Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.

Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.

> Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.

I agree.

Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
bike.

Hmm. Maybe replace the caller's voice with "Watch out for the bike!
Watch out for the bike!" repeated over and over!

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:04:01 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
: whole document here
: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/vi...sp?lbid=451894
:
: 50% of population ride to work in Beijing
: that enough for you citers.

Damn! I actually learned something in this, er, discussion. Who knew that the
disparaging term for people who ask for proof of a windy assertion is
"citers"? :^)

: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
: >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
: >>knowledge. Anyone?
: >>
: >
: > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
: > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
: > pro-helmet zealots; and
: >
: > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
:
: here is another from J. Hopkins U.
: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1380951
:
: I could go on.

We'll forgive you if you don't.

I did not say deaths. grow up

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cse3n2dl4a0q7fpqbj7h5do0jdrh9trf9a@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:04:01 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
>>>>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
>>>>knowledge. Anyone?
>>>>
>>>
>>> a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
>>> statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
>>> pro-helmet zealots; and
>>>
>>> b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
>>
>>Google search 3rd entry
>>In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
>>transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities. Nearly
>>70%
>>of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles. The rate of fatalities
>>for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater than the average.
>>Farmers
>>have the greatest number of bicycle incidents. The peak hour for bicycle
>>accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
>>motorized vehicle traffic flows. Monday is the peak day for bicycle
>>accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in July,
>>which is Beijing's tourism season. Generally speaking, roads and streets
>>with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have
>>higher
>>rates of bicycle accident fatalities. Bicycle accidents can be attributed
>>to
>>many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
>>measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
>>skills. The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
>>inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
>>the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
>>countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental conditions,
>>education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
>>recommended.
>>
>>whole document here
>>http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/vi...sp?lbid=451894
>>
>>50% of population ride to work in Beijing
>>that enough for you citers.
>>
> Dear Nash,
>
> Er, no.
>
> No number in your citation addresses your "100's of head injuries
> everyday in any Chinese city" claim. Those are all percentages of some
> unknown number of accidents.
>
> But it's good to see that you've changed your mind about citations and
> started looking at reality to see if it corresponds to what you claim.
> It isn't so much whether you're right or wrong about a particular
> matter--it's getting into the habit of looking into things.
>
> I'd be pleased if you find evidence that I'm mistaken in thinking that
> you're off by an order of magnitude or so and that hundreds of
> bicyclists suffer head injuries every day in any Chinese city.
>
> But a quick google doesn't suggest that's the case:
>
> "We are fortunate to have an in-depth report for China where bicycle
> related deaths kill 22 per 1,000,000 per year [18]."
>
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1379660
>
> So in a Chinese city with a million people, there would be only 22
> deaths per 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries. (Of course, those are 22
> "bicycle-related" deaths and thus include a fair number of pedestrians
> struck and killed by bicycles.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

nash wrote:
> >
> Google search 3rd entry

Ah! Good. Now let's learn to analyze:

> In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
> transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities.

IOW, bicycling is _safer_ than average, w.r.t. fatalities.

> Nearly 70% of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles.

Not surprising. By the same token, I'm sure well over 90% of American
traffic accidents are "related to" automobiles. It's directly related
to the popularity of vehicle type. But "accident" generally does not
mean "injury," let alone "fatality." My guess is the typical Chinese
accident is much, much less costly than the typical American one.

> The rate of fatalities for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater than the average.

Yes, the elderly are more frail. But that does nothing to quantify the
rate for either group.

> Farmers have the greatest number of bicycle incidents.

Ever notice how these "litany of horrors" abstracts always descend into
the absurdly irrelevant?

> The peak hour for bicycle
> accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
> motorized vehicle traffic flows.

My gosh! Who'd have thought that??!

> Monday is the peak day for bicycle
> accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in July,
> which is Beijing's tourism season.

<nudge> ?? What? Oh - um, fascinating!

> Generally speaking, roads and streets
> with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have higher
> rates of bicycle accident fatalities.

Brilliant, I tell you! Brilliant! Who could have guessed?

