Sue or go bankrupt?

On 7/2/2019 11:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should
rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the
cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case
should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the
responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the
decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going
to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x
figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over
this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly
and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very
likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response.
Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head
lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural
selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a
startled rabbit in the headlights thing. Instead, it's
several seconds of no response at all, followed by "Hmm.
What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?" followed by
looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral
movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do
it _way_ in advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!"
More importantly, I give lots of passing clearance.


Few if any good choices. A polite 'on your left' makes your
average putz swerve left but still not hold any particular line.

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

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:40:17 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/2/2019 11:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should
rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the
cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case
should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the
responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the
decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going
to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x
figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over
this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly
and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very
likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response.
Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head
lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural
selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a
startled rabbit in the headlights thing. Instead, it's
several seconds of no response at all, followed by "Hmm.
What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?" followed by
looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral
movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do
it _way_ in advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!"
More importantly, I give lots of passing clearance.


Few if any good choices. A polite 'on your left' makes your
average putz swerve left but still not hold any particular line.

"On your left" and clacking the STI/brake levers works O.K. assuming no iDope air/ear buds. Like you said, there are few good choices.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 02/07/2019 3:01 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:48:53 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a startled rabbit
in the headlights thing. Instead, it's several seconds of no response at
all, followed by "Hmm. What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?"
followed by looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do it _way_ in
advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!" More importantly, I give
lots of passing clearance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I've found that on the rial-trails around her that people when they hear a bicycle bell, for some inexplicable reason then stop and look UP! Are they looking for ET?

I find that just yelling YO! works a lot better.

Cheers


"a gauche" works better once you cross into Quebec.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 4:27:21 PM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 02/07/2019 3:01 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:48:53 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a startled rabbit
in the headlights thing. Instead, it's several seconds of no response at
all, followed by "Hmm. What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?"
followed by looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do it _way_ in
advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!" More importantly, I give
lots of passing clearance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I've found that on the rial-trails around her that people when they hear a bicycle bell, for some inexplicable reason then stop and look UP! Are they looking for ET?

I find that just yelling YO! works a lot better.

Cheers


"a gauche" works better once you cross into Quebec.

Do French Canadians know their right from their left? I gave up calling out passing on your left because 99+% of the time the people I wanted to pass would move left instead of right.

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 4:27:21 PM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 02/07/2019 3:01 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:48:53 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a startled rabbit
in the headlights thing. Instead, it's several seconds of no response at
all, followed by "Hmm. What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?"
followed by looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do it _way_ in
advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!" More importantly, I give
lots of passing clearance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I've found that on the rial-trails around her that people when they
hear a bicycle bell, for some inexplicable reason then stop and look
UP! Are they looking for ET?

I find that just yelling YO! works a lot better.

Cheers


"a gauche" works better once you cross into Quebec.

Do French Canadians know their right from their left? I gave up calling
out passing on your left because 99+% of the time the people I wanted to
pass would move left instead of right.

Cheers


Yeah usually. There are a lot of bikes around and people are mostly used
to hearing that. There are always exceptions.

--
duane

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:01:00 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I've found that on the rial-trails around her that people when they hear a bicycle bell, for some inexplicable reason then stop and look UP! Are they looking for ET?

I find that just yelling YO! works a lot better.

On the Heritage Trail, I say "I'm in the other lane; you're just
fine".

On the Beyer Farm Trail, I say "I'm overtaking on your left".

On the Chinworth Trail . . . I don't recall overtaking anybody.
Anyhow, it's wide, and flat on both sides. It runs through the front
lawns of factories, for the most part. (Donnelly is right next door
to an ink factory. I must look to see whether there is a pipeline.)

I usually say "thank you" after passing, particularly when a child
witnesses the event.

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

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 18:38:10 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:46:28 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 07:57:17 +0700, John B. wrote:


Nope, if there were roses everywhere, the free droppings would be
shovelled off the streets gratis.

Think a little. Where would you shovel it to?

Sheesh, all the rose gardens along the road.

The main problem with the manure was that it would take a
considerable number of teams and wagons to haul what you sweep up
and get it to somewhere that you can dump it. A typical heavy
freight wagon will carry about 6 tons and requires a 8 horse team to
haul that weight.

Now you're definitely making a mountain out of droppings. and as
London,
and many other cxities didn't disappear under it, there must have been
a workable solution.

Strange that you are so sure of yourself in 2019, while the people
who were there "on the ground" so to speak, couldn't find a solution.
In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in
New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled
ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the
growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output.

Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in
50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of
manure.

Credibility? If you look hard enough, you'll find some one who agrees
with you.

Obviously the soltuin, if it was ever needed was found and it was so
simple that no one bothered to record it.

You do realise that you've missed the best comback; they didn't solve
it,
the london of modern days is built on the remaind os the old London
covered with the droppings of horses.

In any case, the solution was bicycle, which do not leave as much manure
behind. behind

I see. You mean that all the 11,000 Hanson drivers bought bicycle to
haul their passengers? Or the several thousand horse drawn busses
converted to bicycles built for 25 as that is how many passengers a
horse drawn omnibus would seat.

Yes.

Or perhaps you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Mirror? Other wise you'd have outlined an alternative.

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:57:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:44:23 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:27:39 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 05:24:34 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:18:39 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 03:59:35 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 03:57:04 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:06:58 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 6/30/2019 3:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 00:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

John B. wrote:

You, apparently, are in the minority with this theory.

So were abolitionists. They were right.

If you are talking about U.S. history, of the 34 states in 1861 19
were free states.


A not-unrelated observation in that before oil energy all the world
ran on slavery, draft animals and dung in the streets.

Well, dung in the streets wasn't really a fundamental factor in
cavitation :-)
On other hand, dung in the streets gave a lot of otherwise
unemployed people a chance to "make a buck" by sweeping places where
people walked so perhaps it was a useful factor :-)

And the roses were so much better.

In 1900 there were an estimated 50,000 horses used for transportation
in the city of London. As each horse produces 15 to 35 pounds of
manure, and about 2 pints of urine per day, that was 750 tons of
manure and 12,500 gallons of urine every single day.

Never mind the roses, get the broom! And the mop!

Nope, if there were roses everywhere, the free droppings would be
shovelled off the streets gratis.

Think a little. Where would you shovel it to?

Sheesh, all the rose gardens alog the road.

The main problem with the manure was that it would take a considerable
number of teams and wagons to haul what you sweep up and get it to
somewhere that you can dump it. A typical heavy freight wagon will carry
about 6 tons and requires a 8 horse team to haul that weight.

Now you're definitely making a mountain out of droppings. and as London,
and many other cxities didn't disappear under it, there must have been a
workable solution.

Strange that you are so sure of yourself in 2019, while the people
who were there "on the ground" so to speak, couldn't find a solution.
In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in
New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled
ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the
growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output.

Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in
50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of
manure.

see:
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryU...risis-of-1894/
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011...anure-problem/
https://www.nyhistory.org/community/horse-manure



miles a day and London is a large place, about 122 square miles in 1851,
which could be an 11 mile trip from the center of town to the outskirts

Hint, I think you need to revist your olde map of London. There were lots
of gardens in the city centre. Even now, we don't pave a location from
horizon to horizon, but the food growing has moved to the outer suburbs.

If that was true than why was there such a problem? Again the folks
that were actually there certainly felt that there was a problem,:

As for garden space, London was a much older and more densely
populated than New York City but in New York the population density
rose from 39,183 per square mile in 1800 to 90,366 per square mile in
1900. An increase of some 230% in population. Space for gardens was,
apparently, in short supply and rapidly growing shorter.

As I wrote previously, simply waving your hand and mouthing platitudes
seldom provides a solution.

And yes, a solution was found. The internal combustion engine.
--
cheers,

John B.

While I would agree with you, the problem in New York would have been far more handily prevented with bicycles. 2/3rds of the population around 1900 were of an age and health that they could easily have commuted by bicycle. Of course the horse effluent was a problem that could have been solved by limiting animals to only main thoroughfares.

What do they do in Thailand for mass transportation?

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 7:48:11 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:10:12 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/1/2019 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/1/2019 3:00 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 14:46:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 6/30/2019 11:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2019 8:59 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:

*SKIP*
The "armed resistance to enslavement" that Canada has seems to be
sufficient. But to me, the "armed resistance" of the U.S. seems
grossly excessive.
The U.S. runs around all over the world bragging about their
democratic government and bemoaning the fact that "that country"
doesn't have a democratic system "like we do" and now someone talks
about "armed resistance"Â* ... to a system that the U.S. promotes
internationally?

See it this way.Â* This 'democratic government' is so stable that it's
okay with 'armed resistance'.Â* Now, if US sells someone idea of The DG
the implementation couldn't possibly be stable without The AR.Â* So
unfortunate implementors will absolutely need The AR (for sake of
stability).Â* So emerges new marketplace.

*CUT*


Make your choice.
I'd rather be a free Swiss than an enslaved Tibetan.
YMMV

There are also the free Canadians, Irish, Brits, French, Dutch, Germans,
Austrians, etc. etc. Freedom doesn't seem to require a "well regulated
militia," let alone a mass of undisciplined gun nuts.

the U.S. does have the National Guard, but about 99.9% of American gun
owners have nothing to do with it, nor with any other "well regulated"
group.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Ah heck. Seeing as this is no longer bicycling tech. VBEG LOL My understanding is that the US National Guard was supposed to be deployed ONLY on US soil. Is that so and if it is what happened so t hat the Guard is used overseas?

No that is not correct. While the National Guard can be thought of as
state armed forces it can be mobilized for federal active duty to
supplement regular armed forces during times of war or national
emergency declared by Congress, the President or the Secretary of
Defense.

--
cheers,

John B.

Are you saying that the US couldn't draft an Army on a moment's notice?

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:46:31 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 07:57:17 +0700, John B. wrote:


Nope, if there were roses everywhere, the free droppings would be
shovelled off the streets gratis.

Think a little. Where would you shovel it to?

Sheesh, all the rose gardens along the road.

The main problem with the manure was that it would take a considerable
number of teams and wagons to haul what you sweep up and get it to
somewhere that you can dump it. A typical heavy freight wagon will
carry about 6 tons and requires a 8 horse team to haul that weight.

Now you're definitely making a mountain out of droppings. and as London,
and many other cxities didn't disappear under it, there must have been a
workable solution.

Strange that you are so sure of yourself in 2019, while the people who
were there "on the ground" so to speak, couldn't find a solution.
In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in
New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled
ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing
crisis posed by urban horses and their output.

Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50
years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.

Credibility? If you look hard enough, you'll find some one who agrees
with you.

Obviously the soltuin, if it was ever needed was found and it was so
simple that no one bothered to record it.

You do realise that you've missed the best comback; they didn't solve it,
the london of modern days is built on the remaind os the old London
covered with the droppings of horses.

In any case, the solution was bicycle, which do not leave as much manure
behind. behind

When I was a kid they would talk about London and the devastation of the German bombing campaign. Even into the late 50's large sections of London were still rubble.