Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/1/2010 7:47 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:57 PM, James wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:31 pm, Frank wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:02 pm, wrote:

On Dec 1, 1:21 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 11/30/2010 3:24 PM, James Steward wrote:
[...]

Anyone riding on the road with motor traffic is in constant mortal
danger.[...]

Anyone alive is in constant mortal danger.

I thought I mentioned that already.

Then James, try mentioning it more often regarding other activities,
would you?

Why? We're discussing cycling, aren't we?

I don't know if you can get Time magazine in Australia.

Yes it is here.

But the
December 4, 2006 American issue has, on page 68, an excellent graphic
and table discussing mortal dangers, i.e. causes of death in the US.
Maybe they did one for Australia, as well?

Maybe they did, though I couldn't care less. We're discussing
cycling.

US deaths for 2003 are shown as a great 3 dimensional pyramid, divided
into horizontal slices by causes of death. The largest volume slice,
at the pyramid bottom, is heart disease. 685,089 of those. The slice
for "other diseases" not otherwise mentioned has 681,150. For cancer,
556,902. For stroke, 157,689. Certain respiratory diseases,
126,382. Diabetes, 74,219.

Maybe you should make it your mission to improve peoples eating
habits. Jamie Oliver showed us what some schools in the US served the
children there.

_All_ accidents combined cause only 4% of US fatalities, or 109,277.

Oh well, if that's the case, why aren't you campaigning for no seat
belts and no air bags in vehicles too. Why not forget about vehicle
safety standards all together. After all, there are much more
important things.

Of those, the biggest sub-category by far is motor vehicle accidents,
_not_ including bike deaths, at 44,757.

Who would have thought it.

Apparently those that suggest that the best way to improve
cycling safety by riding in traffic. Not that I have a problem
with riding in traffic but suggesting that it's safer doesn't
make sense to me. Maybe I didn't get the force field attachment
on my bike.

butbutbut [1], most facilities *do not* separate cyclists from traffic
at intersections, but rather increase the danger to cyclists at
intersections. Therefore, it is no surprise that vehicular cycling
would be safer, since being run over from behind or sideswiped while
cycling is only a small fraction of the total number of accidents.

[1] AVOGADRO V-ism.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 2, 11:50*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

"Although the risk of injury while bicycle commuting is real, it has
been difficult to accurately measure. *Two large retrospecive studies
of North American bicycle commuters found the injury incidence to be
between 6.0 and 18.6 per 100,000 miles commuted. *A 2-week pilot study
of commuters in Nottingham, England recorded no injuries."

google "A 2-week pilot study of commuters in Nottingham, England
recorded no injuries"

Hit this.
http://hej.sagepub.com/content/60/4/293.abstract

"We calculated that commuters covered 5368 km, averaging 4.6 km per
journey (range 0.8 to 7.6 km), 57 per cent of it on roads. Twenty-
eight cyclists reported 53 incidents (10 per 1000 km: 95%CI 7 to 13).
Segregated cycle paths had the highest rates (43 per 1000 km: 95%CI 26
to 67). In 46 cases the incident involved taking action to avoid an
obstacle, a pedestrian, another cyclist or a motor vehicle. No
injuries were reported in these incidents and nobody involved in the
incidents attended the hospital A&E department. "

Not a particularly long study, if there were 20 injuries per 100000
miles, they may easily have missed seeing an injury over that 2 week
period, and of course if the injury rate is lower the likelihood of
any injury being recorded diminishes further.

Nottingham may be a relatively safe area to cycle. Where I cycled in
the UK, near Crawley and south to Brighton, I felt in less peril than
I do riding to Melbourne from home.

JS.

On 12/1/2010 11:40 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 1, 9:51 am, Phil W wrote:

That you find this laudable says much about your tenuous grasp on
reality.

Perhaps you can point to where I have suggested any such thing.
Speaking of a tenuous grasp on reality ....

Apparently you have decided that you hate me. I have no problem
whatsoever with that. But I am curious how you justify your little
emotional and profane outbursts. Is it that you need to create enemies
so you have something to do.

DR

POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/1/2010 7:37 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
If the last few decades haven't busted the myth of the market's
invisible hand, I don't know what will. Those many who still cling to it
are practicing faith-based economics. As with any kind of religious
zealotry, conflicting evidence doesn't call beliefs into question, the
faithful just double down. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so
high and the results so tragic.

