Valencia Street progected bike lanes--Madison Style--SF

[pH]

https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/

I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.

SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.

The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.

pH

early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)

[AMuzi]

Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Roger Merriman]

Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?

The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected,
and cyclists aren’t having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is. Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there.

[Tom Kunich]

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:

Although it sort of goes against the grain, perhaps a center bike lane is a good idea. It is much easier to cross one lane to make a turn against traffic you can see instead of trying to watch traffic behind you that you can't in order to move over to make a turn.

[Roger Merriman]

Maybe for a America possibly but even so a few hundred years is no time at
all for a city, which tend to the thousands of years, even local to me are
some buildings around the 1000 year mark, the “new Church” in my local town
centre replaces the church from Saxon times ie 700/800 at least.

Old for a ship perhaps but not a city.

Lots of such cities absolutely are removing parking places, even San
Francisco wasn’t built for cars in mind as it predates them by 100 or so
years.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:
>>> https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
>>>
>>> I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
>>> the link. ymmv.
>>>
>>> SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
>>> Valencia Street.
>>>
>>> The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
>>> the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
>>> some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
>>>
>>> pH
>>>
>>> early Merry Christmas to all
>>> (not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
>> showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
>> and actual in the streets cyclists.
>
> Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
> though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?

I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an article in
some now-defunct bike magazine titled something like "Staying Safe in
Protected Bike Lanes." The author was Carol Szepansky, who was then
communications director for the League of American Bicyclists. She
described her experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in
Washington, DC.

Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a pedestrian
suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps inadvertently described
many other problems as she gave tips on how to stay safe.

Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any intersection, because
traffic movements are so much more complicated. Don't proceed on a
regular green light when all other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for
the special green light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the
brake levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.

But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She actually said
if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike, avoid the facility and use
a different street.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

After two to three generations every city is new. That means that the only reality of Rome is the shattered ruins of the Colosseum that mean nothing at all to the present day Romans. Is there One thing that present day Germans have in common with with the NAZI's? So San Francisco is as old as present day Napoli or Paris.

[AMuzi]

This has been my general MO for cycling all my life.

[Frank Krygowski]

Agreed! One thing I like about living in an older (um, by American
standards) metro area is the plethora of parallel routes. When a city
center arterial is ugly, there's usually a nearby "residential
collector" nearby that serves the same area and is much more pleasant.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

Have you visited such places? Absolutely older housing and buildings do get
replaced, but lot remains, even in london which isn’t that old by European
standards after all it’s the 2nd capital city of England. And lot of it’s
history is Norman in nature so only a 1000 or so years. Though it does have
older history if not buildings.

Even locally there are buildings around the 500 year old mark, mainly
though not limited to pubs, some older buildings and houses in the central
area, and less so as places grew and slowly gaps between the villages/towns
where gone ie few hundred years ago london was a long away now it’s london.

Even a tree some 750 years old in one of the local parks.

Plenty of old stuff about lot of it has been modified over the years, but
more importantly the road network and land is largely unchanged.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Well, London hasn't suffered The Planners as much as some
other cities:

https://mymodernmet.com/paris-france-haussmannization/

[Roger Merriman]

For various reasons london never did go for knocking down and getting large
wide roads, though I guess the Embankment is one exception, I believe where
some plans after the great fire of London, and equally where some wild
plans in the 60’s for multiple rings of motorways, my old forgotten
cycleway is on one such planned route, which I assume is why it has the
cycleway.

Are some areas such as near the city some of the pedways ie raised walkways
and relatively wide car centric roads, with out pavement as intended but
they are small areas and arguably failed ideas.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

Get opinion pieces on lots of stuff, doesn’t make them sound evidence or
fact as you were, see some of the articles about disks when they came out
for road bikes, some hilarious stuff.

[John B.]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:30:14 GMT, Roger Merriman <ro...@sarlet.com>

wrote:

>Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:39:52?PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought that London, or Lundinium to give it it's proper name, was
originally built by the Romans, early in their occupation of the
country. Isn't there still a section of the Roman Wall in existence?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

There is an old saying, "early to bed and early to rise..." which I've
always applied to recreational bike riding. You don't like traffic?
Get there early in the morning and there won't be any :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Yes:

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Londons-Roman-City-Wall/

p.s. that's Londinium

[John B.]

Well, my excuse is that I can't speak Latin :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

"... makes a man sleepy and blind in the eyes"

[Frank Krygowski]

> fact as you were...

Evidence? I've posted many times links to the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety study that found more than ten times as many crashes on
bi-directional cycle tracks. I used to post links to the Ohio Department
of Transportation data showing over then times as many car-bike crashes
on the mile of bi-directional cycle track added to a Columbus
neighborhood, but ODOT seems to have buried that data. I've given links
to the YouTube video of a typical crash. And I've given the link to
Michael Colville-Andersen's excoriation of bi-directional cycle tracks.

Those weren't necessarily centered on the roadway. But they were
bi-directional, which I think is the main hazard. Well, apart from
getting into and out of a roadway-centered facility.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

That works if your objective is simply to pedal around for a while.

There are those of us who actually use bicycles to get to practical
places and do practical things. If it's so early in the morning that
there's no traffic, it's because the stores, offices, restaurants etc.
are still closed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Narrow streets and the kind are not of any marking of age of a city. After all, every major city in the US east coast had narrow roads akin to an alley today and were entirely rebuilt to accommodate the automobile. The advent of large numbers of automobiles in Europe is relatively recent and as you can see - MOST of London has been built to accommodate them and it is only the inner sanctum that is still fairly free of major traffic.

You have a 750 year old tree in a park. We have them ALL over - including 2,000 year old Redwoods. I would warrant that the park was built around the tree and not the tree planted 750 years ago.

But that is all aside, all you have to so is look at the pictures of the road that Lou showed to know that absolutely perfect roads for autos are in the Netherlands. And the once prime roads of the Autobahn are aging and breaking up and German's can hardly afford the energy to live let alone to properly repair the roads.

Perhaps they can put the 12 foot thick roads that Liebermann told us about on the Autobahn?

[Roger Merriman]

Very little evidence of that remains and it wasn’t continuous certainly no
building even partially, parts of the wall remains. And main roads to other
towns, but the city layout and buildings not so much note that where people
here pre Roman times, I pass dug out (by victorians) burial mounds on my
commute.