> Bicycle accidents can be attributed to
> many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
> measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
> skills.

Earthshaking science! Nobel Prize, here we come!

> The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
> inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
> the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
> countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental conditions,
> education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
> recommended.

Of _course_ the "use of helmet"! Bell Sports executives are probably
drooling on their wing tips. And just think, no messy Safe Kids
pass-throughs for their "political action" funds. Just a nice, clean
donation to a Party official. Watch for it!

But, back to the original point: Where, exactly, did it say that "any
[I believe you meant "every"] Chinese city has hundreds of cyclist head
injuries every day of the year"?

The trick with citations is not merely to find one. It's to find one
that's actually relevant to the point you were trying to make.

- Frank Krygowski

Because you know I am right.
Again you expect me to dig up stuff I saw on TV maybe 10 years ago. I give
up. Roughly what I said is true.
Per city I only rationalized. 100/ day easy.
Plus I was only answering to Dave's Reckoning. The jist of what I was
saying or the idea, reaction, does not have to be footnoted.
I disagreed, you disagree with me, therefore you agree with Dave. Tell
us why you agree with dave's reckoning. We are waiting patiently for a well
thought out, footnoted, master's thesis on this.

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ccl3n2ltmpme5cae6pk495nshg617g6g8o@4ax.com...
>: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
> : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
> : >>knowledge. Anyone?
> : >>
> : >
> : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
> : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
> : > pro-helmet zealots; and
> : >
> : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
> :
> : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
> : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1380951
> :
> : I could go on.
>
> We'll forgive you if you don't.

>
> nash wrote:
>> >
>> Google search 3rd entry
>
> Ah! Good. Now let's learn to analyze:
>
>> In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
>> transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities.
>
> IOW, bicycling is _safer_ than average, w.r.t. fatalities.
>
>> Nearly 70% of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles.
>
> Not surprising. By the same token, I'm sure well over 90% of American
> traffic accidents are "related to" automobiles. It's directly related
> to the popularity of vehicle type. But "accident" generally does not
> mean "injury," let alone "fatality." My guess is the typical Chinese
> accident is much, much less costly than the typical American one.
>
>> The rate of fatalities for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater
>> than the average.
>
> Yes, the elderly are more frail. But that does nothing to quantify the
> rate for either group.
>
>> Farmers have the greatest number of bicycle incidents.
>
> Ever notice how these "litany of horrors" abstracts always descend into
> the absurdly irrelevant?
>
>> The peak hour for bicycle
>> accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
>> motorized vehicle traffic flows.
>
> My gosh! Who'd have thought that??!
>
>> Monday is the peak day for bicycle
>> accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in
>> July,
>> which is Beijing's tourism season.
>
> <nudge> ?? What? Oh - um, fascinating!
>
>> Generally speaking, roads and streets
>> with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have
>> higher
>> rates of bicycle accident fatalities.
>
> Brilliant, I tell you! Brilliant! Who could have guessed?
>
>> Bicycle accidents can be attributed to
>> many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
>> measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
>> skills.
>
> Earthshaking science! Nobel Prize, here we come!
>
>> The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
>> inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
>> the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
>> countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental
>> conditions,
>> education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
>> recommended.
>
> Of _course_ the "use of helmet"! Bell Sports executives are probably
> drooling on their wing tips. And just think, no messy Safe Kids
> pass-throughs for their "political action" funds. Just a nice, clean
> donation to a Party official. Watch for it!
>
> But, back to the original point: Where, exactly, did it say that "any
> [I believe you meant "every"] Chinese city has hundreds of cyclist head
> injuries every day of the year"?
>
> The trick with citations is not merely to find one. It's to find one
> that's actually relevant to the point you were trying to make.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the jist
of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$
You people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So
why are you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous for my
taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would you?
Because that is what you are telling me.

I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show.
Have you answered even one of my questions No

nash wrote:
> I did not say deaths. grow up
>

Get a brain.

#1, what does fatalities (from your cite) mean?

#2, you cited percentages, not numbers.