Indeed, that is why it is pointless to argue with right-wingers, unless
you want to annoy them.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/1/2010 6:31 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
[...]
Or you can agree to pay fixed price to the general contractor (I
did), and the general contractor is responsible for paying the
sub-contractors. Can I negotiate a fixed price for a medical
procedure?

No. Neither can you do that when you're having a house built. They
will tell you up front that the estimate may change depending on what
comes up during the process of construction. The same thing is true in
health care. If complications or unforeseen problems arise during or
after surgery, the price is going up.


Did you miss the part that stated that I negotiated a fixed price for my
townhouse (before construction started) and paid *exactly* (to the
nearest $0.01) that amount when closing?

In construction, some times contractors make a profit, and some times
they lose money, often due to factors beyond their control, such as
weather and changing costs of construction material between bidding and
construction. The better managed ones find a way to be profitable
enough to stay in business in a competitive market. No reason why the
same will not work for medical procedures.

Would you have a problem with telling your clients up front what the
hourly rate for your services will be, and billing them for the actual
time you spent with them, if the rate was sufficient to provide you with
a decent income? Why can there not be any transparency in obtaining
medical services? Why is providing medical services a cartel, instead
of a free market?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/1/2010 1:53 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
The premise of the question was that the plumbing was done, but the bill
was many times the estimate. I would think your options would be to pay
the bill (and maybe learn plumbing for next time), negotiate, take the
plumber to court ...

If I did that at work, the clients would only pay up to the estimate,
and tell me to sod off if tried to collect the rest (and the courts
would agree with them if I sued in an attempt to collect of the excess
fees).

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/1/2010 11:04 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Radey considered Wed, 01 Dec 2010
02:53:42 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Tim writes:

In ,
Radey wrote:

Did the plumber give you an estimate?

Yes.

What would you have done if his bill were ten, or a hundred times the
estimate?

Turned him down and learned to do it myself. It's plumbing, not rocket
science. Whether I could learn to do it cheaper than paying him is an
open question; I generally find it more cost-effective to pay someone
with expertise to do something rather than learning to do it myself
(unless, of course, it's something I want to learn to do for its own
sake).

The premise of the question was that the plumbing was done, but the bill
was many times the estimate. I would think your options would be to pay
the bill (and maybe learn plumbing for next time), negotiate, take the
plumber to court ...

I'm not sure about your legal system there, but over here I'd pay him
the sum agreed on the estimate, and invite him to take me to court if
he thought he could increase it.
If he then tried, I'd produce the original estimate as proof of the
agreed price, and invite him to pay for my costs in defending the
claim, along with his own in bringing it.

That is how it would work here also.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

How long do you think a plumbing company would last if it
systematically charged five or ten times the normal rate to those
too poor to pay?

And you think that health care providers do this? Let me discuss
the reality of billing practices....

Try comparing the amounts that one's insurance actually pays for a
given service to the amounts that some poor schlemiel has to pay if
they don't have insurance.

For me, it's a 20%+ diff just for an office visit to a GP.

For a visit back on 8/25, the GP wanted $90. Insurance paid
$71.28... ((90-71)/90) * 100 = 20%+

For a certain recent test, the medical corp performing it tendered
$4,810.00.

Insurance company paid them a grand total of $280.18 - completely
satisfying their claim - as opposed to abovementioned poor schlemiel,
who would be on the hook for $4,180.

((4,180-280)/280)*100 = 1,390%+. If my 2nd-grade arithmetic is
correct (not a "given", by any means....) that's a beeeeeeg
percent....

Sure, two profit-making enterprises have a perfect right to negotiate
terms between themselves - but the bottom line is...

All of which is part of why I believe in a universal public health care
finance for all Americans.

--
Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe.

On Dec 1, 6:53*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

Inaccurate
Tu quoque

On 12/1/2010 5:58 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
* Unless it's Medicare, since the boneheads in Congress made it illegal
for Medicare to bargain down the costs of medications.

Fixed:
* Unless it's Medicare, since the *whores* in Congress made it illegal
for Medicare to bargain down the costs of medications.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.