City proper is late Saxon/early Norman.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

That it’s an opinion piece? Really fairly obvious that it is.

Bi directions cycleways like the old cycleway I use or the newer stuff
being built only works if it’s part of network ie so your not crossing at
either start or exit, and needs to a fairly controlled environment.

Embankment for example at rush hour is busy you’ll reach a queue at the
junctions, but traffic is moving bidirectional ie it’s not chaotic like for
example crossing a shared space town centre.

Bidirectional are most definitely not created equal are at least 3 near
Hampton Court that suffers from the you need to crossover to use/exit type
of problems even the newish one.

It works when it’s a controlled network ie junctions and so on, and not
just an isolated 1 mile etc.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

Even yesterday returning home, in the mist somewhat smug passing the
traffic down the park way that was backed up a few miles, luckily the old
cycleway is rather quiet it’s self I last saw someone else on it in
November! And it bypasses the worse junction.

And once I was away from the big urban roads traffic reduced to normal
levels.

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:59:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Golly, if you're afraid to ride on bi-directional bike paths, don't
ride on them. I ride them regularly: I sure hope I'm never reduced to
that ridiculous level of timidity.

[John B.]

Frank is correct that a IIHS study did show that a bi-directional bike
way had 11.4 times greater risk of injury then riding on the road.

But a review of the study made by Peter Furth, Professor of Civil
Engineering at Northeastern University. BS, MS, and PhD degrees from
MIT, seems to say something a bit different.
https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/2019/10/07/are-2-way-cycle-tracks-unsafe-a-closer-look-at-the-iihs-study/

Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."

As an aside, note the date of the rebuttal - 2019, some 4 years ago. I
found the study with a 5 minute search while Frank didn't find it in 4
years.

Or perhaps because the original study said what he wanted to hear he
never bothered to look any further?
As Sir Francis Bacon said, some 400 years ago, "He prefers to believe
what he wants to be true."

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

There's your problem. As you, kunich, the floriduh dumbass, and the shitstain keep chanting - these people with degrees can't be believed. Or is it just a matter of convenience for you to commit an argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy?

[Frank Krygowski]

Furth is a dedicated "paint & path" advocate. Of course he'll disagree
with a study whose data he doesn't like. But one disagreement does not
disprove the data.

Michael Colville-Andersen is perhaps the world's most prominent "paint &
path" advocate. But even he is strongly against bi-directional bike
lanes.
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html

And people like John should realize that there are many very intelligent
and dedicated cycling advocates who have analyzed not only the IIHS
study, but many more studies on the effects of various bike
infrastructure designs. They are well aware of the efforts of the
promotional team that includes Furth, Lusk, Teschke and others.

Try doing some reading from the links mentioned here:
http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.com/2012/08/bicycle-infrastructure-studies.html

There are dozens.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

San Francisco is dying under the direction of the Democrats. As is the entire state under Gavin Loathsome. Any additional reduction in business such as reducing parking is just hurrying on the demise of San Francisco. Even famous restaurants all over the bay area are dying for want of customers because of Biden's inflation. I used to pay about $200 per month for food. Now it is $600 because it is cheaper to go to the local Mexican restaurant than to buy and cook your own food. I have paid $146 for one single bag of food that had two bags of cat food and only a half dozen human items like broccoli and a can of chili. It didn't even include a bottle of wine and I drink cheap wine.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:18:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski

...and most likely, dozens who disagree.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:34:27 AM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> San Francisco is dying under the direction of the Democrats. As is the entire state under Gavin Loathsome. Any additional reduction in business such as reducing parking is just hurrying on the demise of San Francisco. Even famous restaurants all over the bay area are dying for want of customers because of Biden's inflation. I used to pay about $200 per month for food. Now it is $600

Food prices in the San Francisco region rose 2.8% and energy prices dropped 2.5%, according to the bureau’s CPI data. Food at home increased 1.9% and food away from home increased 5%.
The US The Consumer Price Index, a common measure of inflation, increased 3.2% from October 2022 to October 2023,
Pretty much everything in the bay area except for dining out rose at a rate lower than the national average.
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/personal-finance/article282851693.html#storylink=cpy

> because it is cheaper to go to the local Mexican restaurant than to buy and cook your own food.

lol...sure sparky. To reiterate, Pretty much everything in the bay area except for dining out rose at a rate lower than the national average.

> I have paid $146 for one single bag of food that had two bags of cat food and only a half dozen human items like broccoli and a can of chili.

You realize no one believes you, right?

> It didn't even include a bottle of wine and I drink cheap wine.

OK, _that_ we believe.

[John B.]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:14 -0500, Catrike Rider

Well I did check one of Frankie's references and that study showed NOT
that the greatest danger was in bi-directional paths but at
intersections whether on bi-directional paths or otherwise.

It seems, at least from a minimal look that he and the anti's are
going to great length to argue against bike paths.

Oh yes, and the study I reviewed also showed that accidents in younger
riders, 5 - 15 years, was far greater then all others. So, based on
that study, it would seem that logically the argument should be
against younger riders rather the bi-directional paths.

And, before Frank leaps to his feet shouting "but you only checked one
reference" it should be noted that is exactly what Frank did with his
story of the old Geezer who couldn't unclip and tipped over, hit his
head and died as proof that Helmets are no good at all.

Turn about is, so they say, fair play.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:37:19 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

If he's afraid to ride on bi-directional paths, nobody is going to
make him ride on bi-directional paths; like I do.

[sms]

On 12/9/2023 9:13 AM, pH wrote:

<snip>

> The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
> the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
> some of whom are bicyclists themselves.

<snip>

Removing parking is a big issue when the businesses don't have
off-street parking.

It would be better to have just removed on-street parking and put in
protected bike lanes on each side and then built some off-street
parking, either above-ground or underground, but such parking is
extremely expensive.

This kind of conflict is going to increase in the future because the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors eliminated parking requirements for new
construction, effectively exporting parking onto the public streets,
instead of under, or behind, buildings where it should be.

The false narrative you often see about two-way bicycle lanes being
dangerous is uncalled for, but predictable. Studies show that the risk
of a cyclists colliding with a motor vehicle are even lower than one-way
bike lanes along the curb. While a collision with another cyclist is
higher on the two-way lanes, those collisions are much less likely to
result in serious injury than a bicycle-vehicle collision.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[Tom Kunich]

It would seem to me that center of the street bicycle lanes would work well but I don't think is worth the time to train drivers. And it absolutely isn't worth losing parking.

[Roger Merriman]

Well yes a by directional cyclelane without protection or it’s own light
phase and so on is well a poor half hearted design arguably worse than just
paint. By direction only work if they are part of network. Ie so folks
don’t need to cross the road to enter for exit or get left/right hooked and
so on.

Roger Merriman

[John B.]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:44:57 -0500, Catrike Rider

To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
to use by bicycles? High injury rate?

Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
finger with it and blame the knife maker?

Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
trying to do something about it?

But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
are blaming someone else.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/11/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
> remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
> are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
> some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
> injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
> to use by bicycles? High injury rate?
>
> Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
> Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
> finger with it and blame the knife maker?
>
> Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
> cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
> trying to do something about it?

Ah, John! You are so dedicated to your ignorance!

You perhaps forgot this video, or forgot to view it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE

That is one very typical car-bike crash with this facility design,
although not the only one. But it should be obvious that "automobiles
can't go there" is nonsense. These facilities always have _some_
intersections. Those within cities tend to have many. Motorists normally
look only leftward, for oncoming cars. They are often unaware that
cyclists will be entering the intersection from their right. That's
exactly what makes the "wrong way" direction much more dangerous - even
though every wrong way rider will say he feels safer "because I can see
the cars."

The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the
idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.

> But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
> are blaming someone else.

I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even
though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant
cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the
actual effects.
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html

Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but
still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/11/2023 5:52 PM, sms wrote:
>
> The false narrative you often see about two-way bicycle lanes being
> dangerous is uncalled for, but predictable. Studies show that the risk
> of a cyclists colliding with a motor vehicle are even lower than one-way
> bike lanes along the curb. While a collision with another cyclist is
> higher on the two-way lanes, those collisions are much less likely to
> result in serious injury than a bicycle-vehicle collision.

From https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193

"Compared with cycling on lanes of major roads without bicycle
facilities ... Protected bike lanes with heavy separation (tall,
continuous barriers or grade and horizontal separation) were associated
with lower risk (adjusted OR=0.10; 95% CI=0.01, 0.95), but those with
lighter separation (e.g., parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk
to major roads when one way (adjusted OR=1.19; 95% CI=0.46, 3.10) and
higher risk when they were two way (adjusted OR=11.38; 95% CI=1.40,
92.57)..."

Odds ratio of 11.38 means the cyclists in the bi-directional "protected"
bike lanes were over 11 times as likely to take a trip to the hospital
because of a crash as cyclists on a major road with no facilities at all.

There have been other studies that showed similar results, and I've
given those links in the past. And again, there's this:
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html

Mr. Scharf is certainly dedicated to ignoring data that conflicts with
his long held beliefs!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:19:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/11/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
>> remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
>> are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
>> some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
>> injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
>> to use by bicycles? High injury rate?
>>
>> Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
>> Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
>> finger with it and blame the knife maker?
>>
>> Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
>> cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
>> trying to do something about it?
>
>Ah, John! You are so dedicated to your ignorance!
>
>You perhaps forgot this video, or forgot to view it:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE

Ignorant cyclist who wasn't watching where he was going doesn't prove
anything.

Most of us riders who ride that kind of path know that you don't pass
in front of a stopped vehicle waiting to cross your path until you've
make eye contact with the driver.

I don't even like crossing in front of vehicles waiting at a red light
and I regularly avoid doing so. I prefer to cross when I can see a gap
in the oncoming traffic that will give me enough time to cross.

>That is one very typical car-bike crash with this facility design,
>although not the only one. But it should be obvious that "automobiles
>can't go there" is nonsense. These facilities always have _some_
>intersections. Those within cities tend to have many. Motorists normally
>look only leftward, for oncoming cars. They are often unaware that
>cyclists will be entering the intersection from their right.

IMO, depending on a driver seeing a cyclist is foolish. I'm not
particularly comfortable trusting that some stranger is going to do
the right thing, even if he sees me.

>That's
>exactly what makes the "wrong way" direction much more dangerous - even
>though every wrong way rider will say he feels safer "because I can see
>the cars."

That's a lie. No one in this forum has mentioned riding the "wrong
way."

>The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the
>idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.

There's another lie from Krygowski. I've not seen anyone in this forum
suggest that bicyclists needn't be aware, especially when engaging
with vehicles.

>> But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
>> are blaming someone else.
>
>I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even
>though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant
>cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the
>actual effects.

<LOL> I know all about any "actual effects," and I'm not concerned
about Krygowski issuing blame. I ride where I think it's safe for me
to ride just as he does.

>https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html

I'm also not concerned about what they do in Copenhagen.

>Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but
>still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
>bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
>figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."

I doubt that Krygowski is really concerned about other cyclists
"safety." I think he's much more concerned with substantiating his
claims that the way he rides is the only "right" way to ride.

[John B.]

I really wonder about Frank. From his post it seem that he lives in
some strange land where things are radically different then the rest
of the world.
He makes eye contact with an auto driver? He rides along crouched down
on his bike peering in car windows? Here we ride on roads with great
big trucks. One can only assume he carries a periscope so he can reach
up to peer in the truck windows.

And more interesting we here ride on roads with auto traffic in the
120 kph speed range. That is about 6 times faster then the bicycle,
about 110 ft/second. Obviously old Frank must be pretty fast on his
feet to make eye contact with the driver whipping past at that speed
to catch the driver's eye.

I just looked on the Web and I see that the average car is 177 inches
long... so you have some 1.6 seconds to get the driver's attention.

Given that Frank is well into his 70's I really do doubt that he has
the reflexes of a teenager any more.

Or to put it another way, I do believe he is "having us on" a bit.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/be-having-someone-on
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:50:23 AM UTC-5, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:19:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/11/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
> >> remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
> >> are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
> >> some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
> >> injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
> >> to use by bicycles? High injury rate?
> >>
> >> Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
> >> Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
> >> finger with it and blame the knife maker?
> >>
> >> Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
> >> cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
> >> trying to do something about it?
> >
> >Ah, John! You are so dedicated to your ignorance!
> >
> >You perhaps forgot this video, or forgot to view it:
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
> Ignorant cyclist who wasn't watching where he was going doesn't prove
> anything.

Funny, I don't recall you making that correlation when john tried to correlate two adults and two children on one motorcycle getting hit by a fast moving truck with an experienced cyclist taking the lane - hypocrite much?

>
> Most of us riders who ride that kind of path know that you don't pass
> in front of a stopped vehicle waiting to cross your path until you've
> make eye contact with the driver.

Sure, dumbass, what about a little kid using the bike path because his parents thought it was always safe? Or is this one of times where you like to chirp 'expereince is the best lesson' and let the little kid learn the hard way?

>
> I don't even like crossing in front of vehicles waiting at a red light
> and I regularly avoid doing so. I prefer to cross when I can see a gap
> in the oncoming traffic that will give me enough time to cross.

Sure, because crossing in front of moving traffic is _always_ safer than crossing in front of a car stopped for a redlight . FFS - how did your kids ever make it to adulthood?

> >That is one very typical car-bike crash with this facility design,
> >although not the only one. But it should be obvious that "automobiles
> >can't go there" is nonsense. These facilities always have _some_
> >intersections. Those within cities tend to have many. Motorists normally
> >look only leftward, for oncoming cars. They are often unaware that
> >cyclists will be entering the intersection from their right.
>
> IMO, depending on a driver seeing a cyclist is foolish. I'm not
> particularly comfortable trusting that some stranger is going to do
> the right thing, even if he sees me.

lol....this is rich - You _just_ wrote " Most of us riders who ride that kind of path know that you don't pass in front of a stopped vehicle waiting to cross your path until you've make eye contact with the driver."
Now you write you can't trust a driver, even if they see you..

> >That's
> >exactly what makes the "wrong way" direction much more dangerous - even
> >though every wrong way rider will say he feels safer "because I can see
> >the cars."
> That's a lie. No one in this forum has mentioned riding the "wrong
> way."

He did write that anyone _did_ write that, dumbass - another dumbass strawman duly noted, and summarily burned.

> >The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the
> >idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.
> There's another lie from Krygowski. I've not seen anyone in this forum
> suggest that bicyclists needn't be aware, especially when engaging
> with vehicles.

You seem to have a similar misunderstanding of what constitutes a lie as the shitstain. Not surprising, that's typical for a narcissistic asshole.

> >> But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
> >> are blaming someone else.
> >
> >I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even
> >though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant
> >cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the
> >actual effects.
> <LOL> I know all about any "actual effects,"

No, you don't. You prove that consistently by your repeated ignorant (prideful and willful) argument.

> and I'm not concerned
> about Krygowski issuing blame. I ride where I think it's safe for me
> to ride just as he does.

only when carrying your gun.

> >https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
>
> I'm also not concerned about what they do in Copenhagen.

Willful ignorance duly noted.

> >Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but
> >still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
> >bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
> >figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
>
> I doubt that Krygowski is really concerned about other cyclists
> "safety." I think he's much more concerned with substantiating his
> claims that the way he rides is the only "right" way to ride.

I doubt you have any clue what Frank is really concerned about. You're too busy snipping at his heels for his attention.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 18:53:12 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually, it was me that said I made sure I had the driver's attention
before I rode in front of them when and prepairing to cross my path.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:53:20 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>
> I really wonder about Frank. From his post it seem that he lives in
> some strange land where things are radically different then the rest
> of the world.
> He makes eye contact with an auto driver? He rides along crouched down
> on his bike peering in car windows?

Yet you have no problem with the floriduh dumbass writing " Most of us riders who ride that kind of path know that you don't pass in front of a stopped vehicle waiting to cross your path until you've make eye contact with the driver."

> Here we ride on roads with great
> big trucks. One can only assume he carries a periscope so he can reach
> up to peer in the truck windows.

One can only assume then that the floriduh dumbass rides exclusively with a periscope.

> And more interesting we here ride on roads with auto traffic in the
> 120 kph speed range. That is about 6 times faster then the bicycle,
> about 110 ft/second. Obviously old Frank must be pretty fast on his
> feet to make eye contact with the driver whipping past at that speed
> to catch the driver's eye.

Another pathetic strawman.

[Roger Merriman]

Certainly the protected stuff I use be that regularly or irregularly are
more than just some wands and junctions such as that.

I guess the closest to that is the cycle lane across top of Hounslow Heath
where they have put in some not wands (which I dislike! As it messes with
my vestibular system and easily damaged by motorists and so on) but has
lower solid barriers that can be driven over if slowly or your
suspension/tire will take damage.

And has two unprotected bus stops plus a junction, is it better than
previously? Yes but with some caution it works only really as it’s so quiet
the junction is only used once a week and buses are generally ok, in a more
busy with cycle traffic.

Ie personally while technically protected I’d not generally regard them as
such.

Id think of yes the Embankment or the Parkway or even Chiswick high road
which quite apart from being removed from the motor traffic by more than
just a plastic wand, control the junctions or even bypass them entirely,
and equally are part of network of broadly similar quality.

> The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the
> idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.
>
>> But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
>> are blaming someone else.
>
> I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even
> though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant
> cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the
> actual effects.
> https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
>
> Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but
> still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
> bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
> figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
>

Sounds like others you’ve found some outlier to represent the whole, and
yes some folks thinking is quite simplistic.

Occasionally get mildly annoyed with folks talking about the embankment
numbers, as while the absolute numbers have increased its more the type of
cyclists ie the commuters riding from Suburbs to the city ie 20 miles in,
have remained static ie fast roadie types of which I have been and am
occasionally, for that type of rider the road was fine in terms of feeling
safe more tedious as so busy stop/start.

Ie it’s been a busy route for decades it’s not come with the cycleway has
it increased particularly off peak hours? Absolutely is it a nicer route?
Yes, it is as it bypasses or filters junctions and is there more than just
fast roadies now? Absolutely this is the big gain I’d suggest rather than
absolute numbers.

Ie it’s not build it and they will come in terms of absolute numbers, as
ever life is more complex than simple ideas

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/12/2023 11:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>

>> Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but
>> still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
>> bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
>> figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
>>
>
> Sounds like others you’ve found some outlier to represent the whole, and
> yes some folks thinking is quite simplistic.

One of my points is that the London Embankment seems to be an outlier!

I've given links to not just one, but many studies that document lack of
safety increases, or even increased danger, from segregated bike
infrastructure. (For example, it was the Jensen before-after study that
found significant danger increases, but said that was OK if it got
people out of cars.)

More to the point, I think the broadest data indicate that it's nonsense
that segregated facilities will cause many people to abandon cars. There
may be increases in bike use in some example facilities, but those are
often temporary, and may include existing cyclists simply moving over
from a different route - meaning no net increase.

