are no horses present.
> not a car that might for no reason back up.
As for the reason, you'd have to ask the motorist. Perhaps, at a wild
guess, they belatedly realized they're blocking the crosswalk and want
to cease doing so.
> If there's a line, make eye contact with the person in the car you
> need to get past.
Not always possible. Anyhow, unless they're completely out of
it, they're already aware that pedestrians are present and trying
to cross.
> Or just hustle. Cars are about eight feet wide, how long were you
> planning on loitering?
How fast can a car you are inches in front of or behind hit you?
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Analogously, aren't truckers taught that if there's an oncoming
>> car driving on the wrong side, you should always stay in your lane
>> rather than veer over to where the car should have been to get
>> around it?
> No you get as far to the right in your lane and try to avoid a
> direct head on collision. You also sound your horn and begin safe
> braking maneuvers to lessen any potential impact. If necessary and
> safe, you drive on the shoulder.
But do you ever cross the white line and enter the oncoming lane?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> Apparently, in some jurisdictions, you can be arrested for
>>>> operating a bicycle or riding a horse while intoxicated.
>
>>>> I *think* I'd rather have to fail some standard of testing to be
>>>> charged rather than just have some policeman's opinion be enough.
>
>>> To get a driver's license, you have to consent to being tested for
>>> alcohol at a policeman's whim. Cyclists and equestrians without
>>> licenses have not given such consent, and can refuse such a test.
>>> So the police have to use some other standard, otherwise it would
>>> be impossible ever to charge anyone with drunk riding unless they
>>> stupidly consented to being tested.
>
>> Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
>Let me try again.
>
>A law that said you can't be charged with drunk riding unless you flunk
>an alcohol breath test would be unworkable if you were free to refuse
>such a test. Non-motorists are free to refuse such a test.
A law that said that you can't be charged with drunk riding unless you
flunk an alcohol test would obviously include a provision for mandatory
testing.
Surely that would be better than the current "He looked drunk to me,
Your Honor." standard?
--
"Beware the fury of a patient man."
John Dryden
Keith F. Lynch
> correctly, the back up lights will come on - giving you warning.
Yes, a small fraction of a second of warning. And then what should
I do? Other cars may be about to go through the crosswalk on either
side. When I'm walking near cars, I'm safest when I move predictably.
If I have to suddenly dodge to save myself from one car, that's likely
to just put me in the path of another.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> A law that said you can't be charged with drunk riding unless you
>> flunk an alcohol breath test would be unworkable if you were free
>> to refuse such a test. Non-motorists are free to refuse such a
>> test.
> A law that said that you can't be charged with drunk riding unless
> you flunk an alcohol test would obviously include a provision for
> mandatory testing.
Any such provision would be struck down on constitutional grounds.
That's why to get a driver's license you have to explicitly waive
the right to refuse such a test.
> Surely that would be better than the current "He looked drunk to me,
> Your Honor." standard?
I don't think that standard should be allowed either. But it is.
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> What standards will you be using Czar Johanson?
>
>I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists to
>the same standards as gun owners?
You mean none? No testing and licensing? No registration of cars? No
requirement to hold insurance?
Ooo! Can we have a massively well-funded national organization that
can destroy any politician who dares suggest that there be national
standards for cars? Because screw my neighbors, If I want to drive a
top-fuel dragster to the store at 300mph, that's my right!
You'll take my steering wheel away when you pry my cold dead fingers
off it.
Pedestrians are still worth 50 points.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"And the day will come when the mystical generation
of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the
womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"
- Thomas Jefferson
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
>> to the same standards as gun owners?
> You mean none? No testing and licensing? No registration of cars?
> No requirement to hold insurance?
There are no gun licenses in the US? No gun registration? You'd
better check for zeppelins -- you're in a very different history
than I'm in.
> Ooo! Can we have a massively well-funded national organization that
> can destroy any politician who dares suggest that there be national
> standards for cars? Because screw my neighbors, If I want to drive
> a top-fuel dragster to the store at 300mph, that's my right!
The AAA is much larger and more powerful than the NRA. And neither
organization advocates that there be no standards.
Plenty of politicians suggest that guns be banned. None suggest that
cars be banned.
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
><mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> What standards will you be using Czar Johanson?
>
>>> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
>>> to the same standards as gun owners?
>
>> Well, in Vermont and Alaska there is no required training or
>> licensing to carry either concealed or open so you think in those
>> states people should be able to drive without any training or
>> licensing?