Greg

> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cse3n2dl4a0q7fpqbj7h5do0jdrh9trf9a@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:04:01 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
>>>>> injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
>>>>> knowledge. Anyone?
>>>>>
>>>> a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
>>>> statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
>>>> pro-helmet zealots; and
>>>>
>>>> b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
>>> Google search 3rd entry
>>> In Beijing, China, bicycle traffic constitutes more than 50% of passenger
>>> transportation and more than 30% of traffic accident fatalities. Nearly
>>> 70%
>>> of the traffic accidents were related to bicycles. The rate of fatalities
>>> for bicyclists 60 and older is five times greater than the average.
>>> Farmers
>>> have the greatest number of bicycle incidents. The peak hour for bicycle
>>> accidents is usually 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., depending on the bicycle and
>>> motorized vehicle traffic flows. Monday is the peak day for bicycle
>>> accidents. It was also found that more bicycle accidents happened in July,
>>> which is Beijing's tourism season. Generally speaking, roads and streets
>>> with higher speed limits, such as arterials and rural highways, have
>>> higher
>>> rates of bicycle accident fatalities. Bicycle accidents can be attributed
>>> to
>>> many causes, including road and environmental conditions, traffic safety
>>> measures, operations of motorized vehicles, and bicyclists' habits and
>>> skills. The most pressing factor contributing to bicycle accidents is the
>>> inadequate and insufficient facilities provided for bicyclists. To reduce
>>> the annual toll of bicyclist injuries and fatalities, a number of
>>> countermeasures, such as improvement of road and environmental conditions,
>>> education in traffic laws, training in cycling, and use of helmet, are
>>> recommended.
>>>
>>> whole document here
>>> http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/vi...sp?lbid=451894
>>>
>>> 50% of population ride to work in Beijing
>>> that enough for you citers.
>>>
>> Dear Nash,
>>
>> Er, no.
>>
>> No number in your citation addresses your "100's of head injuries
>> everyday in any Chinese city" claim. Those are all percentages of some
>> unknown number of accidents.
>>
>> But it's good to see that you've changed your mind about citations and
>> started looking at reality to see if it corresponds to what you claim.
>> It isn't so much whether you're right or wrong about a particular
>> matter--it's getting into the habit of looking into things.
>>
>> I'd be pleased if you find evidence that I'm mistaken in thinking that
>> you're off by an order of magnitude or so and that hundreds of
>> bicyclists suffer head injuries every day in any Chinese city.
>>
>> But a quick google doesn't suggest that's the case:
>>
>> "We are fortunate to have an in-depth report for China where bicycle
>> related deaths kill 22 per 1,000,000 per year [18]."
>>
>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1379660
>>
>> So in a Chinese city with a million people, there would be only 22
>> deaths per 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries. (Of course, those are 22
>> "bicycle-related" deaths and thus include a fair number of pedestrians
>> struck and killed by bicycles.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>


--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:54:29 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
: Because you know I am right.
: Again you expect me to dig up stuff I saw on TV maybe 10 years ago. I give
: up. Roughly what I said is true.
: Per city I only rationalized. 100/ day easy.
: Plus I was only answering to Dave's Reckoning. The jist of what I was
: saying or the idea, reaction, does not have to be footnoted.
: I disagreed, you disagree with me, therefore you agree with Dave.

I do? How did that happen? Just yesterday I posted the following:

-> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:55:40 -0500, "Dave Reckoning"
-> <Dave_Reckoning@notmail.com> wrote:
-> : The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
-> : traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!!
-> : Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that
-> : they can drive over anything that gets in their way.
-> :
-> If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better optometrist.

: Tell us why you agree with dave's reckoning. We are waiting patiently for
: a well thought out, footnoted, master's thesis on this.

I guess you're in for a long wait.

: "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
: news:ccl3n2ltmpme5cae6pk495nshg617g6g8o@4ax.com...
: >: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
: > : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
: > : >>knowledge. Anyone?
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
: > : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
: > : > pro-helmet zealots; and
: > : >
: > : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
: > :
: > : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
: > : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1380951
: > :
: > : I could go on.
: >
: > We'll forgive you if you don't.

>>>Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
your errors pointed out.

You wrote the same rhetoric before.
I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.

Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
Fogel
Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

nash WHO? wrote:

LEARN TO ATRIBUTE WHEN QUOTING!

> >>>Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
> illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
> expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
> your errors pointed out.

STOP MESSING UP THE QUOTING HEIRARCHY MARKERS WHEN QUOTING!

> You wrote the same rhetoric before.
> I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
> be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
> be.

What is a "brain sex category"?

> I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
> male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
> Fogel
> Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

"nash" needs to work on his/her punctuation, logic, and Usenet
protocol.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Robert I was trying to disagree with Dave, maybe the timing was mixed up.
I understand your comment and thought it was hilarious.
Cheers

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:22n3n2hulp9o7dt8shbqk52496vgvpbct5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:54:29 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
> : Because you know I am right.
> : Again you expect me to dig up stuff I saw on TV maybe 10 years ago. I
> give
> : up. Roughly what I said is true.
> : Per city I only rationalized. 100/ day easy.
> : Plus I was only answering to Dave's Reckoning. The jist of what I was
> : saying or the idea, reaction, does not have to be footnoted.
> : I disagreed, you disagree with me, therefore you agree with Dave.
>
> I do? How did that happen? Just yesterday I posted the following:
>
> -> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:55:40 -0500, "Dave Reckoning"
> -> <Dave_Reckoning@notmail.com> wrote:
> -> : The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
> -> : traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common
> sense!!!
> -> : Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense
> that
> -> : they can drive over anything that gets in their way.
> -> :
> -> If that's the best idea you've seen, you should find a better
> optometrist.
>
> : Tell us why you agree with dave's reckoning. We are waiting patiently
> for
> : a well thought out, footnoted, master's thesis on this.
>
> I guess you're in for a long wait.
>
> : "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
> : news:ccl3n2ltmpme5cae6pk495nshg617g6g8o@4ax.com...
> : >: >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist
> head
> : > : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as
> common
> : > : >>knowledge. Anyone?
> : > : >>
> : > : >
> : > : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
> : > : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls
> and
> : > : > pro-helmet zealots; and
> : > : >
> : > : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
> : > :
> : > : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
> : > : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1380951
> : > :
> : > : I could go on.
> : >
> : > We'll forgive you if you don't.

On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
:
: Tim McNamara wrote:
: >
: > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
: > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
: > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
: > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
: > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
:
: Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
:
: > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
: > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
: > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
: > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
: > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
: > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
:
: I agree.

I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
safely.

Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
cell phone in one hand any more impaired?

Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
attention.

<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165087569.226835.113850@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

They would probably just start looking at their phone trying to determine
what's wrong with it.


> Hmm. Maybe replace the caller's voice with "Watch out for the bike!
> Watch out for the bike!" repeated over and over!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:17:33 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
wrote:

>>>>Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
>illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
>expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
>your errors pointed out.
>
>You wrote the same rhetoric before.
>I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
>be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
>Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
>be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
>male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
>Fogel
>Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

Dear Nash,

Judging by your increasingly bizarre posts elsewhere, I suppose that
your "brain sex study" was on some television show ten years ago.

Possibly "The Simpsons"?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:

> I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
> jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You people are
> thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So why are
> you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
> in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous
> for my taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck.
> comment. Would you? Because that is what you are telling me.
>
> I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have you
> answered even one of my questions No

Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
unable to think critically as well.

In article <d3ich.401482$1T2.388044@pd7urf2no>,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> top posted a
scathing retort:

[retort moved below]

> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news902n2dfn21sv7l4j22phjog7uos6l5dge@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:11:14 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>As Frank Krygowski keeps pointing out, bicycling is a remarkably safe
> >>activity for the general population.
> >>
> >>Carl,
> >>I was talking about Dave's Reckoning and comparing it to China which I
> >>still
> >>think is true. no laws or signs just common sense
> >
> > Dear Nash,
> >
> > To jog your memory, here's your entire post:
> >
> > "Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
> > injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
> > knowledge. Anyone?"
>
> SO

Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand,
water is water. And east is east and west is west, and
if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce,
they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know.

