Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Nov 29, 1:15*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Dirtbag considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:38:14
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

Some complete bull**** - as usual.
Forged of course, but then we expect that from anonymous trolls who
only come here to attack their betters.

Even if you had ever had any valid case for anything, you would have
blown it with that kind of behaviour.
Although you do continue to make a good case for euthanasia, or
failing that, compulsory sterilisation.

If wit was **** you'd be the worst case of constipation in history.

Now just be a good little troll, and **** of back under your bridge,
you vile little infection.

Just to make sure that Phil W Lee's drunken words are preserved for
posterity.
No parody, just the language straight from the horse's ass, er, mouth.
DR

On Nov 27, 10:31*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:18:17
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





On Nov 27, 7:02*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:37*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:16*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Yes, yes - one can never be too safe! *One fatality in 9 million
miles? *One fatality in 17 million miles? *Not good enough! *We need
to try for one fatality in 100 million miles! *And then... why, if
even that _one_ fatality can be prevented....!

Ever heard of a needless loss of life, Frank?

Yes. The US has over 600,000 losses of life per year due to heart
problems. *If people weren't scared away from cycling, that total
would be significantly smaller. *Those are needless losses of life.

"Scared away?" Is that the same as opting not to do something?
Proof please? You're speculating.

The US has tens of thousands of motorists who die from crashes each
year. *If those people got on bikes instead of driving, there would be
significantly fewer deaths. *Those are needless losses of life.

Proof please? You're speculating again.

The US has over 4000 pedestrian deaths each year. *If people weren't
afraid to cycle, fewer of them would die, for two reasons: first,
cycling *is safer per mile despite the common refusal to believe that;
and second, more cyclists would mean fewer motorist mowing down
pedestrians. *Thus, the fear of cycling causes even more needless
losses of life.
You're speculating again.

The US also has roughly 750 bike fatalities per year. *It's one of the
least common causes of fatality in the US (down in the same
neighborhood as deaths from accidentally inhaling poisonous gases).

But many cyclists, .....

The classic Krygoskian strawman.

including some posting here, are willing to scare
others away from cycling by exaggerating its tiny dangers.

AHA! There ARE dangers!

*And they
don't even seem to care if doing so will cause even more needless
losses of life, from the above causes.

And

I don't know of any study anywhere ...

Well now THAT is conclusive! If you don't know it cannot exist.

that has not found cycling to be a
net positive, by decreasing needless deaths and by increasing the
quality of life. *But here we have posts by people who would make
cycling sound extremely dangerous even if there were just one cycling
death in 100 million miles of riding.

And this is by YOUR interpretation?
Show us the reference (ant reference) to "EXTREME" danger in words
other than your own.

Astonishing.

Yes, Frank you ARE un-****ing-believable.
And I means that in the most literal sense.

You are clearly beyond reason, and it is pointless to enter a battle
of wits with an un armed man, so I will follow the example you have
given us submit the case that you are completely wrong totally without
argument.

I do thank you for you confirmation that, even by your weak standards,
I am worthy of a battle of wits.
Since I have no qualms whatsoever about engaging a (witless) "unarmed
man," you and Frank Krygowski are fair game. Frank continues his
nonsensical rants, while you have seemingly settled down a bit. You
seem to have discovered that sobriety does often provide that
benefit.
Alas, Frank is probably a pathological or genetic case, and medication
or termination of same is probably futile.
DR

On Dec 4, 8:57*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

You can find a study that says anything,

True. Which is why it's necessary to look beyond the abstract and
conclusions. You need to critically examine the methods and the data.

... like one that says bicyclists
in my own town have a 20% injury rate. *Can't get more specific than a
study of one's actual cohorts. *http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11...by-the-numbers
-- Jay Beattie.

That's been discussed here, Jay. Salient facts are these:

First, the study authors mention three other studies that show quite
low levels of danger for cycling. Rather than interpreting those as
proof that cycling is quite safe, they decided the danger was
"difficult to measure." They apparently decided those other studies'
participants must have forgotten their injuries. They set up their
study with monthly reminders so as not to miss _any_ injuries.