>
>Yes. I don't think licensing accomplishes anything except softening
>people up for a national ID card. Training is a good idea, but it
>doesn't really matter how someone learns to drive so long as they can
>do so with reasonable safety.
Amazingly enough, not a single state requires training, just that you
pass a written and driving test. I learned to drive in my mom's car,
with her teaching me. We started in a big empty parking lot, moved to
quiet neighborhood streets, and finally to real driving. By the time I
was able to test, it was easy.
>That is, nobody should ever be banned from driving simply because they
>lack some formal credential such as a license or a certificate that
>they went to driving school or passed drivers' ed in high school.
>Instead, they should be judged based on how they drive.
This coming from the guy who wines about how deadly drivers are.
Part of the licensing process is an eye exam and medical
questionnaire. Tell me Keith, would you feel safe riding you bike with
legally blind people passing you in SUVs? How about epileptics driving
where you're crossing the street?
I swear, you have got to be one of the biggest idiots on the planet.
After all you whinging over how dangerous it is for you to walk and
ride because of the Evil Motorists, you blithely advocate removing one
of the few safety checks on the system. You, sir, are insane.
>Assuming, for the sake of argument, as most people do, that the legal
>system functions properly and there are no false convictions, why not
>seize their car and ban them from driving for a year on first offense
>for any crime that puts others at risk (i.e. a moving violation, not
>a parking violation, and excluding moving violations where nobody
>was nearby, such as a slow roll through a stop sign if no motorists,
>pedestrians, cyclists, or others are nearby)? For a second offense,
>jail them for a year and ban them from driving for a decade, and for a
>third offense, jail them for a decade and ban them from driving for
>life. If they drive during a lifetime driving ban, lock them up and
>throw away the key.
Let me introduce you to the Eighth Amendment.
>What typically happens to a person who uses their gun recklessly in
>Vermont or Alaska?
Well, in Alaska, you become Governor.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
To announce that there must be no criticism of
the president... is morally treasonable to the
American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
Keith F. Lynch
> I swear, you have got to be one of the biggest idiots on the planet.
> After all you whinging over how dangerous it is for you to walk and
> ride because of the Evil Motorists, you blithely advocate removing
> one of the few safety checks on the system. You, sir, are insane.
Okay, I'm invoking Loewe's law. I'm treating that as a concession
that you have nothing coherent to say, and I'll reply to no more
messages of yours in this thread.
(See, David, I'm not singling you out.)
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
>>> to the same standards as gun owners?
>
>> 1) Which are?
Keith Lynch, who knows nothing about cars or firearms, will now
lecture us on the laws surrounding those two items. Get popcorn,
folks, this is going to be good!
>They vary between states, but generally gun owners are held to much
>stricter standards than car owners, even though cars kill a lot more
>people in the US than guns do.
Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Really, Keith, please name the states that require people using guns
to hold a license to do so. Then list the states that require guns to
be registered with a clearly visible registration on the gun. finally,
list the states that require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
You are so utterly ignorant of reality that sometimes I wonder if you
are really this dumb.
>> 2) Do you have *any* proof that they are not currently?
>
>I could spend an hour or two digging up numerous cites, but why
>bother? You'd ignore them and spew more insults. I think you
>already know that gun standards are stricter.
Except that they aren't.
>For instance it's not a car that I'm permanently banned from ever
>owning, on penalty of a mandatory five-year prison sentence, even
>if I never use it.
See, that's because you're a felon. I can go buy a gun tomorrow with
my passport as an ID. No one will ask me if I even know how to use the
safety on the thing. There's no mandatory testing of gun safety
knowledge. I just wait the five days for the Brady background check
and I have a gun.
Seriously, it was more work to buy my Ford when compared to my
Mosin-Nagant.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
David Friedman
wrote:
> >Yes. I don't think licensing accomplishes anything except softening
> >people up for a national ID card. Training is a good idea, but it
> >doesn't really matter how someone learns to drive so long as they can
> >do so with reasonable safety.
>
> Amazingly enough, not a single state requires training, just that you
> pass a written and driving test.
There is a story that George Stigler, who made his reputation in part by
introducing the novel idea of judging regulation by its observed
consequences rather than its stated purpose, used to assign his students
the problem of evaluating driver licensing by looking at accident rates
of different states that introduced the requirement at different times.
Supposedly the correlation turned out to be positive--requiring licenses
was associated with higher accident rates after the requirement went
into effect.