Learn the reasons for not top-posting here:
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm>

--
Michael Press

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:48:21 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>: > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
>: > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
>: > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
>: > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
>: > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
>: > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
>:
>: I agree.
>
>I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
>at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
>on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
>arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
>hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
>this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
>doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
>accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
>bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
>safely.

Only because they're lucky, so far. Do some research. There are many
studies out there showing cell-phone use while driving is comparable
to driving drunk. Drivers on cell-phones have tunnel vision. They
don't scan the road. They don't check their mirrors. They don't check
their blind spots. They fail to notice traffic signals or other
vehicles signalling. They don't read direction or information signs.
They seldom use their own turn signals.They misjudge braking
distances, etc. Basically, they're impaired.
>
>Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
>State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
>person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
>cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
Yes. Hands-free sets make little difference. Blind people aren't
permitted to drive. Unfortunately, stupid self-indulgent people are.

>Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
>unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
>cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
>attention.

I can spot them a block away. They're the idiots piddling along and
not looking where they're going. As a bicyclist I'm more aware of my
surroundings than a caged scud jockey ever will be. I've learned to
read a driver's body-language and can most often predict what they're
going to do before they even have a clue themselves.
--
zk

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:55:20 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
>: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
>: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
>: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
>: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
>: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
>: and Austria, 31%.
>:
>: Do some research
>
>Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
>shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.
>
>What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
>fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
>going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)

Granted, the countries where "second generation" traffic calming has
proved effective at reducing causalities don't have the outrageous
personal injury suits and settlements prevalent in the litigious
culture currently infecting your US of A. They also have more
stringent rules, better enforcement and more comprehensive drivers'
education. In America any fool can drive a car and most of them do.

Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
average drivers. And perhaps too you erroneously believe that your
fuel costs and other vehicle expenses entitles you to exclusive
domain on the streets for which we all pay. I'd further wager that
you habitually exceed the speed limit, fail to signal turns and lane
changes, disregard pedestrians' right-of-way and neglect to check
your mirrors and blind spots while gabbing on your precious cell
phone.

If you've not yet killed or injured anyone with your inattentive,
negligent or just plain incompetent driving, consider yourself lucky.
Hopefully when your luck runs out a bridge abutment absorbs the
"collateral damage" and it's only your estate being sued.
--
zk

In article <xblch.404969$5R2.276341@pd7urf3no>,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:

>>Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
>> illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
>> expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
>> your errors pointed out.
>
> You wrote the same rhetoric before. I was writing to Bicycles.misc
> the list I did not notice. I do not want to be in those groups it
> just happened. But now I will cut them out.

Thank you.

> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that
> you can be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am
> smarter than most male brains and most female brains combined. I
> work 4X better than you Carl Fogel

You forgot to mention that you are grandiose and deluded.

> Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

It would appear that you are the one who has been at the plonk.

In article
<1165087569.226835.113850@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>
,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
>
> Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
>
> > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
>
> I agree.
>
> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

1. Illegal in the USA.
2. Driver's call is suddenly interrupted, and _all_
her attention and vision goes to the infernal device.

--
Michael Press

In article
<asn3n29l2165h3f7u99jiitsl184midmd7@4ax.com>,
Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> :
> : Tim McNamara wrote:
> : >
> : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> : > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> : > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> : > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> : > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> :
> : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
> :
> : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> : > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> : > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> : > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> : > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> : > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
> :
> : I agree.
>
> I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
> at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
> on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
> arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
> hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
> this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
> doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
> accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
> bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
> safely.
>
> Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
> State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
> person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
> cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
> Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
> unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
> cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
> attention.

Talking to someone takes far more attention than
eating. Someone on the other end of a telephone call
does not care how riled up they make the driver,
because they are not in the car with him.

--
Michael Press

nash wrote:

> I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
> be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
> be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
> male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
> Fogel

:-)

That from the guy who also posted:

"I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
jist
of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$
You people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read
NO So
why are you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to
bike
in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous for
my
taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would
you?
Because that is what you are telling me.

"I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show.
Have you answered even one of my questions No "

That's some meticulous spelling and grammar, all right! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

Oh, I've been tempted...

