VELORUTION! (bike revolution)

On Apr 21, 2:35 am, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote:


It's only relatively recently, here in the U.S., that people have not
been able to be "armed" while out and about. I don't recall reading
anywhere about the "old west" being a blood bath.

From http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml

================================================== ========
How Homicidal Was the Old West?--

Randy Roth (Ohio State), the leading historian studying homicide
rates, has a piece in Reviews in American History [available only to
some readers logging on through their university libraries] that
examines two items of academic folklore. In this post, I address the
widespread myth that homicides were rare in the “Old West.”

In recent years it has become fashionable for historians (such as
Robert Dykstra and Michael Bellesiles) to claim that it was a myth
that the Old West was particularly violent. Notheless, other
historians, such as Clare McKanna and David Peterson Del Mar, have
reported very high rates of homicide in the West in the late 19th
century (compared to current rates in the US).

Who is right?

Roth carefully reviews the data and confirms the work of McKanna and
Peterson Del Mar, showing it to be consistent with recent work by
Kevin Mullen, John Boessenecker, and (the late, great) Eric
Monkkonen, .

Roth concludes:

Because the counties in McKanna’s study reflect the diversity of
rural southern and central California as a whole, there is reason to
believe that the homicide rate in the southern two-thirds of the state
(excluding San Francisco) was between 66 and 80 per 100,000 adults per
year—the 99% confidence interval for McKanna’s seven counties
combined. If we include San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, the
interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and
70 per 100,000 adults per year—seven times the homicide rate in the
United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away). An adult
exposed to that rate for sixteen years stood a 1 in 96 chance of being
murdered, and an adult exposed to that rate for 45 years would have
stood a 1 in 34 chance of being murdered. We cannot make assumptions
about the homicide rate in northern California, which has yet to be
studied. But with McKanna’s study alone, we have 29 percent of the
population of southern and central California (38 percent outside San
Francisco); and with the addition of Mullen’s study of San Francisco
and Monkkonen’s of Los Angeles, we have 57 percent of the population.
The claim that the area was not unusually homicidal is statistically
and arithmetically impossible.

The data of Peterson Del Mar and McKanna show that there is no
such thing as a “fallacy of small numbers.” The laws of probability
make it possible to predict the character of a large population from a
sample of surprisingly modest size, as long as that sample is
representative of the population as a whole. That is why national
opinion polls of 1,500 or 3,000 potential voters can be so accurate,
even for subgroups of the population. That is the genius of
statistics.

Indeed!

How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical
evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit
of academic folklore bites the dust.
================================================== ====

- Frank Krygowski

[snip]

Goodness gracious. All this is very un-British. I live, and ride
my
bicycle in London, which seems to be the far-away land that you
are
talking about. London's a pretty good city to ride a bicycle in,
no
need for new laws or conventions.

Oh, c'mon. The article was written by a Briton about Great Britain.

As, indeed, was my previous e-mail. As indeed is this one. I can
look out of my window, right here, at actual London traffic.

I've said your driving laws are very good

Thankyou. I missed that posting, I guess. My apologies. What is it
about our laws that impresses you? Are we unique, or do other places
have similar laws?

and your new laws
restricting traffic into London are very encouraging,

Well, I have to admit that we haven't quite reached perfection yet.
Oxford Street, for example, from which private cars were already
banned before the congestion charge, has obviously - all too
obviously - not had its congestion reduced at all, because all those
buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles still clog it up. The "City"
part of London probably benefited more from the "ring of steel" anti
terrorism precautions which were introduced somewhat before the
congestion charges reduced motorised traffic still further.

but I trust the
writer's statement that cyclists still live under the law of the
jungle in London to be right.

Hmm. As one who lives here, and cycles here, I would say that is
unwise. Cycling is safe enough here that, if you do choose to live
by the law of the jungle, your mean free path between collisions
might be long enough for you to get away with it, but it's still not
a good idea.

Either London is like Amsterdam, or it's not a welcoming place for
cyclists.

Now you are just being silly. Cambridge is the British city which
has more cycling than Amsterdam, but I think that London is a better
city to cycle in than Cambridge. Of course, London has a good enough
public transport system for really the only reason to ride a bike in
London to be because it is fun. People travel thousands of miles to
come and ride on our buses, and our taxis, and their drivers, really
are wonderful. A London taxi can carry a bike, too, in case of
emergency.

London is rather bigger than Amsterdam. London was the largest city
in the world when I was growing up, although other ciries have long
since overtaken it. Amsterdam is such a dinky little town that you
can **walk** from the center of town - the main train station - to
the Ring Road, their beltway, in an hour.

How many people ride bike in London?

The should be new annual figures out any time now - watch for a press
release from Transport for London on their web site www.tfl.gov.uk.
Last years figures estimate 480 000 journeys a day. I would guess
that most people take around two journeys a day, rather than getting
on the train with their bike to come home again. Whether this
includes journeys to a train station, I don't know. Most London
statistics count only the "main leg" of a journey, so riding to the
station to catch a train might not be counted

Give me a percentage to
show.

About 1.5% averaged over all London. Around 7% in Central London
(roughly the congestion charge zone). The south western part of
London seems to have a higher rate of cycling than average, nobody
knows why. London is tending now to base its statistics on the
automatic bike counters on the TLRN (Trunk London Road Network)
Because of the nature of the TLRN this might lead to some
undercounting in Outer London.

