Bicycle statistics

Tom Kunich writes:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:09:46 PM UTC-7, 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?

Andrew pointed out that a Model T has "band brakes" but that is
nothing more than another form of drum brake. I also remember having
to replace the bands on emergency brakes when most cars had EB's on
the rear side of the transmission.

Band brakes are inside-out compared to drum brakes. They're more
similar to each other than either is to a disk brake, but they're not
the same.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:58:17 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:52:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

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.

How can it be "racism" if there wasn't even a word to identify it,
and if it was the universally practice? One might well say it was
simply the normal attitude toward "them". As you say, everybody was
doing it.

After all, it appears to be the normal practice for humans, or at
least it is practiced in every country that I've lived in. In Japan it
is so extreme that even a natural born Japanese who spends too long
outside the country is viewed with disdain as he may have become "less
Japanese" in some manner.

And lets face it, it even exists right here. Have you read the remarks
about "rednecks" and "pickup drivers"? The term "redneck" is described
by the Wiki as "a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied
to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely
associated with rural whites of the Southern United States".
--
cheers,

John B.



Uranium was discovered and named in 1789, but it existed for a few billion
years before somebody came up with a word for it. Likewise, the word racism
may have only come into use in the 1930s, but as you confirm in your last
two paragraphs, it’s been a common human trait since the dawn of time.

You are confusing a material object with an emotion.

And yes, the fear and loathing of "them", whoever they may be,
although likely justified in some instances, has always been a factor
in human life. In fact it is a factor in the life of nearly all
creatures. A bird's beautiful song, for instance, is almost always a
male warning others to stay out of "his" territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 09:53:37 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Ralph Barone writes:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:52:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

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.

How can it be "racism" if there wasn't even a word to identify it,
and if it was the universally practice? One might well say it was
simply the normal attitude toward "them". As you say, everybody was
doing it.

After all, it appears to be the normal practice for humans, or at
least it is practiced in every country that I've lived in. In Japan it
is so extreme that even a natural born Japanese who spends too long
outside the country is viewed with disdain as he may have become "less
Japanese" in some manner.

And lets face it, it even exists right here. Have you read the remarks
about "rednecks" and "pickup drivers"? The term "redneck" is described
by the Wiki as "a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied
to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely
associated with rural whites of the Southern United States".
--
cheers,

John B.



Uranium was discovered and named in 1789, but it existed for a few billion
years before somebody came up with a word for it. Likewise, the word racism
may have only come into use in the 1930s, but as you confirm in your last
two paragraphs, it’s been a common human trait since the dawn of time.

Not liking people who talk differnt, look different, or smell different
is, as Mr. Slocomb says, typical human behavior. The modern idea of
"race" is, however, a more recent European invention.

Actually "race" can be, a biological term, can it not?

--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 13:16:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/7/2019 12:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:09:46 PM UTC-7, 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?

Andrew pointed out that a Model T has "band brakes" but that is nothing more than another form of drum brake. I also remember having to replace the bands on emergency brakes when most cars had EB's on the rear side of the transmission.


As I mentioned recently, and Frank agreed, you don't want a
Ford T. The A is a much better vehicle in every respect.
Here's what a noted expert had to say about that:

Tulsa, Okla
10th April 1934
Mr. Henry Ford
Detroit Mich.
Dear Sir: --
While I still have got breath in my lungs I will tell you
what a dandy car you make. I have drove Fords exclusively
when I could get away with one. For sustained speed and
freedom from trouble the Ford has got ever other car skinned
and even if my business hasen't been strickly legal it don't
hurt anything to tell you what a fine car you got in the V8 --
Yours truly
Clyde Champion Barrow

Given what was available at the time a "T" was not a bad choice in
1908 but as you say the"A" was a much better auto, and from memory a
V-8 was almost a super car. Wow! 100 horses under the hood.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:58:17 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:52:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

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.

How can it be "racism" if there wasn't even a word to identify it,
and if it was the universally practice? One might well say it was
simply the normal attitude toward "them". As you say, everybody was
doing it.

After all, it appears to be the normal practice for humans, or at
least it is practiced in every country that I've lived in. In Japan it
is so extreme that even a natural born Japanese who spends too long
outside the country is viewed with disdain as he may have become "less
Japanese" in some manner.

And lets face it, it even exists right here. Have you read the remarks
about "rednecks" and "pickup drivers"? The term "redneck" is described
by the Wiki as "a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied
to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely
associated with rural whites of the Southern United States".
--
cheers,

John B.



Uranium was discovered and named in 1789, but it existed for a few billion
years before somebody came up with a word for it. Likewise, the word racism
may have only come into use in the 1930s, but as you confirm in your last
two paragraphs, it’s been a common human trait since the dawn of time.

You are confusing a material object with an emotion.

And yes, the fear and loathing of "them", whoever they may be,
although likely justified in some instances, has always been a factor
in human life. In fact it is a factor in the life of nearly all
creatures. A bird's beautiful song, for instance, is almost always a
male warning others to stay out of "his" territory.
--
cheers,

John B.



No, you are confusing a human trait with a word that was invented to
describe it, and I was trying to illuminate that error with an analogy.

Probably depends in part on where you live- is it a "bike friendly"
place? I see a lot of folks in their 20s-30s riding around here,
although more in their 40s-60s. I started riding in ~1964 when I was
five...

For about a decade we had "Nice Ride" rental bikes all over the Twin
Cities. Saw a lot of people riding them. About 4 years ago another
company- Lime, I think- came in with freestanding bikes, no docking
stations like the "Nice Rides." Pick 'em up wherever you see one, drop
it off wherever. Now I see just about zero of those, the "Nice Rides"
are still around but hardly anyone uses them- now they use electric
scooters. Lots and lots of electric scooters.

On 6/8/2019 11:43 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Probably depends in part on where you live- is it a "bike friendly"
place? I see a lot of folks in their 20s-30s riding around here,
although more in their 40s-60s. I started riding in ~1964 when I was
five...

For about a decade we had "Nice Ride" rental bikes all over the Twin
Cities. Saw a lot of people riding them. About 4 years ago another
company- Lime, I think- came in with freestanding bikes, no docking
stations like the "Nice Rides." Pick 'em up wherever you see one, drop
it off wherever. Now I see just about zero of those, the "Nice Rides"
are still around but hardly anyone uses them- now they use electric
scooters. Lots and lots of electric scooters.

Well, electric scooters have so many advantages compared to bikes! There
is no seat, so you have to stand up. The wheels are much smaller, so
they're more bothered by pavement irregularities. The steering is much
quicker, so they're very hard to control unless you have two hands on
the handlebars at all times. They have zero luggage capacity, so you
can't carry anything unless you wear a backpack.

Oh, and they're trendy.

(Fashion is weird and powerful.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 13:45:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/8/2019 11:43 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Probably depends in part on where you live- is it a "bike friendly"
place? I see a lot of folks in their 20s-30s riding around here,
although more in their 40s-60s. I started riding in ~1964 when I was
five...

For about a decade we had "Nice Ride" rental bikes all over the Twin
Cities. Saw a lot of people riding them. About 4 years ago another
company- Lime, I think- came in with freestanding bikes, no docking
stations like the "Nice Rides." Pick 'em up wherever you see one, drop
it off wherever. Now I see just about zero of those, the "Nice Rides"
are still around but hardly anyone uses them- now they use electric
scooters. Lots and lots of electric scooters.

Well, electric scooters have so many advantages compared to bikes! There
is no seat, so you have to stand up. The wheels are much smaller, so
they're more bothered by pavement irregularities. The steering is much
quicker, so they're very hard to control unless you have two hands on
the handlebars at all times. They have zero luggage capacity, so you
can't carry anything unless you wear a backpack.

Oh, and they're trendy.

(Fashion is weird and powerful.)

There was a period that they were popular in Singapore, before e-bikes
become popular. In fact they were so popular, zipping about on
sidewalks (and running into people) that the government made some
special laws to control them :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 7:17:05 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
you don't want a
Ford T. The A is a much better vehicle in every respect.
Here's what a noted expert had to say about that:

Tulsa, Okla
10th April 1934
Mr. Henry Ford
Detroit Mich.
Dear Sir: --
While I still have got breath in my lungs I will tell you
what a dandy car you make. I have drove Fords exclusively
when I could get away with one. For sustained speed and
freedom from trouble the Ford has got ever other car skinned
and even if my business hasen't been strickly legal it don't
hurt anything to tell you what a fine car you got in the V8 --
Yours truly
Clyde Champion Barrow

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

"The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day, 1898."
Ralph Stein, Vintage and Classic Cars, p34 of the Bantam edition of 1977

Andre Jute
Car-free since 1990

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10:23 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:53:13 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:00:25 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

Exactly what do you think has been occurring at most large companies that keep your personal information? Where are these cases of the Social Security system which was hacked and 15 million people's personal information stolen?

You cannot sue Big Brother unless you can prove that they willfully sold your data. It is perfectly fine for them to take "normal" precautions and exactly the same data being stolen.

Hacking private data bases is not the Government violating your claimed Constitutional right to privacy. Keep in mind that the claimed right to privacy was created in part by the reviled decision in Roe v. Wade. Say thank you to those heathen, baby-hating Justices!

Also, the GBLA protects data held by financial institutions. It's the banking version of HIPAA. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...ach-bliley-act Trump is gutting the FTC, so act fast! The GBLA could use some work, but there are also state laws protecting your personally identifiable financial information. https://epic.org/privacy/glba/ Thank god for the heathen liberals in California -- looking out for your right to privacy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Although privacy is implied in many parts of the bill of rights none is so specific as the 5th Amendment which would be impossible to enforce without an actual right to privacy.