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:47:40 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
wrote:

>I did not say deaths. grow up
>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:cse3n2dl4a0q7fpqbj7h5do0jdrh9trf9a@4ax.com.. .


>> No number in your citation addresses your "100's of head injuries
>> everyday in any Chinese city" claim. Those are all percentages of some
>> unknown number of accidents.
>>
>> But it's good to see that you've changed your mind about citations and
>> started looking at reality to see if it corresponds to what you claim.
>> It isn't so much whether you're right or wrong about a particular
>> matter--it's getting into the habit of looking into things.
>>
>> I'd be pleased if you find evidence that I'm mistaken in thinking that
>> you're off by an order of magnitude or so and that hundreds of
>> bicyclists suffer head injuries every day in any Chinese city.
>>
>> But a quick google doesn't suggest that's the case:
>>
>> "We are fortunate to have an in-depth report for China where bicycle
>> related deaths kill 22 per 1,000,000 per year [18]."
>>
>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1379660
>>
>> So in a Chinese city with a million people, there would be only 22
>> deaths per 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries. (Of course, those are 22
>> "bicycle-related" deaths and thus include a fair number of pedestrians
>> struck and killed by bicycles.)
>>


No, but you did say there were "100's" of head injuries per day. Carl
has done some sums that show that if you are right, only 22 of more
than 35 thousand head injuries result in deaths; a figure that is
wildly at odds with other typical cycling death/injury ratios.

Robert Coe wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> :
> : Tim McNamara wrote:
> : >
> : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> : > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> : > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> : > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> : > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> :
> : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
> :
> : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> : > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> : > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> : > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> : > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> : > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
> :
> : I agree.
>
> I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
> at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
> on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
> arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
> hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
> this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
> doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
> accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
> bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
> safely.
>
> Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
> State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
> person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
> cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
> Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
> unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
> cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
> attention.

That last paragraph is a complete cop out. Using that argument, rape
or child molestation shouldn't be prosecuted either because they
occurred out of sight of a police officer. Are open alcohol bottles in
the car also largely unenforceable?

I'm no cop, but I certainly can easily tell which drivers yakking on
the cell phone . They are either driving *very* slowly, slow enough to
disrupt the flow of traffic, or erratically (can tell from their
inattention and delayed reaction times.)

It also is no accident I've been rear-ended 3x by drivers talking on
their cell phone. All 3 happened when I was stopped 3 or 4 cars deep
beneath a red traffic light. I haven't been rear ended by anyone one
else who happened to be eating/drinking while they were driving, for
example.

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:17:44 -0800, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:55:20 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: >: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
: >: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
: >: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
: >: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
: >: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
: >: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
: >: and Austria, 31%.
: >:
: >: Do some research
: >
: >Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
: >shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.
: >
: >What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
: >fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
: >going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)
:
: Granted, the countries where "second generation" traffic calming has
: proved effective at reducing causalities don't have the outrageous
: personal injury suits and settlements prevalent in the litigious
: culture currently infecting your US of A. They also have more
: stringent rules, better enforcement and more comprehensive drivers'
: education. In America any fool can drive a car and most of them do.
:
: Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
: average drivers. And perhaps too you erroneously believe that your
: fuel costs and other vehicle expenses entitles you to exclusive
: domain on the streets for which we all pay. I'd further wager that
: you habitually exceed the speed limit, fail to signal turns and lane
: changes, disregard pedestrians' right-of-way and neglect to check
: your mirrors and blind spots while gabbing on your precious cell
: phone.
:
: If you've not yet killed or injured anyone with your inattentive,
: negligent or just plain incompetent driving, consider yourself lucky.
: Hopefully when your luck runs out a bridge abutment absorbs the
: "collateral damage" and it's only your estate being sued.

How the hell do you know all that? You must be a genius. Actually, you got
most of the details wrong, but it is a fact that I'd be willing to bet, sight
unseen, that I'm a safer driver than you are. Or are you one of those
self-styled experts who knows everything it's important to know about cars but
has never actually driven one?

Come to think of it, you did say you were just guessing. Oh, well ...

Bob