Anyway, I'd rather ride a bike in London than in places where still
the drivers ignore any civilized rules of the road. In America we
have
to tame the beast first.

Having ridden many miles on both sides of th Altlantic, I would say
that there is not much in it, though there are, of course, many
places in the USA where I have not ridden (Chicago, for example).
Civilized or not - that might depend on your definition of civilized,
which doesn't always seem to be the same as everyone's on this
newsgroup - I would say that there always are rules, and when you
ride or bike, or are anywhere among other people, it's advisable to
know what those rules are.

I read the reviews of the book, but I'm sure even bullfighting can
be
done in a safe way if you know the tricks of the trade

[snip]

The moral of which, I take it, is to know the tricks of the trade.
Buy a copy of "Effective Cycling"

Jeremy Parker

Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue if
people understand them. Well, just in case they don’t here’s an easy
explanation…

On Apr 20, 11:13 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
“ZBicyclist” writes:

ComandanteBanana wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
ComandanteBanana aka donquixote1954 wrote:
OK, I finally took delivery of official vehicle of the revolution
(the trike), with plenty of space in the basket to carry bananas
for the lions.[...]

What type of lions eat bananas?

The ones that are actually hungry to eat them. And they have the guts
for it. It’s in the Bible.

Cite?

There’s something by Isaiah about how the lion
shall eat straw, like the ox.

As an erstwhile guardian of felines, I can
assert they do eat grass. They don’t digest
it very well, though. I had a Persian/alley cat
(I called him “Balzac") that enjoyed the occasional
piece of doughnut. He weighed 23 lbs, and lived
just as many years. He only growled once in his
life, and that was because of a severe toothache.

Personally, I dislike bananas. I’m not terribly
partial toward straw, either. I’d rather eat
the ox.

And y’know what? Lions lead such tough, tragic
lives.


Interesting fact is that the Rich and Powerful surround themselves
with statues of lions and claim the lion in their family crest, so it
is that the lion is their cherished symbol. (They hate the monkey --
their real self-- for the same reason.)

And what’s the symbol for the down and out? The monkeys, of course.

So the statement that the lions eat banana could be understood to mean
that they’ll be humbled. When the monkey was cornered by the beast, he
said, “You can eat my banana!”

ComandanteBanana wrote:


I simply quoted that article, but I share his concern. Settling
something with a finger or a gun are two different things.

The result of the equation above is that people are exposed to a real
threat, particularly if they assert their right with a finger. And
while few people actually get shot, the rest of the population live in
fear. Particularly the cyclists.

And we would have to start with changing the laws of the republic...

Florida gives you an option to deal with this:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:35:29 -0500, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote:

How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical
evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit
of academic folklore bites the dust.
================================================ ======

- Frank Krygowski


KUDOS to you on your research. However, will that stand up to ALL of
the "old west". Starting at about the Mississippi river and
continuing westward. It would seem that the information you have
provided is all California and does not include other states.

I'd like to know if that historic data includes the genocide of the
native American people.
Or maybe it was a "war" so civilian casualties don't count.
--
zk

Bob Hunt wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:49 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous.

Hyperbole must be part of the Troll's Rules of Conduct. If "everybody
is armed and dangerous" every day should be one gigantic bloodbath
with hundreds of thousands killed or maimed yet that isn't the case.

An automobile could be far more effective in killing a lot of people
than a gun.

It would also be possible to murder someone with an automobile, with a
far greater chance of it being considered an "accident" than it would be
if the murder was committed with a gun. [...]

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Apr 21, 1:35*am, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Bob wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:49*pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous.

Hyperbole must be part of the Troll's Rules of Conduct. If "everybody
is armed and dangerous" every day should be one gigantic bloodbath
with hundreds of thousands killed or maimed yet that isn't the case.

Until this point, the worst I got for cutting someone off was the
finger, not a bullet in the chest.

The inference to be drawn from this would seem to be that you've
recently been shot for cutting someone off in traffic. In that case,
best wishes for a speedy recovery- and stop cutting people off.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

It's only relatively recently, here in the U.S., that people have not
been able to be "armed" while out and about. *I don't recall reading
anywhere about the "old west" being a blood bath.
* *__o * | Every time I see an adult on a bicycle....
*_`\(,_ *| I no longer despair for the human race.
(_)/ (_) | * * * * * * * * * * * * ---H.G. Wells---- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He didn't merely say "armed". He said "armed *and
dangerous*" (emphasis added) which implies a certain mindset that the
overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have just as they
didn't have back in the "Old West".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Had you left Jesus out of it and stopped after saying-
Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue
I doubt many here would disagree.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Zoot Katz wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:35:29 -0500, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote:

How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical
evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit
of academic folklore bites the dust.
================================================== ====

- Frank Krygowski

KUDOS to you on your research. However, will that stand up to ALL of
the "old west". Starting at about the Mississippi river and
continuing westward. It would seem that the information you have
provided is all California and does not include other states.

I'd like to know if that historic data includes the genocide of the
native American people.

butbutbut, that was only about 98-99% of the pre-European arrival
population. Himmler must have been jealous of the effectiveness.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bob Hunt wrote:
Had you left Jesus out of it and stopped after saying-
Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue
I doubt many here would disagree.

LOL!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful