Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1

Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/02/2007 11:56:29 PM PDT

BALTIMORE - Gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the status symbol for the
environmentally conscientious, are coming under attack from a constituency
that doesn't drive: the blind.

Because hybrids make virtually no noise at slower speeds when they run
solely on electric power, blind people say they pose a hazard to those who
rely on their ears to determine whether it's safe to cross the street or
walk through a parking lot.

"I'm used to being able to get sound cues from my environment and negotiate
accordingly. I hadn't imagined there was anything I really wouldn't be able
to hear," said Deborah Kent Stein, chairwoman of the National Federation of
the Blind's Committee on Automotive and Pedestrian Safety. "We did a test,
and I discovered, to my great dismay, that I couldn't hear it."

Officials with the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind are
quick to point out that they're not advocating a return to gas guzzlers.
They'd just like the fuel-efficient hybrids to make some noise.

(snip)

Blind people are not the only ones who've had close calls. Linda Murphy,
57, a personal administrative assistant from San Marcos, Calif., has 20/20
vision when she wears her glasses, but she's almost been hit twice by
hybrids.

"I'm walking right in back of it and it's moving and I didn't realize it
until it nearly touched me," Murphy said, describing the first of her
scares. "I never realized how dependent I was on my ears until I almost got
hit."

[Cathy Kearns]

The problem isn't that the cars are too quiet, or that people rely on the
noise to jump out of the way. It's that for some reason, some drivers (or
even some bicyclists) are expecting pedestrians to get out of their way.
Drivers shouldn't be backing up when there are pedestrians walking behind
them whether they are in environmentally friendly vehicles or not. Drivers
and cyclists shouldn't be buzzing pedestrians.

Now I do understand some of the blind people protest, in that there are many
intersections with signals that do not have the sound to signal when the
walk sign is activated. I helped one blind man cross our big intersection
one quiet Sunday morning because there were no cars, so he didn't hear
anything, so he wasn't sure when the light was green. Audio signals would
help.

[Mike Kruger]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
> bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>
> Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
> Associated Press
> Article Launched: 10/02/2007 11:56:29 PM PDT
>
> BALTIMORE - Gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the status symbol for the
> environmentally conscientious, are coming under attack from a
> constituency that doesn't drive: the blind.
>
I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car makes NO
noise. It is my responsibility to look -- absolutely my responsibility --
but a little help never hurt anyone and there are small kids in the
neighborhood.

I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but they
don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes, even the ones
that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found these, please post a
link.

[Gooserider]

..
>
> "I'm walking right in back of it and it's moving and I didn't realize it
> until it nearly touched me," Murphy said, describing the first of her
> scares. "I never realized how dependent I was on my ears until I almost
> got
> hit."

Umm, I know the Toyota Prius BEEPS when it backs up. I would assume other
hybrids do, too, because they only use the electric motor when at slow
speeds. I think this woman is just distracted or talking on her cell.

[Eeyore]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

> Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
> bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>
> Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk

I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.

Think of the customising potential.

Graham

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Oct 7, 9:27 am, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The problem isn't that the cars are too quiet, or that people rely on the
> noise to jump out of the way. It's that for some reason, some drivers (or
> even some bicyclists) are expecting pedestrians to get out of their way.

That's part of it, to be sure. People in cars or on bikes want to
push around the walkers. It's like the so-called work boat rule you
see on water - The bigger boat has the right of way.

[Jym Dyer]

=v= I agree that the overall problem is motorists who refuse to
yield to pedestrians, which has morphed into a streetscape where
pedestrians are largely not taken into account. That's the REAL
problem; addressing anything short of that is foolish.

> I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car
> makes NO noise.

=v= Huh? I thought it made a beeping sound and there were
self-satisfied geeks bragging that they figured out how to hack
it to turn the sound off. Or is that another model?
<_Jym_>

[landotter]

On Oct 7, 11:35 am, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:> Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
> > bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>
> >http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>
> > Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
> > Associated Press
> > Article Launched: 10/02/2007 11:56:29 PM PDT
>
> > BALTIMORE - Gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the status symbol for the
> > environmentally conscientious, are coming under attack from a
> > constituency that doesn't drive: the blind.
>
> I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car makes NO
> noise. It is my responsibility to look -- absolutely my responsibility --
> but a little help never hurt anyone and there are small kids in the
> neighborhood.
>
> I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but they
> don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes, even the ones
> that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found these, please post a
> link.

http://tinyurl.com/3c559v

Read the comment. :-D

[Tom D]

"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:qV7Oi.5061$4V6.1180@newssvr14.news.prodigy.ne t...
> I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but they
> don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes, even the ones
> that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found these, please post a
> link.

I got an email about this item the other day:

http://www.safetybeep.com/

It sticks on the backup light, and when the light is on, it beeps. No idea
if it works or not, or how well.

-=- Tom

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Oct 7, 10:35 am, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car makes NO
> noise. It is my responsibility to look -- absolutely my responsibility --
> but a little help never hurt anyone and there are small kids in the
> neighborhood.
>
> I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but they
> don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes, even the ones
> that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found these, please post a
> link.

Just hit the horn before backing up. I do that a lot anyway even
though my car is standard IC.

[Mike Kruger]

Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= I agree that the overall problem is motorists who refuse to
> yield to pedestrians, which has morphed into a streetscape where
> pedestrians are largely not taken into account. That's the REAL
> problem; addressing anything short of that is foolish.
>
>> I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car
>> makes NO noise.
>
> =v= Huh? I thought it made a beeping sound and there were
> self-satisfied geeks bragging that they figured out how to hack
> it to turn the sound off. Or is that another model?
> <_Jym_>

The beeping sound in reverse is audible to the driver inside the car but is
NOT audible outside the car (at least on my 2006).

[jcr]

Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= I agree that the overall problem is motorists who refuse to
> yield to pedestrians, which has morphed into a streetscape where
> pedestrians are largely not taken into account. That's the REAL
> problem; addressing anything short of that is foolish.
>

Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
no-less!) pedestrian!

[Mike Kruger]

landotter wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:35 am, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:> Same problem has
>> always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
>>> bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>>
>>> http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>>
>>> Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>>> Associated Press
>>> Article Launched: 10/02/2007 11:56:29 PM PDT
>>
>>> BALTIMORE - Gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the status symbol for the
>>> environmentally conscientious, are coming under attack from a
>>> constituency that doesn't drive: the blind.
>>
>> I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car makes
>> NO
>> noise. It is my responsibility to look -- absolutely my
>> responsibility --
>> but a little help never hurt anyone and there are small kids in the
>> neighborhood.
>>
>> I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but
>> they
>> don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes, even the
>> ones
>> that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found these, please
>> post a
>> link.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3c559v
>
> Read the comment. :-D

Thanks for calling my attention to the comment!!

