Critical F*cks Tunnel Troll . . . again

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
Ken [NY) writes:

[A bunch of erroneous bicycle/car collision statistics.]

Source: Forester, John, Effective Cycling, MIT Press, 1993
http://www.borealisoutdoor.com/conte...ike/crash3.htm

=v= As has already been pointed out on rec.bicycles.soc, these
stats come from police reports, and a review of police reports
by the NYC group Right Of Way shows a tendency to simply accept
the motorist's allegations when there are no eyewitnesses to
challenge them. When eyewitnesses are there, all of a sudden,
like magic, motorists turn out to be the parties mostly at
fault.


Was the Fault reassigned in these cases, or was Right Of Way just doing a
report?

"Raoul Duke" wrote in message
...

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
[I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]

**** them off really good and they will form an army and
FIGHT YOU.

=v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
(and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.

By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally
purchasing
fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?

Dave

I have posed this question - TWICE - now and have yet to receive an answer.
Why does this not surprise me?

Dave

Raoul Duke wrote:

"Raoul Duke" wrote in message
...

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
[I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]

**** them off really good and they will form an army and
FIGHT YOU.

=v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
(and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.

By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally
purchasing
fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?

Dave

I believe that global lack of oil, upsetting the oil importing nations,
is what Jym appears to be referring to.

Do you remember the oil embargo of 1974? The Saudis acting alone could cause
similar problems by cutting their output by half today. The same effect
can be achieved simply by waiting for demand to exceed the practical rate
of extraction. With demand monotone increasing, and available oil decreasing,
it will happen. Judging by the current supply problems, we won't have to
wait very long.
Mitch.

How do you explain why children and teens are listed as being
in the wrong almost all of the time, while older, more level
headed riders are more likely the victims?

=v= The results I'm talking about are independent of that trend.
_Jym_

Ken [NY) wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:14:14 GMT, Jack Dingler
claims:



Ken [NY) wrote:



On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:25:30 GMT, Jack Dingler
claims:





If you're between the ages of 18 and 36, have you enlisted? If you have
family members in that age range, have you helped them enlist? If not,
why not? Do you believe in terrorism, do you hate the American way of
life?




Have you enlisted yet, Jack?





I'm too old and am a bit crippled up from a car accident. I have good
days and bad days. Boot camp would probably lay me out for a year. I
actually did bother to look at enlistment options recently.



I am probably older than you, and actually served in a real
war. But I am weary of seeing you chicken hawks, who never served,
challenging our younger people to go to war. We of my generation for
the most part had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
military. Some headed for Canada to hide, some future presidents hid
in Europe.
Today however, despite no draft, enlistments and reenlistments
are actually on the increase. So please leave these folks alone. This
younger generation is putting ours to shame.




On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
numbers up.

With your experience in the military and policing, I bet they volunteer
you, sometime in the next four years. The fact that you once served
could legally make you an unwilling volunteer. All it requires is some
changes to legislation.

You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. But technically,
buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
letting the market work.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler wrote:


....snip.....

On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
numbers up.

With your experience in the military and policing,

Someone dropped a figure today that they are seeking 65,000 more
military policepersons.

Is this on the news in the USA?

Pete wrote:

"Jack Dingler" wrote



You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. But technically,
buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
letting the market work.



Who was the president when Halliburton got their first big ($2.2B) no-bid
contract for military logistics? (hint: it wasn't Bush-Sr or Jr)

Pete



Both Kerry and Bush represent the same interests and will perform the
same duties for them. All that differes between the two is personality.

The wars in the ME and Africa will heat up in 2005, and the troop
requirements won't be met by volunteer signups.

Jack Dingler

"Ken [NY)" wrote:

No, if things got to that point, the US would simply ignore
the protestations of the caribou and PETA, and drill in Alaska where
there is plenty of oil.

Does anybody have the numbers?
I read somewhere that it was about 6-8 weeks of current USA consumption.

At any rate, using up what little we have left isn't the way to "reduce
dependence on foreign oil" as some politicians would have us believe.
I'm still opposed to ANY new drilling in USA with import prices below
$100/42 gallons. Keep using up theirs as long as they're willing to
sell it.

Mitch.

Ken [NY) wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:01:15 GMT, Jack Dingler
claims:



Ken [NY) wrote:





I'm too old and am a bit crippled up from a car accident. I have good
days and bad days. Boot camp would probably lay me out for a year. I
actually did bother to look at enlistment options recently.




I am probably older than you, and actually served in a real
war. But I am weary of seeing you chicken hawks, who never served,
challenging our younger people to go to war. We of my generation for
the most part had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
military. Some headed for Canada to hide, some future presidents hid
in Europe.
Today however, despite no draft, enlistments and reenlistments
are actually on the increase. So please leave these folks alone. This
younger generation is putting ours to shame.






On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
numbers up.



The US Defense Department says otherwise, but if you are not
going to take them at their word, it doesn't matter I suppose.



With your experience in the military and policing, I bet they volunteer
you, sometime in the next four years. The fact that you once served
could legally make you an unwilling volunteer. All it requires is some
changes to legislation.



No, I am way over age for the military. I tried looking into
air marshall service after 9/11, and I was told that I was too old for
that as well.



You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm.



Sorry, but I am such a sarcastic ******* myself, I am not used
to seeing it in others. So I must have missed it.



But technically,
buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
letting the market work.

Jack Dingler



Look at it this way: the billions of Chinese and other third
world countries that use bikes to replace the autos they cannot afford
and cannot produce, are taking up the slack for you. But if the sweet
feelings of liberal guilt is what floats your boat, go for it.




Recently a Dallas resident and Vietnam Vet got called up. He's 57, a
diabetic and suffering from advanced skin cancer. The military wouldn't
take his word or his doctor's word for it. So in a couple of months he
has to report to Florida were an army doctor will examine him and
determine if he's fit for duty. It seems he has skills currently needed.
It made the paper because it's such an extreme case.

I don't know how old you are, but you maybe needed for training and
administrative purposes. You certainly have the skills they need.

Jack Dingler

Ken [NY) wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:51:30 -0400, Mitch Haley
claims:



Raoul Duke wrote:


"Raoul Duke" wrote in message
...


"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...


[I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]



**** them off really good and they will form an army and
FIGHT YOU.


=v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
(and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.


By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally


purchasing


fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?

Dave


I believe that global lack of oil, upsetting the oil importing nations,
is what Jym appears to be referring to.

Do you remember the oil embargo of 1974? The Saudis acting alone could cause
similar problems by cutting their output by half today. The same effect
can be achieved simply by waiting for demand to exceed the practical rate
of extraction. With demand monotone increasing, and available oil decreasing,
it will happen. Judging by the current supply problems, we won't have to
wait very long.
Mitch.



No, if things got to that point, the US would simply ignore
the protestations of the caribou and PETA, and drill in Alaska where
there is plenty of oil.



It depends on the definition of plenty.

The most optimistic projections have it producing about 3 months of US
consumtion, but over a ten year period. Or less than 8% of current
consumption. And that's the top end of the estimates.

Not a number to sneeze at, but I would call it far short of plenty.

The downside is that the Chinese have been begging for a chance to bid
on it. Since it will be transported by tanker, they may be able to
outbid us and take it all.

Jack Dingler