It's still true that in the U.S., at least, national bike mode share is
a minuscule value that has not increased significantly despite decades
of fancy facility construction and starry-eyed promises. Safety promises
have also failed. Bicycling is a very safe activity, but I see no
evidence that facilities have made it safer.

So fortunes in public money have been spent, but stated objectives have
not come to pass. At some point we should look at actual results. We
should recognize that "build it and they will come" was a line
originating in a fantasy movie.

Andrew has said something like "Those who love to ride will ride. Those
who don't will not," facilities or no. I've said that to really increase
cycling, you'll have to make motoring much less convenient. I don't
envision that ever happening in the U.S. as a whole.

If the London Embankment, short as it is, does host a large number of
cyclists, I think it's because it's a special case in terms of
difficult-to-replicate geometry, difficulty of driving in London, and a
segment of population that is amenable to bikes = something the U.S.
largely lacks.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:40:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/12/2023 11:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but
> >> still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
> >> bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
> >> figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
> >>
> >
> > Sounds like others you’ve found some outlier to represent the whole, and
> > yes some folks thinking is quite simplistic.
>
>One of my points is that the London Embankment seems to be an outlier!
>
>I've given links to not just one, but many studies that document lack of
>safety increases, or even increased danger, from segregated bike
>infrastructure. (For example, it was the Jensen before-after study that
>found significant danger increases, but said that was OK if it got
>people out of cars.)
>
>More to the point, I think the broadest data indicate that it's nonsense
>that segregated facilities will cause many people to abandon cars.

I don't think bicycle facilities are intended to cause people to

abandon cars.

>There
>may be increases in bike use in some example facilities, but those are
>often temporary, and may include existing cyclists simply moving over
>from a different route - meaning no net increase.
>
>It's still true that in the U.S., at least, national bike mode share is
>a minuscule value that has not increased significantly despite decades
>of fancy facility construction and starry-eyed promises. Safety promises
>have also failed. Bicycling is a very safe activity, but I see no
>evidence that facilities have made it safer.
>
>So fortunes in public money have been spent, but stated objectives have
>not come to pass.

What stated objectives?

> At some point we should look at actual results. We
>should recognize that "build it and they will come" was a line
>originating in a fantasy movie.
>
>Andrew has said something like "Those who love to ride will ride. Those
>who don't will not," facilities or no. I've said that to really increase
>cycling, you'll have to make motoring much less convenient. I don't
>envision that ever happening in the U.S. as a whole.

Hurrah for that.

[sms]

On 12/11/2023 1:49 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his analysis states,
> "The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial reading of
> the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and should be
> avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."

"A gross misreading of the data" has been "he who must not be named's"
hallmark for many many years! From helmets, to lights, to chain
lubrication, to bicycle infrastructure, he has specialized in
intentional and gross misreading of data.

[AMuzi]

On 12/12/2023 12:44 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/11/2023 1:49 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his
>> analysis states,
>> "The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial
>> reading of
>> the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and
>> should be
>> avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
>
> "A gross misreading of the data" has been "he who must not
> be named's" hallmark for many many years! From helmets, to
> lights, to chain lubrication, to bicycle infrastructure, he
> has specialized in intentional and gross misreading of data.
>

Which is normal, not a problem.

As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet
draw utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is
necessary, only varying weight and importance of various
criteria.

Here's a nice bike ride south from my daughter's block
(Howard and Clark) in Rogers Park south on Clark Street,
Chicago, a route I have ridden occasionally for many many
years and find useful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl7ADsWhegk

contrast with the Lake Shore Path, on which I have never
ridden a bicycle and don't plan to ride:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwWvLBVon0w

Arguing about which (roughly parallel routes) is 'better' is
pointless.

(both videos are longish; skip through to a few
representative segments in each)

--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Catrike Rider]

Most, maybe all arguments about which *anything* is better are
pointless. Nobody's mind is ever changed and they're a poor substitute
for seeing who can pee the furthest.

[Roger Merriman]

At a cursory glance Pittsburgh of the steep hills seems to have multiple
roads parallel to the river, as does New York and I’m aware that Paris has
constructed some sort of cycleway down its embankment that had been a
multiple lanes road and so on.

The Embankment outlier is probably is the type of cyclist and speed, ie a
large proportion at rush hour are commuters from a long distance and are
fit roadies travelling fast, and the embankment has always flattered one’s
ego as it’s a wide smooth surface and drag effect on the un segregated
sections there is some wands in places but largely just paint until
Westminster which is about 1/2 of its length.

In other segregated cycleways in london the pace of cyclists is much more
normal levels ie 10/12 mph rather than 17/23mph of the Embankment cycleway,
which is a nature of the types of cyclists and its design ie fast roadies
if slowed to 10/12 mph over the 3 miles if the design hadn’t allowed for
that, would of used the roadway, which clearly would of been picked up on
and used as reasons why not to build any more.

The Embankment is and was my way into the city, hence I use it. I have once
or twice used the new CS9 Kew bridge to Hammersmith particularly as there
is occasionally a cheese market and who doesn’t like cheese! It seems to
work it’s a different feel to the embankment has more crossings so more
stop start though they are largely controlled with traffic lights.

Bare in mind that london grew by swallowing other towns/villages so number
of parks and what not one can use to ride or walk across, where as cars
generally have to drive around you can ride through plus the river.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

I have to agree with you. Why should this group be centered on three people that will argue about everything they know nothing about? It has far surpassed the ridiculous.
Now we have had Liebermann who doesn't ride bicycles and apparently never did, claiming that they do not clean the old pavement off a road before repaving. We have Flunky showing that he doesn't know anything about programming. Well, I suppose that there are EE's that cannot program because they are purely focused on design but it is my opinion that anyone that works with microprocessors has a mandatory need to understand programming if for no other reason than to understand interrupts. And Flunky has never made one half way intelligent comment about design. Krygowski is pretty clear that he got an engineering job fresh out of college and could not perform and managed to get a teaching position. That is a job that is needed and I would not comment on him except he is continuously making the most bizarre comments. There isn't any "science" to chain lubrication. Any number of commercial chain lubricants will deliver almost identical performance.