But there's a link to a more standard back-up alarm that I'll investigate. I
was looking for simple (replacement backup bulb that beeps), but maybe the
one-wire connection wouldn't be so hard.
http://tinyurl.com/2em8d6

[Mike Kruger]

Tom D wrote:
> "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:qV7Oi.5061$4V6.1180@newssvr14.news.prodigy.ne t...
>> I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but
>> they don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes,
>> even the ones that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found
>> these, please post a link.
>
> I got an email about this item the other day:
>
> http://www.safetybeep.com/
>
> It sticks on the backup light, and when the light is on, it beeps. No idea
> if it works or not, or how well.
>
Looks simple enough. It's cheap enough. I ordered one. I'll report back
after a time.

This is a very annoying website, but then I thought that might be the case
since you mentioned you got an e-mail about the item.

[Tom Keats]

In article <Pq2dnRKYHOrO0ZTanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jcr <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>> =v= I agree that the overall problem is motorists who refuse to
>> yield to pedestrians, which has morphed into a streetscape where
>> pedestrians are largely not taken into account. That's the REAL
>> problem; addressing anything short of that is foolish.
>>
>
> Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
> impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
> law says they have the right-of-way.

{\sarcasm
How awful! Stoopid law! If that's what The Law says,
then The Law is a ass! A idiot!
}

Y'know what breaks my heart? When I cheerfully stop on my
bike for pedestrians, and they apologize to me for "making
me stop" -- IOW, for my respecting their basic rights of
mobility. They'd probably apologize to you too, but you
can't hear 'em while you're cut off from the real world,
inside your car.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
> impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
> law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
> backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
> lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
> no-less!) pedestrian!

Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.

- Frank Krygowski

[Nate Nagel]

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
>>impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
>>law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
>>backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
>>lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
>>no-less!) pedestrian!
>
>
> Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I once was driving down a poorly-lit street after dark. An
African-American gentleman, dressed head to toe in black, was crossing
the street in the direction I was traveling. Unfortunately for him, I
was turning left. I literally didn't see him until my headlights swung
around, of course I immediately stopped, but he was rather irate because
I "almost hit him."

I do not feel that I was negligent in any way and wish people would use
some goddamn common sense. Just because you have the right of way does
not mean that you're not an idiot.

Of course, we know that you just hate cars, so don't let reality get in
the way of a good rant.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
drivers and peds. But the auto industry, which makes a fortune off car
crashes, pays the media to glamorize speeding and the idiot american
goes along with the brainwashing like they always do.

[Tom Keats]

In article <fec1ge01pvs@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> writes:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
>>>impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
>>>law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
>>>backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
>>>lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
>>>no-less!) pedestrian!
>>
>>
>> Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
>> going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I once was driving down a poorly-lit street after dark. An
> African-American gentleman, dressed head to toe in black, was crossing
> the street in the direction I was traveling. Unfortunately for him, I
> was turning left. I literally didn't see him until my headlights swung
> around, of course I immediately stopped, but he was rather irate because
> I "almost hit him."
>
> I do not feel that I was negligent in any way and wish people would use
> some goddamn common sense. Just because you have the right of way does
> not mean that you're not an idiot.
>
> Of course, we know that you just hate cars, so don't let reality get in
> the way of a good rant.

You should be more careful.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 7, 9:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
> >>impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
> >>law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
> >>backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
> >>lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
> >>no-less!) pedestrian!
>
> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> I once was driving down a poorly-lit street after dark. An
> African-American gentleman, dressed head to toe in black, was crossing
> the street in the direction I was traveling. Unfortunately for him, I
> was turning left. I literally didn't see him until my headlights swung
> around, of course I immediately stopped, but he was rather irate because
> I "almost hit him."
>
> I do not feel that I was negligent in any way and wish people would use
> some goddamn common sense. Just because you have the right of way does
> not mean that you're not an idiot.

Hmm. Perhaps you're right. He should have become Scandinavian, for
your convenience.

Or wasn't that what you meant?

> Of course, we know that you just hate cars, so don't let reality get in
> the way of a good rant.

"Just hate cars" is overly simplistic.

But I do hate puerile car worshippers who think it's their right to
drive everywhere at the maximum speed they desire, no matter what harm
they do to anyone or anything else.

- Frank Krygowski

[websurf1@cox.net]

On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
Just because you have the right of way does
> not mean that you're not an idiot.

Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.

Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
mountains of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
brown and no orange at all.

Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
pool....

(I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
distributed.)

[N8N]

On Oct 7, 9:42 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <fec1ge01...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
> >>>impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
> >>>law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
> >>>backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
> >>>lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
> >>>no-less!) pedestrian!
>
> >> Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> >> going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>
> > I once was driving down a poorly-lit street after dark. An
> > African-American gentleman, dressed head to toe in black, was crossing
> > the street in the direction I was traveling. Unfortunately for him, I
> > was turning left. I literally didn't see him until my headlights swung
> > around, of course I immediately stopped, but he was rather irate because
> > I "almost hit him."
>
> > I do not feel that I was negligent in any way and wish people would use
> > some goddamn common sense. Just because you have the right of way does
> > not mean that you're not an idiot.
>
> > Of course, we know that you just hate cars, so don't let reality get in
> > the way of a good rant.
>
> You should be more careful.

Please elaborate. As is, your post makes no sense.

nate

[N8N]

On Oct 7, 9:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
> > >>impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
> > >>law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
> > >>backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
> > >>lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
> > >>no-less!) pedestrian!
>
> > > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > I once was driving down a poorly-lit street after dark. An
> > African-American gentleman, dressed head to toe in black, was crossing
> > the street in the direction I was traveling. Unfortunately for him, I
> > was turning left. I literally didn't see him until my headlights swung
> > around, of course I immediately stopped, but he was rather irate because
> > I "almost hit him."
>
> > I do not feel that I was negligent in any way and wish people would use
> > some goddamn common sense. Just because you have the right of way does
> > not mean that you're not an idiot.
>
> Hmm. Perhaps you're right. He should have become Scandinavian, for
> your convenience.
>
> Or wasn't that what you meant?

