|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms
wrote: Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an improvement in safety? Absolutely. "Absolutely?" That's one of those things that seems obviously true and yet people in cars collide with school buses that they didn't see. Bright yellow, lights, etc., and *boom.* To see you the driver has to be looking. If they're not looking, it doesn't matter what you wear. Yes, I might look like a 230 lb goldfinch on a bike but that doesn't guarantee me being seen. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:15:57 -0700, sms
wrote: On 4/2/2018 8:14 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:14:03 -0700, sms wrote: You're ideally placed to perform a short term and short range survey. Just add up the number of laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions enacted during your term of office, and compare that with changes in the aforementioned quality of life metrics. Our City just passed a Social Host Drinking Ordinance. Our well-meaning Teen Commission promoted this ordinance. On the first reading, I went along and voted yes, but in the intervening two weeks I did some investigation, and I was the sole "no" vote for the second reading (ordinances require two readings before they become law). I think you just proved my point. Despite well meaning intentions, most such ordinances are a waste of paper and ink because they either won't be enforced, or cannot be enforced. I voted no for the following reasons: 1. Section 25658.2 of the California Business and Professions Code already covers underage drinking with stricter penalties. Also the vehicle code: California Underage Drinking Law Any person who attempts to buy alcohol under the age of 21 may be fined up to $250 and may be required to perform 24-32 hours of community service. The minor may also have his or her driving privileges suspended for one year. Source: Cal Bus & Prof Code § 25658, Cal Veh Code § 13202.5 2. The Santa Clara County District Attorney will not prosecute violators of a city ordinance. Same problem at all levels of government. If the prosecuting agency does not make a profit from fines, penalties, fees, or forfeitures, the laws do not get enforced. 3. The instances of such underage drinking violations, under the current law, are exceedingly rare, about three per year. I think that might the number of arrests or convictions. Some kid would need to do something really obnoxious before it was worth arresting and prosecuting the kid. Actually, if the violator were a minor, it would be unlikely to appear in the public record, and therefore never be counted. The 3 "violations" might be the kids parents being charged with complicity. 4. I would rather focus on education than legislation on this issue. For the minors or the parents? Such an education might already be in place. The county CPS (child protective services) forces uncooperative parents to attend and pay for worthless and expensive lectures on substance abuse, anger management, and child care. I think underage drinking might be covered by the substance abuse classes. 5. I am the newbie so I was the only council person that actually read the proposed ordinance before voting on it. There was a glaring mistake they made when they copied an ordinance from another city. I really hate to agree with you, but I think you did the right thing. However, you have a problem if the other members of the council failed to appreciate (or understand) the problems with the ordinance and vote accordingly. Did you have the support of the city attorney or a legislative analyst with your analysis? It might have helped. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 4:45:30 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote: MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008: M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html I'm not so sure that this survey is the basis for the 97.1% consensus number. That was the study referred to when the 97% was first used. I'm not so certain. The following article has the exact same percentage, but from a different source and survey: "Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature" https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." The whole affair is statistically worthless, more a matter of religious faith to second-rate minds than any kind of iterable science. It's much simpler than that. 97.1% of those academics, who have published papers on climate change, can associate their continued income and position to supporting AGW. Drivel: The first step to solving a problem is to blame someone. However, it's considered a bad idea to blame the people who are going to solve the problem. Since man is blaming himself for causing global warming, I can assume that man is not expected to solve the problem. That leaves divine intervention, alien visitation, and possibly a revolt by non-humans. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 22:33:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 4:45:30 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote: MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008: M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html I'm not so sure that this survey is the basis for the 97.1% consensus number. That was the study referred to when the 97% was first used. I'm not so certain. The following article has the exact same percentage, but from a different source and survey: "Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature" https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." The whole affair is statistically worthless, more a matter of religious faith to second-rate minds than any kind of iterable science. It's much simpler than that. 97.1% of those academics, who have published papers on climate change, can associate their continued income and position to supporting AGW. Drivel: The first step to solving a problem is to blame someone. However, it's considered a bad idea to blame the people who are going to solve the problem. Since man is blaming himself for causing global warming, I can assume that man is not expected to solve the problem. That leaves divine intervention, alien visitation, and possibly a revolt by non-humans. Actually it isn't "man". In reality it is "men". The world population was 3,551,880,700 in 1968. Fifty years later, 2018, it is 7,632,819,325, an increase of 4,080,938,625. If one assumes that the birth rate doesn't change appreciably in another 50 years the world population will be, approximately, 15 billion. http://www.worldometers.info/world-p...ation-by-year/ Added to this is the fact that the un-developed countries where people used to walk, or at best ride a bicycle, have become semi-developed, due largely to international trade, and entire populations that used to be satisfied to sit in the dirt and scratch their arse now demand color TV and an automobile.... or at least a motor bike. Note that in 1968 gasoline cost about $0.34/gallon, in 2018, I am reading, it is $2.49, or 7.3 times more expensive. If we assume no super-significant oil discoveries we might expect to see gasoline costing in the neighborhood of $18 a gallon, or more, 50 years from now. Perhaps, in 50 years, bicycles will become more popular :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 01/04/18 06:15, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg gatherers in Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc egg) trudge through wetlands & swamps looking for eggs unattended. The Australian worksman safety nannies have now required steel toed boots for that occupation. An employed egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his whole leg as a toe. He added that accepted industry