Riding up Cull Canyon today I had a flat tire a mile before the canyon and i had to change the tube twice without any where to sit but a low curb. So I was exhausted by the time I did get to the Canyon. Some English chap came flying by me on a steel bike and I assumed he would fly by on the way down., Well, he didn't - this is the second time I've seen him there and the second time he has broken a chain coming downhill. The ONLY way I can figure how he could do that is by never lubing the chain at all. That guy certainly can't break chains very often and if he isn't lubing the chain at all he must be getting pretty descent mileage on the shipping grease that comes on the chain. So if that is so, why would ANYONE want to argue about chain lube as of it were the most important thing in the world?

By the way Lou, I said that the wax based lubricants in a bottle wasn't waxing a chain. My apologies, I guess they are probably superior to the sort of waxing I do since there is a lot more actual lubricant in those things than in my hot waxing. If you hot wax using Silca wax, they tell you to use their liquid wax every couple of weeks as well.

[sms]

On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet draw
> utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
> varying weight and importance of various criteria.

People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
their own facts.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:29:05 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Data_collections/studies/etc do not necessarily produce a verified
fact, and that's a fact.

[John B.]

I've told this story before but once again.

I had a good friend who had a financial survey business in Bangkok. If
a company wanted to, in one case, build a copper refinery in S.
Thailand he would do surveys for things like copper use in the
country, copper sources, transportation costs, competition local and
international, costs of construction and operation, anticipated sales,
and so on, to determine if it was a good venture, or not.

Any way, we were talking about these surveys, or studies if you like,
one day and he commented, "Tell me what you want to prove and I'll
design a study to prove it.

With that comment in mind read over the details of how many of the
"pro or con" studies you see on the Web are configured and in many
cases you can predict the outcome of the study before you get to the
bottom of the page.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:37:50 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes... and you need to know who is financing the study.

As I said elsewhere, you're either a skeptic or a moron.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:37:58 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 03:46:04 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:29:05 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>> As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet draw
> >>> utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
> >>> varying weight and importance of various criteria.
> >>People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
> >>their own facts.
> >
> >
> >Data_collections/studies/etc do not necessarily produce a verified
> >fact, and that's a fact.
> I've told this story before but once again.
>
> I had a good friend who had a financial survey business in Bangkok.

Oh. great. More undocumented tales of johhny's imaginary friends.


> John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:05:06 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

More proof that I live rent free in his head

> I have to agree with you. Why should this group be centered on three people that will argue about everything they know nothing about? It has far surpassed the ridiculous.

I agree with you. The amount of nonsense, misinformation, and off topic conspiratorial garbage spewed by you three stooges is ridiculous.

> We have Flunky showing that he doesn't know anything about programming. Well, I suppose that there are EE's that cannot program because they are purely focused on design but it is my opinion that anyone that works with microprocessors has a mandatory need to understand programming if for no other reason than to understand interrupts.

Funny how you never "proved" it by contradicting any of my criticism of you silly water detector. That was in the same thread where you couldn't figure out a few dozen lines of javascript written by a high school student on an Arduino for their electronics class bike computer project.

> And Flunky has never made one half way intelligent comment about design.

Someone with your level of misunderstanding of electronic design isn't really qualified to make judgements on "intelligent commentary". When you can come to the realization that TDR does _not_ stand for 'time delay reflection' and VHDL doesn't stand for 'very high speed logic', maybe you can engage in a serious discussion about electronic design (there is no such concept in electronic theory or applications as 'time delay reflection'.)

Speaking of intelligent comments, let's remember that the person claiming to be the expert here also wrote:

> There isn't any "science" to chain lubrication.

I'll just leave that there......

[AMuzi]

Sociological/economic/cultural/traffic studies are held to a
different standard than physics.

https://interestingengineering.com/science/the-pons-fleischmann-experiment-an-attempt-to-create-room-temperature-nuclear-fusion

https://kelo.com/2023/12/13/superconductor-claims-are-baseless-say-south-korean-experts/

"...to be proven scientifically universal, there must be
cross-measurement and replication by a third party”

[Tom Kunich]

Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an exception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.

The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit election fraud,

The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.

Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.

You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball bearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.

Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".

[Tom Kunich]

Well, it is glaringly clear which one John is.

[Tom Kunich]

And that is why you must always keep a skeptical outlook on supposed "facts".

[AMuzi]

Mailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
clerk's staff to edit them. How could anyone think that is
a good idea? Add in the correlation between your name and
your vote for future reprisals and it's indefensible.

In actual live voting, marked ballots are stored before
several observers until end of day and each ballot is 'a
ballot' not 'That guy's ballot'.

[Tom Kunich]

The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy of the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats and have the slightest belief that the Republicans will have any say in the honest election?

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:21:23 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet draw
> >>> utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
> >>> varying weight and importance of various criteria.
> >> People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
> >> their own facts.
> >
> > Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an exception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.
> >
> > The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit election fraud,
> >
> > The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.
> >
> > Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.
> >
> > You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball bearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.
> >
> > Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".

> Mailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
> clerk's staff to edit them.

I'm struggling to understand how you analogize counting with editing.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect

I've never heard any democrat claim that that all the voting machines were incorrect. In fact, The claim that the voting machines were wrong has been solely the realm of the magatards.

> but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy of the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud.

Yeah, I guess that's why there were such massive lopsided wins giving democrats super majorities in the US congress.

> Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats and have the slightest belief that the Republicans will have any say in the honest election?

Gee sparky, I don't know, why don't you ask all those constituents who have sued their state legislatures over gerrymandered voting districts?

[John B.]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:21:23?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican
Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him
pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a
dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court
cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and
other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and
said there is not widespread fraud."

How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60 cases to date
the courts have said that you are wrong.

The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

>> The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy of the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats and have the slightest belief that the Republicans will have any say in the honest election?
>
> And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican
> Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him
> pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a
> dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court
> cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and
> other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and
> said there is not widespread fraud."
>
> How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60 cases to date
> the courts have said that you are wrong.
>
> The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?

Inconclusive at best.

Dizzy Lizzie misstates the court record. No evidence nor
testimony was allowed; all were procedural, standing,
latches etc administrative rulings. Not one trial of fact.

One might say the issue is as yet unresolved. One might also
say that the excessive hoops through which the various
courts jumped to avoid an actual trial says something in itself.

[AMuzi]

On 12/13/2023 6:52 PM, John B. wrote:

In today's news, another area untouched by the courts:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coming-clean-1-in-5-admits-2020-election-fraud/ar-AA1loaZw

[John B.]