*sigh*

Of course that's not what I meant, which you'd realize if you thought
about it for more than half a second. The point was, if you're going
to be out walking on a poorly lit street after dark, it wouldn't be a
bad idea to wear at least one piece of light colored clothing,
especially if your skin happens to be dark as well. Basic common
sense.

>
> > Of course, we know that you just hate cars, so don't let reality get in
> > the way of a good rant.
>
> "Just hate cars" is overly simplistic.
>
> But I do hate puerile car worshippers who think it's their right to
> drive everywhere at the maximum speed they desire, no matter what harm
> they do to anyone or anything else.

And *only* car drivers have any responsibility for their actions,
despite the fact that pedestrians and cyclists tend to be just as lax
in their conformance to applicable laws and common sense. we know.

nate

[|| |||| | ||| | |||]

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:1191808692.461545.197030@y42g2000hsy.googlegr oups.com...
> On Oct 7, 10:35 am, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I own a Prius, and this is a problem when backing up. The car makes NO
>> noise. It is my responsibility to look -- absolutely my
>> responsibility --
>> but a little help never hurt anyone and there are small kids in the
>> neighborhood.
>>
>> I've looked for the replacement backup lights that make noise, but they
>> don't seem to be made in the bulb size the Prius uses (yes, even the ones
>> that say they "fit all cars"). If anyone has found these, please post a
>> link.
>
> Just hit the horn before backing up. I do that a lot anyway even
> though my car is standard IC.

You would. Even though it means your horn is blasting all the time.

Adds to your total list of highly attractive qualitays, doesn't it?

Bo
>
>

[necromancer]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS:
> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> drivers and peds. But the auto industry, which makes a fortune off car
> crashes, pays the media to glamorize speeding and the idiot american
> goes along with the brainwashing like they always do.

k0000000k-a-DooooooodddddllllEEEE-D000000000!!!!!!

--
--

"There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything
close to 7 million jooz. Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11
official story. "

-- Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 12/01/2004
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9oog5
Message-ID: <780ea958.0411302101.5ef25456@posting.google.com>

[Studemania]

On Oct 7, 7:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> drivers and peds. But the auto industry, which makes a fortune off car
> crashes, pays the media to glamorize speeding and the idiot american
> goes along with the brainwashing like they always do.

How did we get from people crossing city streets to Highways?

Another point, a group of Coventry City Council cars were replaced
with electric or hybred cars about five years ago.
It seems that they might have recoprds.

Conversely, the CCC head was interviewed on Doolan show ten years ago
and he suggested that ideas om a certain subject be sent to him. When
asked it, it seems that he didn't even know his postal code at the
Council House!

They didn't supply addressed envelope for me to pay my council taxes
nor even consider the idea of imcluding a gummed label. Thereafter,
when I sent in my cheque, I included a bunch of funny newspaper
clippings and other such time-wasters. The 'girls' probabnly enjoyed
them, but......

[AustinMN]

On Oct 7, 9:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> drivers and peds. But the auto industry, which makes a fortune off car
> crashes, pays the media to glamorize speeding and the idiot american
> goes along with the brainwashing like they always do.

My favorite is "crash safety ratings." Now that is an oxymoron if I
ever heard one. Not crashing is always safer for everybody involved
than the "safest" car in a crash.

I'd like to know how those "crash safety ratings" take pedestrian
injury into account.

Austin

[Larry Bud]

On Oct 7, 10:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> drivers and peds.

If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
their other use?

[Bill Marcum]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.misc.]
On 2007-10-08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>> Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
>> bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>>
>> http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>>
>> Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>
> I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>
And for bicycles, the old reliable cards in the spokes.

[DYM]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:

>
>
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>> Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
>> bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>>
>> http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>>
>> Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>
> I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>
> Think of the customising potential.
>
> Graham
>

Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!

Doug

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 8, 9:05 am, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > Hmm. Perhaps you're right. He should have become Scandinavian, for
> > your convenience.
>
> > Or wasn't that what you meant?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Of course that's not what I meant, which you'd realize if you thought
> about it for more than half a second.

:-) Nate, I've thought about the issue of non-motorist conspicuity
more than you ever will. And yes, I understood your meaning,
including your description of the guy's race. I thought it was
demeaning in more than one way.

> The point was, if you're going
> to be out walking on a poorly lit street after dark, it wouldn't be a
> bad idea to wear at least one piece of light colored clothing,
> especially if your skin happens to be dark as well. Basic common
> sense.

Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else.

You were driving on a road where pedestrian crossing was a
possibility. Some will not be carrying flashlights to warn
incompetent drivers of their presence. So, don't be incompetent when
you drive.

Pretty simple, really.

> > But I do hate puerile car worshippers who think it's their right to
> > drive everywhere at the maximum speed they desire, no matter what harm
> > they do to anyone or anything else.
>
> And *only* car drivers have any responsibility for their actions,
> despite the fact that pedestrians and cyclists tend to be just as lax
> in their conformance to applicable laws and common sense. we know.

First, I doubt that there's any difference between the three groups in
their obedience of laws and their common sense. But pedestrians and
cyclists have almost no potential for doing serious harm to others
through their negligence. Motorists have great potential for harming
others, so they have more responsibility. Yet most treat driving with
as much care as watching TV.

If you'd hit and injured that pedestrian, it would have been YOUR
fault, legally and morally. Don't whine about what the pedestrian
should have done for your convenience. Take responsibility, like an
adult.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Keats]

In article <1191848777.223700.130270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 7, 9:42 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <fec1ge01...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Oct 7, 5:13 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Morning commutes around here, pedestrians wearing dark clothing (nearly
>> >>>impossible to see) will just walk right out in front of you because the
>> >>>law says they have the right-of-way. Seems to me that the law is
>> >>>backwards. It's certainly a LOT easier for a pedestrian to see a
>> >>>lighted vehicle than for a a driver to see an unlit (in dark clothing
>> >>>no-less!) pedestrian!
>>
>> >> Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
>> >> going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>>
>> >> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> > I once was driving down a poorly-lit street after dark. An
>> > African-American gentleman, dressed head to toe in black, was crossing
>> > the street in the direction I was traveling. Unfortunately for him, I
>> > was turning left. I literally didn't see him until my headlights swung
>> > around, of course I immediately stopped, but he was rather irate because
>> > I "almost hit him."
>>
>> > I do not feel that I was negligent in any way and wish people would use
>> > some goddamn common sense. Just because you have the right of way does
>> > not mean that you're not an idiot.
>>
>> > Of course, we know that you just hate cars, so don't let reality get in
>> > the way of a good rant.
>>
>> You should be more careful.
>
> Please elaborate. As is, your post makes no sense.

