A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #931  
Old February 3rd 19, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,736
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?


To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html


The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?


I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #932  
Old February 3rd 19, 09:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,239
Default AG: Hernando's Plea

Hernando's Plea

Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim?
Your posts would look much nicer slim!
Searching, searching is so grim!
Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim,
Please Trim!

It's so ease-y don't you know
highlight, delete, away they go!
and leave your page as white as snow!
Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim,
Please Trim!

Being buried in garbage is so grim,
My odds of finding your message slim
while I drown in quotes from her and him,
Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim,
Please Trim!

When fin'ly found, it makes no sense
Unless I guess to which sen-tence
You refer six paragraphs hence --
Please trim, please trim, oh won't you trim,
Please Trim!

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

  #933  
Old February 3rd 19, 11:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 677
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html


The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?


I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/


I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding
manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern
age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its
place.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without
intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished
from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."


--
Cheers,
John B.


  #934  
Old February 4th 19, 05:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,736
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html

The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?


I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/


I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding
manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern
age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its
place.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without
intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished
from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."


I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of
the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or
something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God.

They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the
red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove
through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #935  
Old February 5th 19, 12:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 677
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html

The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?

I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/


I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding
manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern
age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its
place.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without
intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished
from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."


I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of
the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or
something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God.

They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the
red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove
through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible.


Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and
it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school
my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone
pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire
dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost
control, shot across the road and hit the pole.

After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to
look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's
girlfriend an killed her.

The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should
be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death
occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that
there was no case to answer.

The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the
result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime.
Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at
worst.

Is this progress?

By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up
late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #936  
Old February 5th 19, 02:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,736
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/4/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html

The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?

I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/

I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding
manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern
age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its
place.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without
intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished
from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."


I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of
the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or
something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God.

They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the
red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove
through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible.


Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and
it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school
my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone
pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire
dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost
control, shot across the road and hit the pole.

After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to
look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's
girlfriend an killed her.

The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should
be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death
occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that
there was no case to answer.

The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the
result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime.
Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at
worst.

Is this progress?

By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up
late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00


I think I'd rather he started work at, oh, 11:15 and quit for the day at
11:16. And if he'd set the same schedule for his staff. It might
minimize the damage.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #937  
Old February 5th 19, 04:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 677
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:03:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/4/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html

The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?

I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/

I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding
manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern
age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its
place.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without
intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished
from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."

I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of
the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or
something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God.

They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the
red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove
through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible.


Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and
it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school
my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone
pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire
dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost
control, shot across the road and hit the pole.

After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to
look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's
girlfriend an killed her.

The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should
be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death
occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that
there was no case to answer.

The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the
result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime.
Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at
worst.

Is this progress?

By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up
late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00


I think I'd rather he started work at, oh, 11:15 and quit for the day at
11:16. And if he'd set the same schedule for his staff. It might
minimize the damage.


The news said that he spends a lot of time reading the newspaper,
watching TV and "tweeting". Apparently "The White House" is incensed
that this information was revealed :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #938  
Old February 10th 19, 05:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,239
Default AG: E oil


When I paused to get the crock pot out of the fridge and turn it on, I
had been dressing for forty-nine minutes, I hadn't combed my hair, and
still had a pair of sweat pants, oversocks, and three shirts to go.
Not to mention the hats and gloves. I'd better wear my mittens for
the first two legs of the ride.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only the first leg, which was a great relief. I have split mittens --
nowadays they call them "lobster-claw gloves" -- that make operating
the bike perfectly easy, but feeling around in my pocket for a
handkerchief is a pain.

I shed my windbreaker at the end of the second leg, and as I began the
return trip, I reflected that my outer pair of sweatpants weren't
strictly necessary (I had three pairs of tights and another pair of
sweatpants on under them), but that was the precise time predicted for
the high temperature, they were not too warm, and shucking out of a
pair of pants beside the road isn't easy -- particularly since I would
have had to pin and tie the other pair of sweat pants and that isn't
honestly possible to do without sitting down -- the knee has to be
bent when the garter is tied.

That was much more clothing than I wore in New York, where it was a
warm winter day if I came back with icicles hanging from my fenders,
but all I put on my face today was Vitamin-E oil. In New York, I
coated it with petroleum jelly. And once I saw a perfect snowflake
stuck into the grease on my nose. Alas, I will never see that close
again.

The surgeon who takes off my cancers is very big on coating a healing
wound with Vitamin-E oil every day for months. Since he leaves
beautiful scars -- I walk up to people and say "Look at my new scar"
and they say "what scar?" even while it's still red -- I tend to take
him seriously. There was quite a lot left in the bottle when I was
done oiling my latest cancer -- an incision a quarter inch long
doesn't take much oil -- so I started putting it on all my old scars,
such as the two from flying over the handlebars when I was just
learning how to brake. (Oops, I forgot about the one on my back,
where the pin holding the clavicle was supposed to stick out, but the
clavicle turned out to be too thin for a pin, so I've still got a wire
in it.)

One morning as I was putting oil on my nose before a ride, I reflected
that E-oil dries into a sort of varnish before it vanishes, and put it
over my whole face. Seems to be adequate, but there wasn't any wind
today, and it really wasn't all that cold; the water in my bottles
never threatened to freeze. I believe the high was 27F.

Though the ride was only ten miles or so, I came back quite tired. I
suppose most of it was doing without my nap, but traipsing around in
Meijer for two and a half hours didn't rest me any.

Hmm . . . at night, sciatica feels exactly like sore muscles, only
more so. I wonder whether my Gabapentin will get confused and take
out that pain too?

Typed under the influence of bedtime.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/




  #939  
Old February 17th 19, 01:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,239
Default AG: E-oil again


I'm afraid to read what I wrote just before bedtime last Saturday, but
I don't think that I mentioned that one day I realized that the square
patches on the backs of my hands are also scars, and started rubbing
E-oil on them too. Unlike the other scars, I do believe that I have
seen improvement.

But that could just be because it's *oil*. The skin of an elderly
lady is always short on that.

Calendula cream is pretty good too. A few days ago, my pot-holder
slipped and it was several seconds before I could put the skillet
down. I put calendula cream on it, and the burn was gone by bedtime.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger Mrcheerful UK 10 February 13th 14 11:43 PM
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 1 June 13th 13 09:15 PM
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement John Benn UK 25 August 19th 12 09:33 AM
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 5 June 13th 10 07:37 PM
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton [email protected] UK 167 February 1st 09 11:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.