And the injuries were almost certainly minor. According to the paper,
they did record _all_ injuries (or "traumatic events.") They
distinguished what they called "serious injuries," but a "serious
injury" was not one requiring hospitalization, nor one showing up in
ER, nor one exceeding AIS level #1 or #2 (defined as "minor" and
"moderate" respectively, IIRC). "Serious" was defined as "some
medical medical person somewhere saw the injury." Apparently, a
school nurse would qualify, even if she didn't stick on a band aid.

The paper looks like yet another successful attempt to get a
publication by exaggerating a minor problem.

And BTW, crunching their numbers shows one "traumatic event" (i.e. any
injury at all) every 6,667 miles. It shows one "serious injury" (i.e.
not _really_ serious, but some medical person looked at it, whether
needed or not) every 25,600 miles. That pretty well corroborates
Moritz's data, showing that LAB bike commuters rode 32,000 miles
between crashes that cost $50 or more.

Don't let that study worry you. Cycling is just not very dangerous.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 4, 9:56*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

It's nice that we can opt out of tele-sales calls here*, although the
occasional one still seeps through the filters.

When that happens I take great delight in keeping them on the line
long enough to establish who they are so I can shop them to the
regulator.

*All companies conducting telephone sales activities in the UK must by
law filter their calls against the current list issued by the TPS.

We've got a "no call list" here in the U.S. by which we can opt out
of those calls. It works pretty well, in my experience. But I too
have gotten calls despite being on the list.

A few times, I've been able to get the name of the company and go to
the website to report the violation.

https://complaints.donotcall.gov/com...k.aspx?panel=2

I'd really like to know what, if anything, happened as a result. I
haven't gotten repeat calls, though, AFAIK.

- Frank Krygowski

Per Frank Krygowski:
We've got a "no call list" here in the U.S. by which we can opt out
of those calls. It works pretty well, in my experience. But I too
have gotten calls despite being on the list.

I think it will get worse. At least it has for us. All our
phones are on both the Federal and Penna state no-call lists.

A year ago, we got virtually no solicitor calls.

Now we are getting so many that we don't even bother picking up
the phone much of the time.

The diff seems to be that the telephone solicitation operations
are moving offshore and using Skype and/or other VOIP facilities.
With Skype, at least, you can even spoof a phone number.
--
PeteCresswell

Per AMuzi:
Our two favorite responses to solicitations are "Sure I'll
take a dozen! Please hold." and that wonderful day when I
set to separate callers on 'conference'.

This is probably urban legend or some standup guy's routine, but
I heard somebody somewhere say: "When a solicitor calls me, I
tell them that I've lost my job, my wife has left me, my son is
on drugs, I've just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the
dog died..... And, you know what? *They* hang up on *me*."
--
PeteCresswell

On Dec 4, 8:50*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:57*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



You can find a study that says anything,

True. *Which is why it's necessary to look beyond the abstract and
conclusions. *You need to critically examine the methods and the data.

... like one that says bicyclists
in my own town have a 20% injury rate. *Can't get more specific than a
study of one's actual cohorts. *http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11...by-the-numbers
-- Jay Beattie.

That's been discussed here, Jay. *Salient facts are these:

First, the study authors mention three other studies that show quite
low levels of danger for cycling. *Rather than interpreting those as
proof that cycling is quite safe, they decided the danger was
"difficult to measure." *They apparently decided those other studies'
participants must have forgotten their injuries. *They set up their
study with monthly reminders so as not to miss _any_ injuries.

And the injuries were almost certainly minor. *According to the paper,
they did record _all_ injuries (or "traumatic events.") *They
distinguished what they called "serious injuries," but a "serious
injury" was not one requiring hospitalization, nor one showing up in
ER, nor one exceeding AIS level #1 or #2 (defined as "minor" and
"moderate" respectively, IIRC). *"Serious" was defined as "some
medical medical person somewhere saw the injury." *Apparently, a
school nurse would qualify, even if she didn't stick on a band aid.

The paper looks like yet another successful attempt to get a
publication by exaggerating a minor problem.