First off, you're complaining about almost running over
a pedestrian due to your carelessness.

Now you're complaining about how my admonishment to
be more careful somehow "makes no sense."

You must be dizzy by now.

Maybe one of these days you'll figure it out.

I sure hope so.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[N8N]

On Oct 8, 9:44 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:05 am, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 9:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Hmm. Perhaps you're right. He should have become Scandinavian, for
> > > your convenience.
>
> > > Or wasn't that what you meant?
>
> > *sigh*
>
> > Of course that's not what I meant, which you'd realize if you thought
> > about it for more than half a second.
>
> :-) Nate, I've thought about the issue of non-motorist conspicuity
> more than you ever will. And yes, I understood your meaning,
> including your description of the guy's race. I thought it was
> demeaning in more than one way.
>
> > The point was, if you're going
> > to be out walking on a poorly lit street after dark, it wouldn't be a
> > bad idea to wear at least one piece of light colored clothing,
> > especially if your skin happens to be dark as well. Basic common
> > sense.
>
> Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else.
>
> You were driving on a road where pedestrian crossing was a
> possibility. Some will not be carrying flashlights to warn
> incompetent drivers of their presence. So, don't be incompetent when
> you drive.
>
> Pretty simple, really.
>
> > > But I do hate puerile car worshippers who think it's their right to
> > > drive everywhere at the maximum speed they desire, no matter what harm
> > > they do to anyone or anything else.
>
> > And *only* car drivers have any responsibility for their actions,
> > despite the fact that pedestrians and cyclists tend to be just as lax
> > in their conformance to applicable laws and common sense. we know.
>
> First, I doubt that there's any difference between the three groups in
> their obedience of laws and their common sense. But pedestrians and
> cyclists have almost no potential for doing serious harm to others
> through their negligence. Motorists have great potential for harming
> others, so they have more responsibility. Yet most treat driving with
> as much care as watching TV.
>
> If you'd hit and injured that pedestrian, it would have been YOUR
> fault, legally and morally. Don't whine about what the pedestrian
> should have done for your convenience. Take responsibility, like an
> adult.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


I'm not even going to bother responding to your message in any
meaningful way because your biases are all too blatant. Fortunately
most people aren't like you. Most people realize that safety is a
group effort, and trying to shove all the responsibility onto one
group is doomed to failure.

nate

[AustinMN]

On Oct 8, 8:44 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else.

The only way to GUARANTEE you won't harm anyone else is to not operate
the machinery at all. There is absolutely no other way. Having 5
sets of eyes in the car won't do it. Only travelling at 5 mph won't
do it. The only thing that can possibly accomplish your standard is
to never operate. Period.

That is why it is so difficult for people to believe you when you
claim you are not totally anti-car.

I learned a long time ago that one should not rely on a single point
of failure. Wearing dark clothing at night in traffic is doing
exactly that. Wearing light colored clothing does not shift
responsibility from the driver; it only reduces the danger from that
single point of failure (the driver). That danger always exists, not
matter how much care is taken, no matter how much speed is reduced,
etc.

Austin

In article <1191851085.802738.6550@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.co m>,
frkrygow@gmail.com says...

> If you'd hit and injured that pedestrian, it would have been YOUR
> fault, legally and morally.

Correct, if the jury isn't packed with drivers who think, "There but for
the grace of God go I."

A friend of the family was driving one night in the rain and heard a
thump. Turned out her rear-view mirror had smacked a teenager in the
back of his head -- yes, he was black, and yes, he was wearing dark
clothes, and yes, he was riding at night with nothing more than dirty,
misaligned CPSC reflectors.

She said she honestly didn't see him before she hit him, and everyone
believed her. That didn't mean she wasn't liable, it meant she was
driving negligently but not criminally.

She was very lucky to have a million-dollar umbrella policy, since her
liability went well beyond her car insurance limits.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

[Tom Sherman]

frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else....

That is an impossible standard for a motor vehicle operator to meet.
Furthermore, it is also an impossible standard for a cyclist or pedestrian.

Since you are an engineer, look up the LRFD method. Notice that the
probability of failure can never be reduced to zero, no matter how high
the resistance factors. Similarly, have you even designed anything with
a factor of safety of infinity? That is what you are proposing with the
word "guarantee".

If you were a consulting engineer, and used the word "guarantee", you
would void your "Errors and Omissions" coverage.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 8, 1:02 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:44 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> > limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else.
>
> The only way to GUARANTEE you won't harm anyone else is to not operate
> the machinery at all. There is absolutely no other way. Having 5
> sets of eyes in the car won't do it. Only travelling at 5 mph won't
> do it. The only thing that can possibly accomplish your standard is
> to never operate. Period.
>
> That is why it is so difficult for people to believe you when you
> claim you are not totally anti-car.

If you want to take your idea to a ridiculously extreme, I suppose you
might claim that even _owning_ a machine might harm someone else.
Why, what if your car were parked in your drive ever since it was
delivered (by a different driver, of course) and the emergency brake
cable and transmission pawl rusted through? Why, it might coast down
your drive and run someone over!

But a reasonable person should see a difference between a ridiculous
extreme, on the one hand, and driving carefully enough that you don't
almost hit a pedestrian, as Nate did.

My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
pedestrian or cyclist. And as with most good guarantees, if my
promise should somehow fail, I'll make it up, certainly financially,
and possibly by ceding my driver's license.

The current situation with most drivers (especially driving
"enthusiasts") is, they expect people to stay out of their way and
never delay them. When people don't, they get enraged. When they
damage something or injure someone, they make excuses. As Nate did.

They somehow believe that people have no right to the most fundamental
form of human locomotion, whenever the walker's path crosses their
own. I think that's incredibly selfish.

> I learned a long time ago that one should not rely on a single point
> of failure. Wearing dark clothing at night in traffic is doing
> exactly that. Wearing light colored clothing does not shift
> responsibility from the driver; it only reduces the danger from that
> single point of failure (the driver). That danger always exists, not
> matter how much care is taken, no matter how much speed is reduced,
> etc.

And I think it's a good idea to be visible when walking at night. In
fact, when I do walk at night, I normally carry a small light. BUT
there should be no expectation on the part of a driver that all
pedestrians will do this!

A driver should always drive within the limits of his visibility. And
since pedestrians have no legal requirement to carry lights or dress
to a motorist's preference, motorists _should_ drive in such a way
that they won't run over any person of any race dressed in any color
he may choose.

Why is this too complicated for some people?

- Frank Krygowski

[Nate Nagel]

DYM wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:
>
>
>>
>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
>>>bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>>>
>>>http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>>>
>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>>
>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>>
>>Think of the customising potential.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>
>
> Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
> just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>
> Doug

It already exists:

http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/

I'm ashamed that I know this.

nate

(making noise the old fashioned way)

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[DYM]

Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in
news:feeda8112ac@news2.newsguy.com:

> DYM wrote:
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Same problem has always existed, even for sighted people, with goddam
>>>>bicyclists. Noisemakers should be on hybrid cars and bikes too.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7068419?nclick_check=1
>>>>
>>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>>>
>>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>>>
>>>Think of the customising potential.
>>>
>>>Graham
>>>
>>
>>
>> Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that
sound
>> just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>>
>> Doug
>
> It already exists:
>
> http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>
> I'm ashamed that I know this.
>
> nate
>
> (making noise the old fashioned way)
>

I was thinking more along the lines of the sounds of a Pennsy K4 or T1
coming from a Kia. Chug-chug-chug.

Doug

[zeldabee]

Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> DYM wrote:
> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:
> >>
> >>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

> >>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
> >>
> >>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
> >>
> >>Think of the customising potential.
> >
> > Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
> > just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!

Oh! I want my bike to sound like a choo-choo train!

> It already exists:
>
> http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>
> I'm ashamed that I know this.
>
> nate
>
> (making noise the old fashioned way)

Rats, it's expensive. I'd like to get one for my four-year-old. Come to
think of it, he's *very* good at making car noises. If I ever get a Prius,
I could drive with the window down, and have him do his thing. [Random
cuteness: The other night, he was in a cardboard box "driving." Vrooom
vrooom, etc. Then silence. I look over at him and he sighs and says,
"Traffic."]

Back on topic, though, a friend has a Prius, and complains about how quiet
it is. She's always startling people when she drives on side streets.

--
z e l d a b e e @ g m a i l . c o m

[N8N]

On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:02 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:44 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> > > limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else.
>
> > The only way to GUARANTEE you won't harm anyone else is to not operate
> > the machinery at all. There is absolutely no other way. Having 5
> > sets of eyes in the car won't do it. Only travelling at 5 mph won't
> > do it. The only thing that can possibly accomplish your standard is
> > to never operate. Period.
>
> > That is why it is so difficult for people to believe you when you
> > claim you are not totally anti-car.
>
> If you want to take your idea to a ridiculously extreme, I suppose you
> might claim that even _owning_ a machine might harm someone else.
> Why, what if your car were parked in your drive ever since it was
> delivered (by a different driver, of course) and the emergency brake
> cable and transmission pawl rusted through? Why, it might coast down
> your drive and run someone over!
>
> But a reasonable person should see a difference between a ridiculous
> extreme, on the one hand, and driving carefully enough that you don't
> almost hit a pedestrian, as Nate did.

"almost" counts in what again?

>
> My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
> pedestrian or cyclist.

No, you can't. There's a better idiot built every day, no matter how
careful a driver you are. Someone could wait between two parked cars
and step out in front of you too close for you to even think about
stopping; you would be unable to avoid hitting them. As far fetched
as that sounds, it actually happens quite often, because people are
idiots.

> And as with most good guarantees, if my
> promise should somehow fail, I'll make it up, certainly financially,
> and possibly by ceding my driver's license.
>
> The current situation with most drivers (especially driving
> "enthusiasts") is, they expect people to stay out of their way and
> never delay them. When people don't, they get enraged. When they
> damage something or injure someone, they make excuses. As Nate did.

No, I didn't make excuses. You're just a bitter old ****wit that
likes to attack anyone with a car, no matter how idiotic the other
individual involved is, or how little harm was done (in this case,
none.) I was just relating an anecdote to illustrate how
irresponsible and unconcerned with their own safety some pedestrians
are, and you have to twist it around to fit your agenda. I don't see
that I have to make excuses for anything, because NOTHING HAPPENED
(other than some idiot thought that my car was too close to him, due
to his own lack of responsibility for his own safety.) Now had my
speed been such that I was actually overdriving my visibility and had
actually hit him, then you might have a point. But as it is, you
don't.

>
> They somehow believe that people have no right to the most fundamental
> form of human locomotion, whenever the walker's path crosses their
> own. I think that's incredibly selfish.

I believe that if people act like idiots, they shouldn't blame others
for near-misses caused by their own negligence and idiocy.

>
> > I learned a long time ago that one should not rely on a single point
> > of failure. Wearing dark clothing at night in traffic is doing
> > exactly that. Wearing light colored clothing does not shift
> > responsibility from the driver; it only reduces the danger from that
> > single point of failure (the driver). That danger always exists, not
> > matter how much care is taken, no matter how much speed is reduced,
> > etc.
>
> And I think it's a good idea to be visible when walking at night. In
> fact, when I do walk at night, I normally carry a small light. BUT
> there should be no expectation on the part of a driver that all
> pedestrians will do this!

So are we supposed to have lights on the sides of our cars now to
illuminate the sidewalks? I was unaware of this new requirement.
I'll have to write to NHTSA and get the appropriate guidelines so that
I may retrofit legally compliant lights to my obviously outdated
vehicle.

>
> A driver should always drive within the limits of his visibility. And
> since pedestrians have no legal requirement to carry lights or dress
> to a motorist's preference, motorists _should_ drive in such a way
> that they won't run over any person of any race dressed in any color
> he may choose.

And indeed I did not. However, a pedestrian thought that I was too
close to him for his comfort, due solely to his poor choice of
clothing for walking after dark.

>
> Why is this too complicated for some people?

Because some people are idiots, like yourself. I see that you haven't
learned a damned thing since the last time you insinuated yourself
into RAD, and that you're still as virulently anti-motorist as ever.
Here's a free clue for you; some of us don't necessarily WANT to be
motorists as often as we are; my job requires me to drive therefore I
either drive or find another job. You don't hear me badmouthing
cyclists because I don't bike that often (unless they are actually
doing something illegal or stupid.) So you can take your attitude and
shove it up your rosy red rectum.

nate

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 8, 11:59 pm, <j...@phred.org> wrote:
>
> A friend of the family was driving one night in the rain and heard a
> thump. Turned out her rear-view mirror had smacked a teenager in the
> back of his head -- yes, he was black, and yes, he was wearing dark
> clothes, and yes, he was riding at night with nothing more than dirty,
> misaligned CPSC reflectors.
>
> She said she honestly didn't see him before she hit him, and everyone
> believed her. That didn't mean she wasn't liable, it meant she was
> driving negligently but not criminally.

