Bicycle statistics

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:51:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/5/2019 12:16 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2019 5:31 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total
participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop
and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users
die!"... or,* equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop".
--
cheers,

John B.


Jeez I've been telling you this for some time.* Comparing numbers with
no participation makes cycling more dangerous than a lot of things.
Skydiving, Hockey, defusing land mines ... g

Well your harping on this has apparently worked, at least in this case.
Now get Frank to understand this and you'll get a medal. Or at least a
proclamation.

I've given relevant data and discussed injuries and fatalities per
million miles traveled, per hour exposure, per participant, etc. Scharf
("sms") and Duane have refused to acknowledge that data.

I wonder why. One possibility - at least for Scharf - is that he doesn't
want to acknowledge any data that shows cycling to be relatively safe.

The other possibility, I suppose, is failure to understand the meaning
of the word "per."


"Per"?" That what a cat does? Isn't it?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in
various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among
them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy
and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working
for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any
real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.


--

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:46:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in
various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among
them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy
and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working
for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any
real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

Wow! That photo dates back a bit, doesn't it?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/5/2019 9:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:46:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in
various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among
them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy
and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working
for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any
real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

Wow! That photo dates back a bit, doesn't it?

seems like yesterday...

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/5/2019 9:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.



The color which really matters is green. People like Madam C
J Walker had plenty of it:

https://blackthen.com/wp-content/upl.../cj-walker.jpg

Conversely, while reading the obituary of the younger (102)
of the two founding brothers of Friendly Ice Cream last
Saturday (the elder, at 104, still going strong) I recall
that selling 5c home made ice cream cones in the depths of
the Depression enabled him to buy his first car, a used Ford
T for $2.50.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 22:05:02 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

AMuzi writes:

On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in various
shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among them my best friend,
now passed, who had episodic epilepsy and couldn't be licensed. I had
a pink skinned girl working for me with no license for the same reason
so maybe not any real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

I meant that motor cars were originally for the moneyed classes, but
eventually aspirations of car ownership moved down the social scale.
But only gradually. When jaywalking laws were first introduced, one of
their purposes was to keep those dark people in their place. Some say
that's still true in the USA today.

From what I read the first use of "jay" in reference to traffic was
"jay driver", the first published use seems to have been in the
Junction City Union (Junction City, Kansas) on June 28th, 1905 begins
"Nearly every day someone calls our attention to articles that have
been appearing in The Kansas City Star concerning "The Jay Driver""
and originally applied to those who did not keep to the right hand
side of the road.

The term "jay" was said to mean "a greenhorn, or rube".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...led-jaywalking

or perhaps
""fourth-rate, worthless" (as in a jay town), 1888, American English,
earlier as a noun, "hick, rube, dupe" (1884); apparently from some
disparaging sense of jay (n.). Perhaps via a decaying or ironical use
of jay in the old slang sense "flashy dresser." Century Dictionary
(1890s) notes it as actors' slang for "an amateur or poor actor" and
as an adjective a general term of contempt for audiences."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/jay?...crossreference

Or maybe from the term "jayhawker" meaning
"freebooter, guerrilla," American English, 1858, originally "irregular
or marauder during the 'Bleeding Kansas' troubles" (especially one who
came from the North). It seems to have come into widespread use only
during the Civil War. There was said to have been a bird of this name,
but evidence for it is wanting. Perhaps a disparaging use from jay
(n.). Hence back-formed verb jayhawk "harass" (1866).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/jayh...crossreference

Or, as the Wiki has it
The word jaywalk is not historically neutral.[5] It is a compound word
derived from the word jay, an inexperienced person and a curse word
that originated in the early 1900s, and walk.[6] No historical
evidence supports an alternative folk etymology by which the word is
traced to the letter "J" (characterizing the route a jaywalker might
follow)...
While jaywalking is associated with pedestrians today, the earliest
references to "jay" behavior in the street were about horse-drawn
carriages and automobiles in 1905 Kansas: "jay drivers" who did not
drive on the right side of the street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

Most non-life threatening injuries are not reported unless they appear I an ER.

The medical industry in the USA receives billions upon billions or maybe trillions of dollars every year from the private insurance companies, federal government, and state government. All of these entities paying money want to know WHY they are paying. I am positive every single person who goes into a medical facility that receives money appears in some statistics that the medical facility provides to the money payors.

Or do you think the medical clinic or hospital or doctor office just calls up the state/federal government or private insurance company and says "We treated one of your patients last week. You send us $1000. NOW!!!" I don't think it works that way. Do you? I bet a dozen forms are filled out for every patient. And all these people are compiled somewhere and sent a dozen different places.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

Most non-life threatening injuries are not reported unless they appear I an ER.

The medical industry in the USA receives billions upon billions or maybe trillions of dollars every year from the private insurance companies, federal government, and state government. All of these entities paying money want to know WHY they are paying. I am positive every single person who goes into a medical facility that receives money appears in some statistics that the medical facility provides to the money payors.

Or do you think the medical clinic or hospital or doctor office just calls up the state/federal government or private insurance company and says "We treated one of your patients last week. You send us $1000. NOW!!!" I don't think it works that way. Do you? I bet a dozen forms are filled out for every patient. And all these people are compiled somewhere and sent a dozen different places.

Data is reported to insurers (like ICD codes), certain information is reported to state and federal regulators, and every provider must keep a patient chart. The question I have is where do the statistics come from? In many cases, they are culled from hospital discharge reports or mandatory reports made for discharge reports. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/final_report.pdf Those seem to be the popular data source in most states. Researchers also seem to go after ER reports as well or the records of a particular facility. Getting access is probably a nightmare with HIPAA.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 5:46:20 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2019 9:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

" In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car..."

What the hell does that mean? I've known a lot of people in
various shades, only a couple of dark hue & no car, among
them my best friend, now passed, who had episodic epilepsy
and couldn't be licensed. I had a pink skinned girl working
for me with no license for the same reason so maybe not any
real pattern there. You might want to rephrase that.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/beautqu.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Nice '58 Chevy though I hope he had that door fixed.