Bicycle statistics

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

Most non-life threatening injuries are not reported unless they appear I an ER.

The medical industry in the USA receives billions upon billions or maybe trillions of dollars every year from the private insurance companies, federal government, and state government. All of these entities paying money want to know WHY they are paying. I am positive every single person who goes into a medical facility that receives money appears in some statistics that the medical facility provides to the money payors.

Or do you think the medical clinic or hospital or doctor office just calls up the state/federal government or private insurance company and says "We treated one of your patients last week. You send us $1000. NOW!!!" I don't think it works that way. Do you? I bet a dozen forms are filled out for every patient. And all these people are compiled somewhere and sent a dozen different places.

Some individual statistics have been maintained by insurance companies for their own uses. But it hasn't been until quite recently that the government decided that you do not need your Constitutional right to privacy.

On 6/6/2019 3:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news.


Not drum brakes- mechanical wire linkage band brakes (no
hydraulics, no big heat sink drum) :

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages...tml?1321237805

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

On 6/6/2019 4:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news.

sigh Please read _Fighting Traffic_ by Peter Norton. Concentrate on
Chapter 3 for a while.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 15:39:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/6/2019 3:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where you might have pedestrians crossing.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the Democrat racism running wild with fake news.


Not drum brakes- mechanical wire linkage band brakes (no
hydraulics, no big heat sink drum) :

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages...tml?1321237805

The original Model T "service" brake was a band brake at the
transmission and the parking brakes were cable operated drums on the
rear wheels operated by a hand lever.

The three floor pedals were L.H. - gear shift - low, neutral and high
gear, the center pedal was reverse and R.H. was the transmission
brake. I remember my father telling me that for an emergency stop one
tramped on all three pedals at the same time.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

Most non-life threatening injuries are not reported unless they appear I an ER.

The medical industry in the USA receives billions upon billions or maybe trillions of dollars every year from the private insurance companies, federal government, and state government. All of these entities paying money want to know WHY they are paying. I am positive every single person who goes into a medical facility that receives money appears in some statistics that the medical facility provides to the money payors.

Or do you think the medical clinic or hospital or doctor office just calls up the state/federal government or private insurance company and says "We treated one of your patients last week. You send us $1000. NOW!!!" I don't think it works that way. Do you? I bet a dozen forms are filled out for every patient. And all these people are compiled somewhere and sent a dozen different places.

Some individual statistics have been maintained by insurance companies for their own uses. But it hasn't been until quite recently that the government decided that you do not need your Constitutional right to privacy.

The Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy.

The closest it comes is the 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures. But, it allows a magistrate to issue a warrant
to allow such searches and seizures.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:32:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

Most non-life threatening injuries are not reported unless they appear I an ER.

The medical industry in the USA receives billions upon billions or maybe trillions of dollars every year from the private insurance companies, federal government, and state government. All of these entities paying money want to know WHY they are paying. I am positive every single person who goes into a medical facility that receives money appears in some statistics that the medical facility provides to the money payors.

Or do you think the medical clinic or hospital or doctor office just calls up the state/federal government or private insurance company and says "We treated one of your patients last week. You send us $1000. NOW!!!" I don't think it works that way. Do you? I bet a dozen forms are filled out for every patient. And all these people are compiled somewhere and sent a dozen different places.

Some individual statistics have been maintained by insurance companies for their own uses. But it hasn't been until quite recently that the government decided that you do not need your Constitutional right to privacy.

The Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy.

The closest it comes is the 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures. But, it allows a magistrate to issue a warrant
to allow such searches and seizures.

Tom also needs to read HIPAA: https://searchhealthit.techtarget.com/definition/HIPAA

HIPAA covered entities are subject to large penalties for disclosing patient information without consent. Access to medical records is tighter now than ever. If Big Brother is stealing your medical information, you can sue Big Brother.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tom Kunich writes:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his
assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that
anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not
have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When
ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T
had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where
you might have pedestrians crossing.

Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the
early days, but drivers got tired of that.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the
Democrat racism running wild with fake news.

Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was
the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye?

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:09:44 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Tom Kunich writes:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his
assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that
anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not
have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When
ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T
had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where
you might have pedestrians crossing.

Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the
early days, but drivers got tired of that.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the
Democrat racism running wild with fake news.

Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was
the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye?

Given that my parents were married in 1930, no there really wasn't.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/racist
racist (n.)
1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism is in
continual use from 1936 (from French racisme, 1935)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:09:44 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Tom Kunich writes:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

You couldn't be more full of **** - firstly, Henry Ford increased his
assembly line worker's pay and reduced the price of a Model T so that
anyone could own a car and virtually overnight everyone owned a car.

That's my point, sorry it's so hard to grasp. Jaywalking laws would not
have been possible if only millionaires could afford automobiles. When
ordinary people began to see that they could also afford one, things changed.

Jaywalking laws were introduced for the plain reason that the Model T
had drum brakes that were very poor acting and you had to know where
you might have pedestrians crossing.

Or you might have to slow down, just in case. That was expected in the
early days, but drivers got tired of that.

This group is absolutely the last place we need any more of the
Democrat racism running wild with fake news.

Wait, you think there wasn't real racism back when John B. Slocomb was
the merest twinkle in his daddy's eye?

Given that my parents were married in 1930, no there really wasn't.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/racist
racist (n.)
1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism is in
continual use from 1936 (from French racisme, 1935)
--
cheers,

John B.



While the word racism may not have existed before 1932, I’m pretty sure it
was being practiced ever since Homo sapiens met the Neanderthals.