|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/1/2018 12:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a study the correlates the production of laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with the quality of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living? There should be a connection because every time there's a problem, the standard solution is invariably more laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and eventually judicial opinions. More generally, do laws do anything useful? In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate after the law was enacted. Are you implying that we should not be passing more laws to make everything safe for everybody? Are you some sort of communist? |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:14:03 -0700, sms
wrote: On 4/1/2018 12:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Is there a study the correlates the production of laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with the quality of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living? There should be a connection because every time there's a problem, the standard solution is invariably more laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and eventually judicial opinions. More generally, do laws do anything useful? In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate after the law was enacted. Are you implying that we should not be passing more laws to make everything safe for everybody? Are you some sort of communist? Nope. I'm suggesting that you find a study which correlates the number of laws (or number of pages of laws) with desirable social conditions, such as increases in disposable income, reduction in cost of living, reduction in taxes, decrease in crime, reduction in energy use, etc. 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. If it appears that the increased trend in legalism has not produced a desirable outcome, perhaps it would be beneficial if a quote or limit were placed on the manufacture of new laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions. If not, at least the question "Do laws do anything useful"? might be answered. If you believe the more laws make people and things more safe, it should be easy to correlate accident statistics with the number of laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions produced. Off-hand, I would guess(tm) that rate of law production is many times the rate of any perceived or actual improvement in public safety. Also, I'm not a communist. The closest approximation might be a political nihilist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism It's really quite difficult to find a political party that is compatible with my beliefs, biases, distortions, prejudices, assertions, and activities. I would probably have organized my own party long ago, but have not been able to find anyone who willingly conforms to my political beliefs. I tried joining the American Apathy Party, but nobody showed up for the meetings. Time permitting, I'll try shopping for a suitable label: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States and see if anything fits. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/2/2018 7:08 AM, somebody wrote:
The sooner they see you the better. I don't think it's that simple. Yes, I want to be seen - or more important, I want to be noted as relevant, as someone who will have to be dealt with. But I want that to happen soon enough. Being seen extra early doesn't help much. The benefits of excess conspicuity diminish pretty quickly. Example: In city traffic, if I register on the consciousness of a motorist who's one block away, that's _plenty_. On an open rural highway, 200 yards is probably plenty. Doubling that distance has no great effect. On to anecdotes: I have some cycling jerseys that are brightly colored, and I wear them on some rural rides. I also have others with rather muted colors, and I've done tons of utility cycling in ordinary clothing. The rain jacket I've taken on a couple European trips is black. I've never noticed the slightest difference in how I've been treated on the road based on what I'm wearing. In 40+ years of riding, I've had to stop twice because of drivers' SMIDSY mistakes. (Both drivers apologized.) Neither was a close call, and one of those was unusual in that as the motorist was leaving a parking lot, I was emerging from the end of a MUP. The street he was pulling into was a dead end, except for the path, so he probably never thought to check at all. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 8:55:09 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: "Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change" https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157 That article doesn't open for me either by your link or an independently googled link. Works for me, but it might be because you're not in the USA. I'll see if I can find a plagiarized version elsewhere. 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 spent the $2 and downloaded the PDF. Really interesting comments from some of the survey participants. The problem is that the author did not have access to names and email addresses from the various environmental sciences trade organizations. She had to settle for a list of academics, which does tend to favor AGW. The key comment is on the top of Pg 13: "For statistical purposes, the population that this survey will comment on will be academics, or those associated with college and university programs in the geoscience field in 2007." Therefore, the title of the survey should be something like: THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUS: AN OPINION SURVEY OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN ACADEMIC TEACHING POSITIONS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE I also have some questions as to how she produced her numbers. There's quite a bit in the report under results, all of it in percentages. That's meaningless unless the actual counts are included. For example, claiming 50% agreement does not seem very compelling when there are only 2 survey opinions involved. I also question what constitutes an "earth scientist". One geologist commented that his background and training did not include atmospheric phenomenon, which is central to AGW research. Since the pool of respondents came from a faculty mailing list provided by The American Geological Institute (Pg 12), it's little wonder that the available climate scientists were predominantly geologists and geophysicists. At least she's honest about it in the title, which mentions "earth scientists" but probably includes few scientists involved in atmospheric studies. I also had a problem with her first question, which asked about climate "before 1800" but did not specify a lower limit. I'm not so sure that this survey is the basis for the 97.1% consensus number. This number does not appear anywhere in the survey. I made a limited attempt to cook the numbers into something close to 97% and failed. Are you SURE that this is the original source? I see no evidence of a conspiracy, but simply a MS treasis that was severely hampered by the availability of a limited pool of scientists. Andre Jute Thorough Hardly. You failed to associate this survey with the 97.1% figure. "Everyone lies, but that's ok, because nobody listens". -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/2/2018 11:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2018 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/2/2018 5:01 AM, wrote: On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 3:15:08 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going? -- Andrew Muzi Much better than that 0 year ban on alcohol.Â* Alcohol is far and away the number one drug killer.Â* Alcohol kills far more people than all the other drugs combined.Â* But its not banned at all.Â* Its promoted.Â* Except maybe in a few countries around the world.Â* If heroin was not banned, and promoted as strongly as alcohol, it might kill off as many people as alcohol. I don't think there's any question that heroin would kill off FAR more people if it were as common and as promoted as alcohol. Â*From what I find from quick online searches, there are about 227 million alcohol users in the U.S., and about 88000 alcohol related deaths. There are about a million heroin users and about 15000 heroin deaths per year in the U.S. So for alcohol, 2600 users per death. For heroin, 66 users per death. Heroin seems to be about 40 times more deadly. Also, let's keep in mind that, like it or not, alcohol has been a normal part of human society pretty much since there have been humans. Certainly since there have been settled villages. Fermentation is a natural process, and its products are enjoyed even by animals. Heroin is very, very different. Huh? IFTFYÂ* Nothing's more natural than opium. Mammals just love the stuff. Compare fermentation (beer, wine) to distilled 190 proof Everclear and then opium to Heroin. 'Natural' may not be an apt or useful term here. A) Opium is not heroin, and alcohol is not Everclear. Let's be clear about what we're discussing. (Note I haven't mentioned fentanyl or other stronger synthetics yet.) B) Opium may be pretty natural, but it's not a universal part of human culture. Alcohol is. Some even claim that alcohol produced civilization. http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-...-archaeologist I think that's extreme, but still, I don't think anyone's made a similar claim for opium. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
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 voted no for the following reasons: 1. Section 25658.2 of the California Business and Professions Code already covers underage drinking with stricter penalties. 2. The Santa Clara County District Attorney will not prosecute violators of a city ordinance. 3. The instances of such underage drinking violations, under the current law, are exceedingly rare, about three per year. 4. I would rather focus on education than legislation on this issue. 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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/2/2018 8:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Compare fermentation (beer, wine) to distilled 190 proof Everclear and then opium to Heroin. 'Natural' may not be an apt or useful term here. I remember Everclear from when I went on backpacking trips and the leader brought it along because it was the most concentrated alcohol available. He mixed it with Tang and water to make "Tangaroos." It isn't sold in California anymore. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
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. That number was then fixed, and all consequent studies had to "prove" it. The whole affair is statistically worthless, more a matter of religious faith to second-rate minds than any kind of iterable science. AJ |
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 |