And it's very likely that she didn't see him.

But why? In these forums, we've heard of drivers that "didn't see"
cyclists because they were driving while turned around reaching for
cassette tapes in the back seat. We know about drivers talking, or
dialing, or even texting on their cell phones while driving. I've
seen drivers reading newspapers while moving at highway speeds... and
so on.

The motoring culture has the view that driving a car is no more
complicated than watching TV, and that OF COURSE one can do three
other distracting things while driving - and while trying to minimize
travel time by going as fast as minimal law enforcement will allow.

It's a rare driver that uses caution appropriate for operating deadly
machinery. And consequently, our legal system doesn't treat gross
negligence as criminal.

A motorist who hits a legal cyclists because she "didn't see" him, has
admitted to gross negligence. She should get no sympathy. In fact,
she should lose her license.

- Frank Krygowski

[N8N]

On Oct 9, 10:07 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:59 pm, <j...@phred.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A friend of the family was driving one night in the rain and heard a
> > thump. Turned out her rear-view mirror had smacked a teenager in the
> > back of his head -- yes, he was black, and yes, he was wearing dark
> > clothes, and yes, he was riding at night with nothing more than dirty,
> > misaligned CPSC reflectors.
>
> > She said she honestly didn't see him before she hit him, and everyone
> > believed her. That didn't mean she wasn't liable, it meant she was
> > driving negligently but not criminally.
>
> And it's very likely that she didn't see him.
>
> But why? In these forums, we've heard of drivers that "didn't see"
> cyclists because they were driving while turned around reaching for
> cassette tapes in the back seat. We know about drivers talking, or
> dialing, or even texting on their cell phones while driving. I've
> seen drivers reading newspapers while moving at highway speeds... and
> so on.
>
> The motoring culture has the view that driving a car is no more
> complicated than watching TV, and that OF COURSE one can do three
> other distracting things while driving - and while trying to minimize
> travel time by going as fast as minimal law enforcement will allow.
>
> It's a rare driver that uses caution appropriate for operating deadly
> machinery. And consequently, our legal system doesn't treat gross
> negligence as criminal.
>
> A motorist who hits a legal cyclists because she "didn't see" him, has
> admitted to gross negligence. She should get no sympathy. In fact,
> she should lose her license.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

In my experience the "legal cyclist" is even rarer than a "legal
motorist" (implying strict compliance with all rules of the road.)

I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist even slow down for a
stop sign, and that's just one example. A cyclist riding at night
without any kind of lights is an idiot plain and simple. It's only a
matter of time until another cyclist gets hit around here (was about a
month ago that I saw the aftermath of an ugly car-cycle interface in
the middle of an intersection) and honestly, it is difficult to feel
anything but sympathy for the motorists. The way the cyclists ride
displays the same kind of arrogance and "make way for me lowly cars,
I'm a CYCLIST" attitude that I see frequently displayed on Usenet.

Nobody OWNS the road, we simply SHARE it. That means everyone has to
play by the rules. Yes, including cyclists.

nate

[Studemania]

On Oct 9, 10:54 am, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to know how those "crash safety ratings" take pedestrian
> injury into account.
>
> Austin

I expect that the NHSTA could give you more information than you would
care to read.
Take a look at my 40 year old car and at my GF year old one. Those
flowing lines and lack of "things sticking out" were not brought about
merely for fuel economy.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 9, 4:06 pm, Studemania <midl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:54 am, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to know how those "crash safety ratings" take pedestrian
> > injury into account.
>
> > Austin
>
> I expect that the NHSTA could give you more information than you would
> care to read.
> Take a look at my 40 year old car and at my GF year old one. Those
> flowing lines and lack of "things sticking out" were not brought about
> merely for fuel economy.

Yet they still sell atrocities like this: http://tinyurl.com/2epe46

Some people don't care if they slice up pedestrians, so long as their
pretty truck isn't scratched.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 9, 4:45 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
> > pedestrian or cyclist.
>
> No, you can't.

How many years of proof do you require? Not only have I never hit a
pedestrian or cyclist, but I've never come nearly as close as you
have.

> There's a better idiot built every day,...

.... and given a driver's license...

> no matter how
> careful a driver you are. Someone could wait between two parked cars
> and step out in front of you too close for you to even think about
> stopping; you would be unable to avoid hitting them.

Like most auto-erotics, you seem completely unable to envision driving
in a way that would enable evasion!

Look, I'll spell it out for you. First, you don't drive so close to
parked cars that someone can "step out" in front of you. You drive
several steps further left.

Is that impossible for some reason? It could happen - say, in a park
where cars are parked along a narrow drive for some special event.
Then you use some _really_ sophisticated tactics: You slow WAY down
and drive on high alert.

I had those tactics pay off once in that very situation. A little
girl rode her bike out from between two cars and headed right for me,
riding on the wrong side of the road. But I avoided her easily.

It sounds like you would have first hit her, then called her an
obscene name.


> As far fetched
> as that sounds, it actually happens quite often, because people are
> idiots.

.... And because they grand drivers licenses to those same idiots,
based on almost no training, or skills, or maturity of judgment.


> > The current situation with most drivers (especially driving
> > "enthusiasts") is, they expect people to stay out of their way and
> > never delay them. When people don't, they get enraged. When they
> > damage something or injure someone, they make excuses. As Nate did.
>
> No, I didn't make excuses. You're just a bitter old ****wit ...

I love it when someone descends into obscene insults. It nicely
displays the limits of their intellect.

But you _did_ make excuses. You almost hit a pedestrian, and you
blamed him for being the wrong race and wearing the wrong clothes.
Not one iota of responsibility on your part, eh?

> I believe that if people act like idiots, they shouldn't blame others
> for near-misses caused by their own negligence and idiocy.

?? And yet, you had a near miss, and you're blaming others for your
idiocy! Talk about lacking a sense of responsibility! Sheesh!


> So are we supposed to have lights on the sides of our cars now to
> illuminate the sidewalks?

My impression was that the pedestrian you almost hit was in a
crosswalk. You did say the event happened when you turned left, and
that he was crossing the street while walking the same direction you
had been heading.

I don't want your lights to illuminate the sidewalk. I trust even you
have the minimal skills required to keep your car off the sidewalk.