Yes, in many cases the judge ruled that there was no evidence to
justify the claim and threw it out. But also true that many of the
judges were appointed by Republican governments.

And it seems that the cases were spread over much of the U.S. or at
least not restricted to Demo states. In one case the Trump campaign
and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple
cases in six states on a single day.

It seems to me (a guy reading the news ) that one of two situations
must exist (2) the vast majority of the claims are, in fact,
fraudulent, or (2) U.S courts are corrupt and given that some of the
cases were appealed to the Supreme Court (I believe) and that court
upheld the lower court's finding, it would appear that, if this is the
case. the entire U.S. legal system is corrupt.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Another aspect of Andrew's claim: If the election was as crooked as
Andrew implies, how is it that the Republicans were so incompetent at
pressing their claims? If a judge said "bad procedure" or "no standing"
or "wrong jurisdiction" or whatever, why would they not correct their
errors and continue to fight for justice, truth and/or Republican
dominance?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

All of which are plausible and more than one can be true at
the same time.

[AMuzi]

Well, consider precedents. Tilden won in 1876 and Richard
Nixon won in 1960. The 2020 election will continue perhaps
forever.

[John B.]

Yes and the Rasmussen group seem to have a reputation for being a pro
Republican group and in some cases designing polling questions to
return a specific finding.

Example of survey question "rigging" --- Question, "Yes or No, did
you ask someone else to mark your ballot?" Reply, "Yes I did." So
states the guy with his hand in a cast.

I'm not saying that is what did happen, I'm saying that is what could
have happened.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Because it's a complete work of fiction. Washington examiner? right......

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

one might also say the claims are in fact horseshit. Even trump appointed judges dismissed the cases for lack of merit. Seriously - not even _one_ judge saw enough evidence to allow even _one_ case to proceed,? Were _all_ of the judges crooked?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:37:09 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>In today's news, another area untouched by the courts:
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coming-clean-1-in-5-admits-2020-election-fraud/ar-AA1loaZw

Maybe. If you ask voters about a month after an election, who was
running for various high offices and for whom did they vote for, you
will get some interesting answers. The overwhelming number will say
they voted for the winner, and not remember who was the loser (or
other candidates). I can usually remember 1 month later, but beyond
that, I often draw a blank.

Another example of memory failure is currency. Try this experiment.
Take a piece of paper and write who is on the front of the various
denominations of Federal Reserve Notes (also known as paper money). No
fair peeking inside your wallet or looking them up online. Extra
credit if you can describe what is on the back of the note. You've
probably seen thousands of these Federal Reserve Notes in your
lifetime and you can't recall what they look like? Well, don't worry.
You're not alone. I've tried this test on myself repeatedly and fail
miserably every time.

Do you really believe a self-selected group of "likely voters" can
recall for whom they voted and exactly how they cheated? Younger
voters maybe, but older voters, probably unlikely. However, 3 years
later, I suspect very few will remember.

Hmmm... that's odd. The link in the MSN article to the original
Heartland/Rasmussen report is missing:
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election>
Wrong URL in the MSN article. This should work:
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election>

<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
"Survey of 1,085 National Likely Voters
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95%
level of confidence."
Yep, that a little more than the 1065 needed for confidence level:
<https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html>
Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".

"Answered by the 30% of respondents who voted by absentee or mail-in
ballot: During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a
state where you were no longer a permanent resident?"

Huh? 0.30 * 1085 = 311 people voted in a different state where they
were no longer a resident? That means 1/3 of their 1,085 "likely
voters" moved to a different state in the middle of pandemic? I don't
think so.

Pre-selecting the sample population after calculating the margin of
error is not the way it's done. The margin of error should be 5.6%,
not 3%.





--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:23:05 AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>
> <https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
> "Survey of 1,085 National Likely Voters
> NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95%
> level of confidence."
> Yep, that a little more than the 1065 needed for confidence level:
> <https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html>
> Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
>
> "Answered by the 30% of respondents who voted by absentee or mail-in
> ballot: During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a
> state where you were no longer a permanent resident?"
>

Then there's this little nugget from that link:

"Among those who cast mail-in ballots in 2020, nearly equal percentages of Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters admitted to fraudulent activities. For example, 19% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 17% of unaffiliated voters who cast 2020 mail-in ballots say they signed a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member. On the question of voting in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. more Republican mail-in voters (24%) than Democrats (17%) or unaffiliated voters (11%) admitted doing so."

But of course, this information is generally ignored (or even rejected) because it doesn't fit the magatard narrative that democratic voters committed fraud on a massive scale. The Washington Examiner very notably deleted that information.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:22:51 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

><https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
>(...)

>Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".

I missed the question where they asked for who you voted for in the
last election. Larger print size is helpful.
In Firefox, select "reader view" or toggle [F9].
For Chrome, it's a mess:
<https://www.howtogeek.com/895596/google-chromes-reader-mode-has-been-quietly-removed/>
For Edge: <ctrl><shift><R> or just toggle [F9] for "immersive mode".

So, why would Rasmussen make all the survey questions appear difficult
to read and the various browsers sabotage their own reader mode? A
tiny unreadable font size is hardly an accident.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:43:05 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Voting out of state is far more common than one might suspect. For
example, much of the college student population has their legal
residence at their parents home, while they vote at the college. For
California:
<https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/students>
"As a Californian living away from home while attending a college,
trade school or technical school, you may choose to register to vote
using your home away from home address you use while at school or your
traditional home address."

I've also seen people who are simply to lazy to re-register to vote
every time they move. They consider the vote-by-mail to be a useful
convenience and take advantage of it.

Yet another are people who officially live at someone else address so
to save on their automobile insurance bill (redlining). For a time, I
had 3 people living in my PO Box all for the purpose of saving money
on auto insurance. Untangling the mess that created was a little too
much, so I did a virtual eviction.

We have a substantial homeless population. In order to receive public
assistance, they need an address. Usually, it's one of the 3rd party
mailbox services who provide this address. For example:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Boxes_Etc>
I've also noticed that many apartment buildings have far more
apartment numbers than genuine apartments. These extra apartment
numbers appear on the voter registrations as someone's legal
residence. My guess(tm) is this practice is also useful for inflating
the eligible voter lists and might partly explain why we have such a
low voter turnout of eligible voters.

The sinkhole of corruption is bottomless.