And BTW, crunching their numbers shows one "traumatic event" (i.e. any
injury at all) every 6,667 miles. *It shows one "serious injury" (i.e.
not _really_ serious, but some medical person looked at it, whethert
needed or not) every 25,600 miles. *That pretty well corroborates
Moritz's data, showing that LAB bike commuters rode 32,000 miles
between crashes that cost $50 or more.

I don't let any study worry or console me because I am well aware of
the risk of cycling to me. Being on warfarin following my last ski
injury and surgery/DVT/PE, any bleeding injury can be serious. But
with that said, I still ride almost every day -- with a day off for
skiing, which is far riskier than bicycling. The risk of either sport
depends in great part on weather and conditions, so saying that either
is safe or unsafe, simply begs the question of "when, where and by
whom." It's not something that one can determine based on tables and
graphs or averages. -- Jay Beattie.

In article ,
Phil W Lee wrote:

Tim McNamara considered Fri, 03 Dec 2010
21:22:28 -0600 the perfect time to write:

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 1, 11:26*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,

To my experience and observation, computer systems in health
care documentation have reduced not improved productivity. *I
have to either work an hour longer or see one less client per
day to compensate for this; I have managed to make my
documentation sing my laptop more efficient than most people I
work with, but it still takes more of my time than my old
handwritten notes or dictation (not counting the time of the
transcriptionist). *I mainly do it because I have a professional
looking report- compared to a handwritten note- ready almost
immediately, whereas dictation and transcription inserts a delay
of up to a week.

One chiropractor of my acquaintance was a huge fan of Dragon
Naturally Speaking voice recognition software. IIRC, he used it
primarily to report diagnoses to the state's Workman's
Compensation program, which was something of a side business for
him. He was very excited to demonstrate it to me, and it
certainly seemed like it would generate reports faster than any
other method.

That software does have a medical dictionary available which would
make dictation easier. I've never tried dictation software, in part
because I work in environments that tend to be noisy and I've
wondered if that would be problematic (although if the mic is
designed correctly, probably not).

I can confirm that using the right type of microphone is essential,
and that provided you do, Dragon (and probably others) can be
extremely effective even in areas with high background noise. I've
used it in an environment where hearing protection is strongly
recommended, without any trouble at all.

Thanks!

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

In article ,
Peter Cole wrote:

On 12/3/2010 10:53 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

We've punished frugality and encouraged profligate spending for
decades in the US. Without credit cards, most Americans would
discover just how badly off they are economically. Religion is not
the opiate of the masses- Visa and Mastercard are.

I don't know who "we" are.

Policymakers, economists, politicians and everyone else who promulgates
the insanity of "spend your way to prosperity."

The real decline in income and the increasing disparity of income for
most Americans in the last few decades have been papered over with
shaky and unethical debt instruments, credit cards are the tip of the
iceberg.

In 1950 the private debt to income ratio was 40%; in 2009, 126%.
American personal savings are at a spectacularly low rate.

The average American is basically bankrupt without knowing it. That
doesn't factor in the federal debt. Of course, many economists will
tell you that deficits- public or private- don't matter and that debt is
good. Until the house of cards collapses, of course, as we've seen
(again) in the past few years (as we have seen over and over and over
again in the wake of conservative deregulation of various economic
sectors).

Americans know how bad off they are, they're just confused as to whom
to blame. That confusion has been heavily subsidized by interested
parties.

We've had 30 years of center-right to extreme-right governance and the
country has gotten steadily worse. The triumph of politics is that at
least half the country blames the Democrats for this.

Another example of the people getting the government they deserve.

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

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
...

I don't let any study worry or console me because I am well aware of
the risk of cycling to me. Being on warfarin following my last ski
injury and surgery/DVT/PE, any bleeding injury can be serious. But
with that said, I still ride almost every day -- with a day off for
skiing, which is far riskier than bicycling. The risk of either sport
depends in great part on weather and conditions, so saying that either
is safe or unsafe, simply begs the question of "when, where and by
whom." It's not something that one can determine based on tables and
graphs or averages. -- Jay Beattie.

Agreed. I would just add that it also depends on the way that you
approach it. I don't consider chasing my son down the moguls
on his snow board to be the same as doing my usual blue square
rollers.

Just as I don't consider cycling to the ice cream shop with the
wife and kid the same as attacking the hills with my riding buddies.