Now if we can teach you the minimum skill of NOT overdriving your
headlights - even while turning - we'll have something.


> > Why is this too complicated for some people?
>
> Because some people are idiots...

Well, that does explain it, I suppose. Perhaps the next question is,
how can we prevent idiots from acquiring drivers licenses?

> I see that you haven't
> learned a damned thing since the last time you insinuated yourself
> into RAD, and that you're still as virulently anti-motorist as ever.

Sorry, Nate. I'm not virulently anti-motorist. I am a motorist and
have been for a long, long time. All my friends are motorists.

But I am virulently against immature and incompetent driver,
especially those who whine excuses, and try to shift responsibility
for their mistakes onto others.

FWIW, I have little sympathy for pedestrians, bicyclists or
motorcyclists who _do_ make illegal moves that get themselves hurt.
But I have absolutely NO sympathy for people whose incompetence hurts
- or nearly hurts - others, then whine that the others should have
behaved differently.

Oh, and I have no respect for people who can't debate an issue without
descending into obscenity. So, little boy, you lose my respect on all
counts.

- Frank Krygowski

[Nate Nagel]

zeldabee wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>DYM wrote:
>>
>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:
>>>
>>>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>>>>
>>>>Think of the customising potential.
>>>
>>>Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
>>>just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>
>
> Oh! I want my bike to sound like a choo-choo train!
>
>
>>It already exists:
>>
>>http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>>
>>I'm ashamed that I know this.
>>
>>nate
>>
>>(making noise the old fashioned way)
>
>
> Rats, it's expensive. I'd like to get one for my four-year-old. Come to
> think of it, he's *very* good at making car noises. If I ever get a Prius,
> I could drive with the window down, and have him do his thing. [Random
> cuteness: The other night, he was in a cardboard box "driving." Vrooom
> vrooom, etc. Then silence. I look over at him and he sighs and says,
> "Traffic."]
>
> Back on topic, though, a friend has a Prius, and complains about how quiet
> it is. She's always startling people when she drives on side streets.
>

Do what I did, get an old Studebaker, drop a 10.25:1 compression 289 in
it, and when ordering a new exhaust from Don Simmons, ask for the "loud
tone" mufflers :) ("Studemania" can probably attest to how sweet that
combo sounds, although he's never heard my particular car run.) If your
four year old is anything like I was at that age he'll have a stupid,
silly grin on his face every time you nail it (well, so will you for
that matter.)

Of course, gas mileage may suffer a little bit relative to a Prius...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Studemania]

On Oct 9, 3:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> zeldabee wrote:
> > Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>DYM wrote:
>
> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:
>
> >>>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> >>>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>
> >>>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>
> >>>>Think of the customising potential.
>
> >>>Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
> >>>just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>
> > Oh! I want my bike to sound like a choo-choo train!
>
> >>It already exists:
>
> >>http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>
> >>I'm ashamed that I know this.
>
> >>nate
>
> >>(making noise the old fashioned way)
>
> > Rats, it's expensive. I'd like to get one for my four-year-old. Come to
> > think of it, he's *very* good at making car noises. If I ever get a Prius,
> > I could drive with the window down, and have him do his thing. [Random
> > cuteness: The other night, he was in a cardboard box "driving." Vrooom
> > vrooom, etc. Then silence. I look over at him and he sighs and says,
> > "Traffic."]
>
> > Back on topic, though, a friend has a Prius, and complains about how quiet
> > it is. She's always startling people when she drives on side streets.
>
> Do what I did, get an old Studebaker, drop a 10.25:1 compression 289 in
> it, and when ordering a new exhaust from Don Simmons, ask for the "loud
> tone" mufflers :) ("Studemania" can probably attest to how sweet that
> combo sounds, although he's never heard my particular car run.) If your
> four year old is anything like I was at that age he'll have a stupid,
> silly grin on his face every time you nail it (well, so will you for
> that matter.)
>
> Of course, gas mileage may suffer a little bit relative to a Prius...
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm gotta get you a copy of the BBC Video (I was slight involved with)
and the mellow sound of the Avanti.
I've brought it to IMs, but there hasn't been a VCR to play it.

Like with most "loud" systems, it'sloud when you want it to be.

[Mike Kruger]

N8N wrote:
>
> In my experience the "legal cyclist" is even rarer than a "legal
> motorist" (implying strict compliance with all rules of the road.)
>
Is a three headed dog more rare than a three headed cat?

> Nobody OWNS the road, we simply SHARE it. That means everyone has to
> play by the rules. Yes, including cyclists.

Amen.

[Bill Sornson]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>>
>> In my experience the "legal cyclist" is even rarer than a "legal
>> motorist" (implying strict compliance with all rules of the road.)

> Is a three headed dog more rare than a three headed cat?

You channeling Michael Press*?!?

*the recent funny version, that is

[Studemania]