But I don't know if it's true. Do you know of any empirical evidence in
the other direction, evidence that the requirement reduces accident
rates?
One reason it might go the other way is that the requirement makes it
somewhat harder for parents to teach their children how to drive.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
mor...@epsilon3.com
On 28-Jun-2009, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> What typically happens to a person who uses their gun recklessly in
> Vermont or Alaska?
Most cities have laws about the discharge of firearms without a good reason.
Say, equivalent to driving on the sidewalk. Except for some especially
anal locations. If someone is injured or killed it's generally the same as
any injury or death caused by the negligent use of []. At least in those
locations I'm familiar with.
I'm sticking here to the reckless use of a firearm and not the deliberate
use to cause harm or death.
mor...@epsilon3.com
On 28-Jun-2009, Doug Berry wrote:
> >What typically happens to a person who uses their gun recklessly in
> >Vermont or Alaska?
>
> Well, in Alaska, you become Governor.
Really? You've got a cite for her reckless use of a firearm?
mor...@epsilon3.com
On 28-Jun-2009, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> <Doug Berry> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
> >> to the same standards as gun owners?
>
> > You mean none? No testing and licensing? No registration of cars?
> > No requirement to hold insurance?
>
> There are no gun licenses in the US? No gun registration? You'd
> better check for zeppelins -- you're in a very different history
> than I'm in.
There are only two locations that I know of that require registration of all
firearms (DC and Hawaii). A few others require registration of handguns.
Some cities and counties require it. A few require a permit to purchase/own
a firearm. Seven states prohibit requiring the registration of firearms.
So yes, it happens but I don't think there's the standards you think there
are. There's no requirement for training, testing or insurance.
Now *concealed* carry is a different matter.
cryptoguy
> The scrolls speak of the day, 28 Jun 2009 14:56:01 -0400, when the
> mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
> rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
> >>> to the same standards as gun owners?
>
> >> 1) Which are?
>
> Keith Lynch, who knows nothing about cars or firearms, will now
> lecture us on the laws surrounding those two items. Get popcorn,
> folks, this is going to be good!
>
> >They vary between states, but generally gun owners are held to much
> >stricter standards than car owners, even though cars kill a lot more
> >people in the US than guns do.
> Really, Keith, please name the states that require people using guns
> to hold a license to do so. Then list the states that require guns to
> be registered with a clearly visible registration on the gun. finally,
> list the states that require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Well, yes and no. Here in MA, I think it is theoretically possible to
own a gun on your own property without any licensing (but IANAL).
However, you could not possess it off your property without a firearms
permit (for long arms), or a License To Carry (for handguns).
You certainly won't be able to buy one in this state from a gun store
without showing such documentation. These days, buying a gun in MA at
a dealer includes an online check on the status of your permit or LTC
with the state, so, they know about it. Without documentation, even if
you acquired one legally, you couldn't transport it home.
And yes, it does vary from state to state. Across the border in
Vermont, any person who can legally possess a gun can carry concealed.
(Try comparing the murder rates in Vt vs Ma sometime). DC, near where
Keith is, has far more restrictive regulations than MA.
Getting an LTC in MA is at the discretion of your local Chief of
Police, and its pretty random, with (as a general rule) more rural
areas being more liberal in handing them out. It requires a several
hour safety training course, at some expense, beyond the $100 fee.
Registration? If you have a gun you've owned for decades, maybe not,
but all transfers of firearms require the filing of a federal form.
All transfers done through an FFL (federally licensed gun dealer) also
require an FBI background check. It's *claimed* that no permanent
records are made of these checks.
So 'gun registration' may not be in place, but if you register all
sales and transfers, it amounts to the same thing after a while.
As for the license plate analogy, try looking up the penalty for
filing off the serial number on a gun.
> You are so utterly ignorant of reality that sometimes I wonder if you
> are really this dumb.
>
> >> 2) Do you have *any* proof that they are not currently?
>
> >I could spend an hour or two digging up numerous cites, but why
> >bother? You'd ignore them and spew more insults. I think you
> >already know that gun standards are stricter.
>
[..]
>
> Seriously, it was more work to buy my Ford when compared to my
> Mosin-Nagant.
Same here, but that's because I jumped through all the hoops for the
LTC a long time ago. Buying a car *does* involve more hassle, even in
MA.
pt
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Moreover, if the car IS shifted into reverse, if it is operating
>> correctly, the back up lights will come on - giving you warning.
>
>Yes, a small fraction of a second of warning. And then what should
>I do? Other cars may be about to go through the crosswalk on either
>side. When I'm walking near cars, I'm safest when I move predictably.
>If I have to suddenly dodge to save myself from one car, that's likely
>to just put me in the path of another.
At this point, due to your inability to describe this to my
satisfaction, I'm going to need a diagram that you will not provide.
Overall, let me just say that most other places do not have the overall
traffic density you claim for DC. Nor do cars in most other places
routinely close the gap between cars so close that a pedestrian cannot
get through that gap. And drivers in most other places certainly look
where they're going.
Frankly, anytime I've seen anything that even approaches what you
describe, it is because people are turning into a packed street that has
a red light activated. The cars are stopped and there is almost always
enough room to walk around them.
Once again, I have to fall back on an old maxim. You live in Traffic
Hell. You want to fix your problem by changing way the rest of the
country works. You express amazement when the rest of the country does
not want their non-existent problems fixed.
--
"You don't have to pray to a litle tin god,
Step out of the way for a little tin god."
Don Henley, Danny Kortchmar & J. D. Souther
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
>> Folks, I am actually laughing loud here. Keith has it pointed
>> out that the problem that "traps" him in the sidewalk is easily
>> circumvented, and he grabs those goal posts and races around trying
>> to find someplace for them to stick.
>
>"Loewe's law" applies to you, too.
This is pretty silly. "Laws" of this type are named after the
formulator. "Godwin's Law." "Murphy's Law." "Niven's Laws."
Frankly (Hate THAT one yet?), it is FAR more childish than <your name
inserted here>ssertion.
>This is your only warning.
I'm sure that he's shaking in his boots over the possibility that you'll
start pouting and not talk to him anymore.
You know, I'm tired of walking on eggshells around you.
>> Your original comment concerned *one* car blocking the crosswalk.
>> Not a line waiting to turn,
>
>Well, when there's a car blocking the crosswalk, there are often more
>cars behind it. Sorry if I didn't spell it out.
You assume that this is common throughout the country. You continue to
assume DC traffic is common throughout the country despite being told by
every other poster who has weighed in that it is not. And then you have
the unmitigated gall (Getting tired of that one yet?) to wonder when
people don't make the same assumptions about traffic that you do?
>I also neglected to say that sometimes when this happens the sun is
>shining, the road is made of asphalt, and there are no horses present.
>
>> not a car that might for no reason back up.
>
>As for the reason, you'd have to ask the motorist. Perhaps, at a wild
>guess, they belatedly realized they're blocking the crosswalk and want
>to cease doing so.
So, they're just going to back out into traffic?!?
Makes no sense.
>> If there's a line, make eye contact with the person in the car you
>> need to get past.
>
>Not always possible. Anyhow, unless they're completely out of
>it, they're already aware that pedestrians are present and trying
>to cross.
Frankly, I am coming to believe more and more that you have encountered
a few of these drivers and they are the ones who stick in your memory.
Because drivers in other parts of the country, IME, do not DO this kind
of thing on a regular basis. Either you are inflating this or the
world's worst drivers live near you.
>> Or just hustle. Cars are about eight feet wide, how long were you
>> planning on loitering?
>
>How fast can a car you are inches in front of or behind hit you?
How fast can a car that is stopped inches from you be going when it hits
you? Unless they push you into the other car, for which they'll likely
go away to prison for a long time if they're caught, you're not likely
going to be so much as bruised
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Analogously, aren't truckers taught that if there's an oncoming
>>> car driving on the wrong side, you should always stay in your lane
>>> rather than veer over to where the car should have been to get
>>> around it?
>
>> No you get as far to the right in your lane and try to avoid a
>> direct head on collision. You also sound your horn and begin safe
>> braking maneuvers to lessen any potential impact. If necessary and
>> safe, you drive on the shoulder.
>
>But do you ever cross the white line and enter the oncoming lane?
You've got to love it. When told he is wrong about what is taught to
truck drivers by two professional drivers who told him the same thing,
does Keith admit he's wrong? No.
Striped white lines separate traffic moving in the same direction. Solid
white lines mark the shoulder. YELLOW lines are the centerlines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_surface_marking
"White center lines were used in the United States until 1971. Yellow
have been used since."
Anyway... are we supposed to be doing this to dodge this hypothetical
wrong-way driver? I've never encountered one in RL.
--
"A good reputation is more valuable than money."
Publius Syrus
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
Let us add back in some of what else he wrote, shall we?
