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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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..