technique consists of running very fast and climbing a tree, which actions are impeded by heavy boots. Thanks. -- JS |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:01:03 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 22:33:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Drivel: The first step to solving a problem is to blame someone. However, it's considered a bad idea to blame the people who are going to solve the problem. Since man is blaming himself for causing global warming, I can assume that man is not expected to solve the problem. That leaves divine intervention, alien visitation, and possibly a revolt by non-humans. Perhaps, in 50 years, bicycles will become more popular :-) Bicycles are already too popular: https://www.google.com/search?q=china+bicycle+sharing+problem&tbm=isch Actually, I'm 97.1% serious. If someone blamed you for a problem, and then expected you to voluntarily solve the problem, would you be motivated to do anything for them? In this case, the environmentalists and their sponsors blame all of mankind for the perceived environmental decline, and then expect all of mankind to support them in their war against modern civilization or something. Little wonder that about half of the GUM (great unwashed masses) doesn't believe the propaganda and seems resistant to any reactionary changes. Waiting for divine or alien intervention might be quicker and easier. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/3/2018 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
If someone blamed you for a problem, and then expected you to voluntarily solve the problem, would you be motivated to do anything for them? In this case, the environmentalists and their sponsors blame all of mankind for the perceived environmental decline, and then expect all of mankind to support them in their war against modern civilization or something. Well, there's more than a little mischaracterizing there - both "blaming all of mankind" and "war against civilization." There is a problem, though. In my view, the situation is akin to passengers on the Titanic. Did they have a moral obligation to use their teacups to bail water? Little wonder that about half of the GUM (great unwashed masses) doesn't believe the propaganda and seems resistant to any reactionary changes. Waiting for divine or alien intervention might be quicker and easier. I'm not sure about the claim of "half of the GUM." In the U.S., perhaps it's half. Without looking (i.e. googling, etc.) I'd bet that if you include the populations of all technologically advanced countries, the disbelieving portion is far less. But perhaps there's already been a bit of "deus ex machina" in the form of horizontal drilling and fracking. Gas is so cheap that coal plants are going down. Gas is knocking out a few nuke plants where I live, too, although that's perhaps regrettable. Solar is getting cheap, wind is getting cheap. Yes, there are plenty of Trump fans who say "It's not happening, it's not happening, it's not happening..." Or lately some who have converted to "It's happening but it's not why they say it's happening..." Meanwhile corporations and nations are working hard to take advantage of the changes, or at least minimize the detriments. Hell, there are cruise ships plying the arctic, gardeners revising their planting calendars, birders re-drawing range maps, epidemiologists trying to predict new disease boundaries... -- - Frank Krygowski |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:53:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Here's an anecdote -- I just about got whacked by some dumb f*** on a bike tonight with no light and ninja black outfit. I couldn't see him against the background of other gray and black objects like the pavement. It was heavy overcast but still daylight. In a city with lots of dopes on bikes, it's good to be able to see the dopes -- no blinding lights necessary, but something that isn't funeral attire would be appropriate in low-ish light conditions. -- Jay Beattie. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:53:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Here's an anecdote -- I just about got whacked by some dumb f*** on a bike tonight with no light and ninja black outfit. I couldn't see him against the background of other gray and black objects like the pavement. It was heavy overcast but still daylight. In a city with lots of dopes on bikes, it's good to be able to see the dopes -- no blinding lights necessary, but something that isn't funeral attire would be appropriate in low-ish light conditions. -- Jay Beattie. Dressing in all black for your own funeral sounds pretty proactive and thoughtful to me. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 3:44:07 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2018 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: If someone blamed you for a problem, and then expected you to voluntarily solve the problem, would you be motivated to do anything for them? In this case, the environmentalists and their sponsors blame all of mankind for the perceived environmental decline, and then expect all of mankind to support them in their war against modern civilization or something. Well, there's more than a little mischaracterizing there - both "blaming all of mankind" and "war against civilization." There is a problem, though. In my view, the situation is akin to passengers on the Titanic. Did they have a moral obligation to use their teacups to bail water? You're the one mischaracterizing the global warming case, Franki-boy. For a start, the Titanic was going down, already tilted. There was no doubt about the Titanic going down. There was also no doubt about the cold water killing those it didn't drown. The danger was manifest. Global warming has none of these certainties. There is no proof that whatever warming there was in the 1990's and into this century (even if it was accurately measured and represented, which it wasn't -- "hide the decline"!) was abnormal in the slightest; there is every reason to believe that temperature fluctuations in our time are simply the normal adjustments of the earth's temperature for the normal reasons, including a minor contribution from the techno-apes. Nor is there the slightest reason to believe that even if there were abnormal warming well beyond what the IPCC claims to forecast with its risible models, that it will be harmful. You won't find a single reputable economist to say that global warming of 2% and more will not be beneficial. In fact, the IPCC's *scientists* reported that global warming of 2% would be beneficial; the lie that all warming is harmful was cooked up by bureaucrats for the Summary for Policymakers; it has nothing to do with what was in the actual report. (Of course, I have read all the reports, all the way through, and the clowns like you who want to lecture us haven't, and very likely wouldn't understand them if they tried to.) The last time the world was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now, grapes were grown in Greenland. Your analogy with the Titanic stinks, like all efforts by global warming bullies to stampede us with fake catastrophes. Unsigned out of contempt for a simplistic, dumb jerk, too easily caught out.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cheap high-visibility vest for cyclists. | Mr. Benn[_4_] | UK | 79 | December 29th 10 12:30 AM |
High visibility vest just £1.35 | Mr Benn[_2_] | UK | 18 | December 11th 09 02:05 PM |
High Visibility Gear for Daylight | Steveal | UK | 21 | July 12th 09 07:23 PM |
Plain high-visibility jerseys...? | Kenneth | General | 9 | August 19th 04 05:29 AM |
leeds afety high visibility clothing | mike | UK | 1 | December 11th 03 11:44 AM |