>> This coming from the guy who wines about how deadly drivers are.
>> Part of the licensing process is an eye exam and medical
>> questionnaire. Tell me Keith, would you feel safe riding you bike with
>> legally blind people passing you in SUVs? How about epileptics driving
>> where you're crossing the street?
>> I swear, you have got to be one of the biggest idiots on the planet.
>> After all you whinging over how dangerous it is for you to walk and
>> ride because of the Evil Motorists, you blithely advocate removing
>> one of the few safety checks on the system. You, sir, are insane.
>
>Okay, I'm invoking Loewe's law. I'm treating that as a concession
>that you have nothing coherent to say,
Anyone who can read what he wrote can see that there is a coherent
argument made. Is he nasty about it? Sure. But, you sit back and put
your fingers in your ears when confronted with logic and facts. That
gets frustrating. It is also HIGHLY disrespectful.
You whine and moan continually about how people treat you and, yet, when
you treat others in the same ways or other ways that are equally as bad,
you blow it off. I literally laugh out loud and shake my head at some
of your antics. You display all of the self-awareness of a brick wall.
I'm tired of walking around you on eggshells when you will NOT show me
the same consideration.
>and I'll reply to no more messages of yours in this thread.
>
>(See, David, I'm not singling you out.)
Yes, you are. Unlike standard practice, you named your "Law" - which is
actually a personal rule of yours - after the target and not the
originator. You lose style points - and look childish.
--
"On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turn back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I can't speak for the czar, but what's wrong with holding motorists
>>> to the same standards as gun owners?
>
>> You mean none? No testing and licensing? No registration of cars?
>> No requirement to hold insurance?
>
>There are no gun licenses in the US?
No, not for all guns.
I own two and I don't have a license.
>No gun registration?
No, not for all guns
I own two and they are not registered.
>You'd better check for zeppelins -- you're in a very different history
>than I'm in.
It is amusing that Keith thinks that asking Doug about Zeppelins is not
as insulting, in its own way (given the history, as short as it is,
behind Keith's remark), as Doug calling him an idiot.
Perhaps Keith is just far too sensitive to post Usenet as it has become?
>> Ooo! Can we have a massively well-funded national organization that
>> can destroy any politician who dares suggest that there be national
>> standards for cars? Because screw my neighbors, If I want to drive
>> a top-fuel dragster to the store at 300mph, that's my right!
>
>The AAA is much larger and more powerful than the NRA. And neither
>organization advocates that there be no standards.
>
>Plenty of politicians suggest that
...some...
>guns be banned. None suggest that cars be banned.
Sure they do. The top-fuel dragsters that Doug mentions are banned from
the streets. That is kind of like the regulations surrounding fully
automatic weapons (yes, Keith, it is LEGAL to own and operate a machine
gun in this country).
--
"You're free to be as much of an asshole as you wish -- as long as I'm
not paying for it."
- Todd Masco
Keith F. Lynch
> not as insulting, in its own way (given the history, as short as it
> is, behind Keith's remark), as Doug calling him an idiot.
> Perhaps Keith is just far too sensitive to post Usenet as it has
> become?
I'm not bothered by an occasional joking insult, but when a poster
produces an unending stream of non-stop insults, which don't even have
any humor value, and there's little or no substantive content to go
with them, then I see no point in continuing to try to communicate
with him in that thread. If he's the same way in all the other
threads he's in, then I eventually just killfile him.
I'm a lot more tolerant of abuse than most people who used to post
here. Why do you think most of them aren't here anymore?
I'm "far too sensitive" if I eventually object to people repeatedly
claiming I'm an idiot, I'm insane, I'm always wrong, I'm out of touch
with reality. But let me respond with one or two humorous insults in
return (zeppelins, Doug having landed on his head), and suddenly you
cry foul.
And joking about someone having landed on his head during past
parachute jumps does not construe hostility or a threat.
>> Plenty of politicians suggest that
> ...some...
>> guns be banned. None suggest that cars be banned.
It's true. They only want to ban guns in private hands. No
politicians suggest that the police or military be disarmed.
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is pretty silly. "Laws" of this type are named after the
> formulator. "Godwin's Law." "Murphy's Law." "Niven's Laws."
>
Obviously you are not aware of Stigler's law.
Which holds that scientific laws are never named after the person who
really originated them.
Lots of examples in my field:
Ricardian rent is called that because it was invented by Malthus (and
someone else whose name I forget).
