On 3/15/2017 11:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2017 11:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:46:28 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 3/15/2017 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/14/2017 11:15 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:09:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
But the point I was discussing was whether too brief
or too dim
standlights really kill or seriously injure
_stationary_ bicyclists.
I've never heard of such a case. I think it's yet
another exaggerated
danger.

Bicycle lighting seems to be divided into "see where
your going" and
"be seen" parts. Standlights are in the "be seen"
part. If so, then
using a relatively narrow forward facing headlight is
inadequate and a
poor substitute for all around "be seen" type lighting.

So far, no driver has tried to kill me while I'm
stationary, but it's
possible. To help prevent such a threat, I would need
all around
illumination because I don't know from what direction
the driver might
approach and I do NOT need to see where I'm going
(because I'm not
going anywhere). Some kind of flashing headband,
flashing arm bands,
or maybe downward facing flood lights to illuminate an
area. Maybe an
LED illuminated vest, which is now popular among
highway workers:
https://www.amazon.com/HIGH-VISIBILITY-VEST-COMPLIANT-REFLECTIVE/dp/B01L2US0EY

https://www.amazon.com/SE-EP08L-Illuminated-Flashing-Feature/dp/B008WAE2XQ

https://www.amazon.com/SE-EP07L-Flashing-Illuminated-Safety/dp/B004J663A2

I don't know which type of "be seen" lighting might be
most effective,
but any of the aformentioned would be better than a
dim forward facing
standlight.

Thing is, nobody's demonstrated any need for so much
stationary "be
seen" light, beyond the usual "well, it _could_ happen"
safety inflation
mentality.

We're facing the same mentality regarding our local
forest preserve.
Some people want to cut down every dead or dying tree
within 100 feet of
any trail because, well, it _could_ fall on somebody
and kill them. Sheesh.

I have worked in area where it is probable that no one
has ever cut
down a tree until we arrived and there never was a
problem with dead
or diseased trees falling down.

One problem with cutting down trees that "could" fall
down is that in
a hurricane many perfectly healthy trees get blown down.
Perhaps the
cutting of all trees taller than the average human
"could" lives.

And, of course, banning the ownership of bicycles
"could" save ~900
lives a year.


A bicycle ban?
How's that 100-year worldwide Heroin ban working?

Works great! Allows a considerable number of common
ordinary people to
make a "decent" living.

True the demand does seems to be decreasing but the
widening the
demand for amphetamines, which can be made at home rather
than waiting
for a crop to ripen and getting all bound up with buying
futures and
warehousing raw materials.

As an aside, do you think anyone wants the "war on drugs"
to be won?

Examples:

U.S. Coastguard budget (numbers adjusted to 2013 dollars):
1950 - $1,439,312,446
2013 - $ 7,051,054,000

The total DEA budget is difficult to ascertain but:
The total budget of the DEA from 1972 to 2014, according
to the
agency website, was $50.6 billion. The agency had 11,055
employees in
2014. For the year 2014 the average cost per arrest made
was $97,325.

An estimate by The Cato Institute, in 2010, states that
the legalizing
of drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in
government
expenditure. Or to put it a different way, The War on
Drugs is costing
the U.S. an estimated $41.3 billion dollars a year.

Do you think that anyone wants all that lovely lolly to
disappear?

To make a sort of meta-point:

People often claim that the discussions here are worthless.
In particular, because nobody here ever changes their mind.

But it's partly because of information I've gotten here
(corroborated elsewhere) that I now believe most drugs
should be legalized. I think the U.S. should more or less
follow the Portugal strategy, with perhaps some minor
modifications.


No one analyzed this subject better than the genius Ludwig
von Mises:

“Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming
drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the
duty of government to protect the individual against his own
foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against
further encroachments... Why limit the government’s
benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s
body only?” Mises asks. “Is not the harm a man can inflict
on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily
evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing
bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and
from hearing bad music?”

and further:
“He who wants to reform his countrymen must take recourse to
persuasion. This alone is the democratic way of bringing
about changes. If a man fails in his endeavors to convince
other people of the soundness of his ideas,” Mises
concludes, “he should blame his own disabilities. He should
not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by
the police.”

Which of course brings us right down to 2017.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971