[John B.]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 22:30:44 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

And don't forget the roughly 3 million USians living abroad that are
eligible to vote :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 22:30:44 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

+1

[Catrike Rider]

It was the massive amount of unverifiable mail-in ballots that made
the election look questionable. Ballots were sometimes sent to every
"registered" voter, without checking to see if that individual is
deceased or not interested in, or capable of voting. How many of those
deceased, uninterested, or incapable individuals "voted."

[Tom Kunich]

The question is - why did they mass mail ballots in a manner that made any means of testing them for authenticity impossible? Why were the actual number of votes so much greater than in any other election? Why was no actions taken against ANYONE illegally vote harvesting? Why was not the slightest effort made to authenticate harvested ballots? John again shows his distain for Democracy by simply lying about anything and everything he could.

[Tom Kunich]

But human garbage like Flunky that know nothing at all about Nixon can tell you how he attempted to overthrow the government. His grasp on history has shown us all we need to know about him.

[Tom Kunich]

Did you catch that? Liebermann has told us that he is guilty of a felony of allowing people to use HIS PO Box to illegally and falsely purchase insurance thereby committing a fraud upon the insurance companies. Now all we need to find is the names of the Insurance companies that were thereby scammed and we can send Liebermann away for the remainder of his life, Not that that will be long since a person's resistance against cancer has to do with the strength of his immune system. Oh, that's right, Liebermann doesn't think that radiation treatments severely injure his immune system,

[AMuzi]

I don't know, but voting in a different State may be more
than 'moved this year'. Many people live in one state and
work just across the line (discussed here at length in
summer 2020) and could well get mail from both States.

p.s. I have noticed in my PO box plenty of forwarded mail
clearly marked 'do not forward'

[AMuzi]

On 12/13/2023 11:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:22:51 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
>> (...)
>> Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
>
> I missed the question where they asked for who you voted for in the
> last election. Larger print size is helpful.
> In Firefox, select "reader view" or toggle [F9].
> For Chrome, it's a mess:
> <https://www.howtogeek.com/895596/google-chromes-reader-mode-has-been-quietly-removed/>
> For Edge: <ctrl><shift><R> or just toggle [F9] for "immersive mode".
>
> So, why would Rasmussen make all the survey questions appear difficult
> to read and the various browsers sabotage their own reader mode? A
> tiny unreadable font size is hardly an accident.
>

Polling firms sell their research.

The 'public' version is an afterthought or a
problem/expense/distraction, and not only for Rasmussen.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:10:36 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>p.s. I have noticed in my PO box plenty of forwarded mail
>clearly marked 'do not forward'

The "do no forward" feature is primarily to prevent undeliverable mail
from being returned and charged to the sender. In other words, the
junk mail sender doesn't want to pay to have his junk mail returned by
the USPS. With automated sorting, my guess(tm) is that delivering the
junk mail might be cheaper and easier for the USPS than to collect and
recycle the junk mail.

This kinda sorta maybe explains it:
<https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-post-office-support-do-not-forward-requests-on-mail>
"Only first class, priority mail and packages are forwarded. All of
the "bulk" mail will be sent to the recycling center for the postal
service unless the bulk has the words "return service requested".
After one year your mail will be returned to the sender with a sticker
indicating your new address. After a total of 18 months, all mail will
be return as, "unable to forward" as the time limit is 18 months for
this server to complete."

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:07:23 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Did you catch that? Liebermann has told us that he is guilty of a felony of allowing people to use HIS PO Box to illegally and falsely purchase insurance thereby committing a fraud upon the insurance companies. Now all we need to find is the names of the Insurance companies that were thereby scammed and we can send Liebermann away for the remainder of his life, Not that that will be long since a person's resistance against cancer has to do with the strength of his immune system. Oh, that's right, Liebermann doesn't think that radiation treatments severely injure his immune system,

Thanks for taking the bait.

Incidentally, I just received a new set of lock rakes:
<https://www.lockpickworld.com/products/polaris-nano-the-ultimate-covert-mini-rake-set-leather-wallet>

How many laws have you broken today?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+laws+have+you+broken+today>

I've never attended law school, but I'm told that it's good practice
for prospective law enforcement officers to make daily lists of all
the laws they've broken (not including vehicle code violations). A
friend in law school did that for a while. If you're honest about
yourself, you will likely find the exercise educational and
enlightening.

If you are collecting evidence for my eventual prosecution, I won't
help. Although I handled all the incoming mail, my selective memory
can't seem to recall the names of the individuals and companies
involved. I do subscribe to the USPS "informed delivery" service,
which would have a record of most of my incoming mail, except that
they don't offer the service for PO Boxes:
<https://www.usps.com/manage/informed-delivery.htm>
Self incrimination and your 3rd party testimony aren't going to work.

Speaking of illegal activities, do you have receipts for all the
bicycles and bicycle parts you've bought? A casual inspection of your
garage with 12(?) bicycles might lead the police to suspect that you
might be operating a high end bicycle "chop shop":
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle+chop+shop&tbm=isch>

Incidentally, you are correct that cancer might eventually kill me.
When the surgeons removed my prostate, they left some behind. The
radiation therapy was suppose to catch that, but apparently didn't. I
run blood tests twice per year to check on my PSA (prostate specific
antigen) level, which is slowly climbing. However, at the present
rate, I'll be dead long before it becomes a problem. Instead, as I've
often mentioned, I expect to meet my end in a supermarket parking lot,
run over by a clueless driver. Thank you for your concern.

[John B.]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:57:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nope Tommy, wrong again. The largest voter turnout in presidential
elections was when G. Washington was unanimously elected by all
states. As for U.S. democracy? It certainly isn't a true democracy as
in at least 5 national elections the bloke appointed President did not
get the majority of the votes.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:27:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Another question regarding Tommy's legal status is whether he is
reporting any profit he makes on all this bicycle trading as income on
his tax statements?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

Once again proved I live rent-free in his head

>
> But human garbage like Flunky that know nothing at all about Nixon can tell you how he attempted to overthrow the government.

I will? That would be news to me since I don't remember any incidents of Nixon trying to replace our system of government.

> His grasp on history has shown us all we need to know about him.

That's true. My grasp on history is clear and accurate, unlike -
"there was no recession before Obama took office"
"Ollie North was on Nixons campaign staff"
"the US never bombed cambodia"
"the confederacy won every battle in the civil war before the emancipation proclamation"