Marshallian quasi-rent is called that because it was invented by Ricardo
Nash equilibrium is called that because it was invented by Cournot.
Steve Stigler told me who really invented Stigler's law, but I forget.
Keith F. Lynch
>> <Doug Berry> wrote:
>>> I swear, you have got to be one of the biggest idiots on the
>>> planet. After all you whinging over how dangerous it is for you
>>> to walk and ride because of the Evil Motorists, you blithely
>>> advocate removing one of the few safety checks on the system.
>>> You, sir, are insane.
>> Okay, I'm invoking Loewe's law. I'm treating that as a concession
>> that you have nothing coherent to say,
> Anyone who can read what he wrote can see that there is a coherent
> argument made.
If he had said something like:
I disagree with you about lack of licensing. I believe that
licensing laws cause motorists to drive more safely.
I wouldn't have responded as I did. Instead I would have asked him
for his evidence. But of course he has no evidence, otherwise he
would already have presented it. In other words, he has implicitly
conceded that he has no response. He just has blind faith in the
laws doing what they're claimed to do. If he'd said as much, fine,
we can agree to disagree, and drop the subject.
> I'm tired of walking around you on eggshells when you will NOT show
> me the same consideration.
What eggshells? I've bent over backwards for you. I even recently
suggested we get together and go to some fannish event if you come to
Bethesda. But nothing stops your unending insults. If you disagree
with me about something, why not politely just say so and explain
why? I've never gotten upset with anyone for that. Calling me names
instead doesn't accomplish anything.
Keith F. Lynch
If there isn't a car immediately behind them, then yes, sometimes they
do. More often they don't. But there's no way to tell. I'm not
going to walk behind them and take my chances, even though they're
better than 50-50.
> Makes no sense.
Take it up with them.
> Frankly, I am coming to believe more and more that you have
> encountered a few of these drivers and they are the ones who stick
> in your memory.
It only takes one to ruin my whole day.
> How fast can a car that is stopped inches from you be going when it
> hits you?
Not very fast. As I said, it's happened. But only when the car was
going forwards. I go up on the hood, the motorist sees me, and hits
the brakes. If they were going backwards, I might go under, not on
top, depending on the shape of the back of the car. And the motorist
might not see me. Sure, the car isn't going very fast, but it's going
faster than I can outrun it if I've just been knocked down. I don't
think being run over is particularly safe for me even if the car is
going very slowly.
If an SUV, van, or truck hits me going forwards, then too I might go
under it rather than onto the hood. It's not a chance I want to take.
> You've got to love it. When told he is wrong about what is taught
> to truck drivers by two professional drivers who told him the same
> thing, does Keith admit he's wrong? No.
I have made no claim about what is taught to truck drivers. I did
ask a couple questions on the topic. That's not allowed?
> Striped white lines separate traffic moving in the same direction.
> Solid white lines mark the shoulder. YELLOW lines are the
> centerlines.
There are roads around here with white lines in the center.
> Anyway... are we supposed to be doing this to dodge this
> hypothetical wrong-way driver?
I don't know. I'm not a driver. I was curious what drivers were
taught about it. But when I ask, I get more insults from you.
Keith F. Lynch
> overall traffic density you claim for DC.
That may make them more dangerous, since that means cars are going
faster on average. Please politely correct me if I'm wrong, but it's
my understanding that per-passenger-mile fatal crash rates tend to be
higher in rural areas.
> Nor do cars in most other places routinely close the gap between
> cars so close that a pedestrian cannot get through that gap.
Nor do they here. But gaps between cars can suddenly shrink or move
forwards or back. I don't want to be in them when they do.
> And drivers in most other places certainly look where they're going.
Most do here. But not all. As I said, it only takes one to ruin my
whole day. Crossing when no cars are nearby is by far the safest way
to cross. I don't understand why this is so controversial, or why
this safe and legal action marks me as a criminal.
> Once again, I have to fall back on an old maxim. You live in
> Traffic Hell.
Maybe so, but I don't think traffic death rates are significantly
-- if at all -- higher here.
> You want to fix your problem by changing way the rest of the
> country works.
I used to live in smoking hell. And then the way the country
worked changed.
> You express amazement when the rest of the country does not want
> their non-existent problems fixed.
Non-existent? I don't think all of the 40,000 annual traffic deaths
in the US are in the DC area.
Keith F. Lynch
> Nash equilibrium is called that because it was invented by Cournot.
It was? Maybe I should return _A Beautiful Mind_ to the bookstore and
ask for my money back.