On Oct 9, 8:37 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:45 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
> > > pedestrian or cyclist.
>
> > No, you can't.
>
> How many years of proof do you require? Not only have I never hit a
> pedestrian or cyclist, but I've never come nearly as close as you
> have.
>
> > There's a better idiot built every day,...
>
> ... and given a driver's license...
>
> > no matter how
> > careful a driver you are. Someone could wait between two parked cars
> > and step out in front of you too close for you to even think about
> > stopping; you would be unable to avoid hitting them.
>
> Like most auto-erotics, you seem completely unable to envision driving
> in a way that would enable evasion!
>
> Look, I'll spell it out for you. First, you don't drive so close to
> parked cars that someone can "step out" in front of you. You drive
> several steps further left.
>
> Is that impossible for some reason? It could happen - say, in a park
> where cars are parked along a narrow drive for some special event.
> Then you use some _really_ sophisticated tactics: You slow WAY down
> and drive on high alert.
>
> I had those tactics pay off once in that very situation. A little
> girl rode her bike out from between two cars and headed right for me,
> riding on the wrong side of the road. But I avoided her easily.
>
> It sounds like you would have first hit her, then called her an
> obscene name.
>
> > As far fetched
> > as that sounds, it actually happens quite often, because people are
> > idiots.
>
> ... And because they grand drivers licenses to those same idiots,
> based on almost no training, or skills, or maturity of judgment.
>
> > > The current situation with most drivers (especially driving
> > > "enthusiasts") is, they expect people to stay out of their way and
> > > never delay them. When people don't, they get enraged. When they
> > > damage something or injure someone, they make excuses. As Nate did.
>
> > No, I didn't make excuses. You're just a bitter old ****wit ...
>
> I love it when someone descends into obscene insults. It nicely
> displays the limits of their intellect.
>
> But you _did_ make excuses. You almost hit a pedestrian, and you
> blamed him for being the wrong race and wearing the wrong clothes.
> Not one iota of responsibility on your part, eh?
>
> > I believe that if people act like idiots, they shouldn't blame others
> > for near-misses caused by their own negligence and idiocy.
>
> ?? And yet, you had a near miss, and you're blaming others for your
> idiocy! Talk about lacking a sense of responsibility! Sheesh!
>
> > So are we supposed to have lights on the sides of our cars now to
> > illuminate the sidewalks?
>
> My impression was that the pedestrian you almost hit was in a
> crosswalk. You did say the event happened when you turned left, and
> that he was crossing the street while walking the same direction you
> had been heading.
>
> I don't want your lights to illuminate the sidewalk. I trust even you
> have the minimal skills required to keep your car off the sidewalk.
>
> Now if we can teach you the minimum skill of NOT overdriving your
> headlights - even while turning - we'll have something.
>
> > > Why is this too complicated for some people?
>
> > Because some people are idiots...
>
> Well, that does explain it, I suppose. Perhaps the next question is,
> how can we prevent idiots from acquiring drivers licenses?
>
> > I see that you haven't
> > learned a damned thing since the last time you insinuated yourself
> > into RAD, and that you're still as virulently anti-motorist as ever.
>
> Sorry, Nate. I'm not virulently anti-motorist. I am a motorist and
> have been for a long, long time. All my friends are motorists.
>
> But I am virulently against immature and incompetent driver,
> especially those who whine excuses, and try to shift responsibility
> for their mistakes onto others.
>
> FWIW, I have little sympathy for pedestrians, bicyclists or
> motorcyclists who _do_ make illegal moves that get themselves hurt.
> But I have absolutely NO sympathy for people whose incompetence hurts
> - or nearly hurts - others, then whine that the others should have
> behaved differently.
>
> Oh, and I have no respect for people who can't debate an issue without
> descending into obscenity. So, little boy, you lose my respect on all
> counts.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I was in my mid-sixties becore I hit one. A van was parked with front
bumper at the near line of the crosswalk. I crept forward, slancing
left for stop-sign jumpers and the car and walker met. (He walked into
me, actually, but i felt at fault.)

[Tom Sherman]

frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:45 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
>>> pedestrian or cyclist.
>> No, you can't.
>
> How many years of proof do you require? Not only have I never hit a
> pedestrian or cyclist, but I've never come nearly as close as you
> have....

For the use of the word "guarantee", driving an infinite number of years
without incident would suffice.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[N8N]

On Oct 10, 2:30 pm, Studemania <midl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 3:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > zeldabee wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > >>DYM wrote:
>
> > >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>news:4709BAD2.B1BA6EF4@hotmail.com:
>
> > >>>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>
> > >>>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>
> > >>>>Think of the customising potential.
>
> > >>>Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
> > >>>just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>
> > > Oh! I want my bike to sound like a choo-choo train!
>
> > >>It already exists:
>
> > >>http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>
> > >>I'm ashamed that I know this.
>
> > >>nate
>
> > >>(making noise the old fashioned way)
>
> > > Rats, it's expensive. I'd like to get one for my four-year-old. Come to
> > > think of it, he's *very* good at making car noises. If I ever get a Prius,
> > > I could drive with the window down, and have him do his thing. [Random
> > > cuteness: The other night, he was in a cardboard box "driving." Vrooom
> > > vrooom, etc. Then silence. I look over at him and he sighs and says,
> > > "Traffic."]
>
> > > Back on topic, though, a friend has a Prius, and complains about how quiet
> > > it is. She's always startling people when she drives on side streets.
>
> > Do what I did, get an old Studebaker, drop a 10.25:1 compression 289 in
> > it, and when ordering a new exhaust from Don Simmons, ask for the "loud
> > tone" mufflers :) ("Studemania" can probably attest to how sweet that
> > combo sounds, although he's never heard my particular car run.) If your
> > four year old is anything like I was at that age he'll have a stupid,
> > silly grin on his face every time you nail it (well, so will you for
> > that matter.)
>
> > Of course, gas mileage may suffer a little bit relative to a Prius...
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm gotta get you a copy of the BBC Video (I was slight involved with)
> and the mellow sound of the Avanti.
> I've brought it to IMs, but there hasn't been a VCR to play it.
>
> Like with most "loud" systems, it'sloud when you want it to be.

Funny you should mention an Avanti; JP had an Avanti with the factory
optional "quiet tone" exhaust with the crossover pipe but he installed
glasspacks as no mufflers came with the car; that was probably the
quietest, most civlized Avanti I'd ever driven. Under heavy
acceleration you could actually hear the intake noise (it was an R1)
much louder than the exhaust, with only a little hint of rumble. It
was an older guy that came to look at the car (and ended up buying it)
- he loved the car but said that his first order of business was to
"fix the exhaust" because it was "just too loud."

I can't imagine what he would have thought if it had had the standard
exhaust on it... (for non-Stude types, the factory Avanti exhaust was
a true dual with no crossover and a single glasspack on each pipe.)

nate

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 10, 8:21 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> > drivers and peds.
>
> If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
> their other use?

Perhaps you've confused nouns. I said "the world," not "highways."

Nonetheless, highways - whatever exact definition you choose for that
word - were _not_ built exclusively for motorists. Most predate motor
vehicles, so they were clearly built with other transportation in
mind. And all but a few allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse-
drawn vehicles. Even many freeways allow bicyclists.

- Frank Krygowski

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
<larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 10:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
><beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
>> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
>> drivers and peds.
>
>If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
>their other use?

Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.

The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice. The roads, streets
and highways used by bicyclists and pedestrians pre-date that by
centuries. Automobilists are interlopers on any road not built for
their exclusive use. Toll roads and some others prohibit
non-motorised traffic but bicyclists, equestrians and pedestrians are
free to travel most roads where you're likely to encounter them.

Now the scud-enslaved sprawl dwellers get their consumerist whims
catered too by the same capitalists as tell them what to dream. Happy
Motoring is finished. You're going to have to adapt and I ain't
talking bio-fuels. Your plushy carapace is really an albatross,
sucker.

As it currently stands, your driving ends up costing non-drivers
$2.10 for every dollar you spend on your habitual, inefficient and
unsustainable transportation choice.

We're getting sick of it. It's time you started paying your way.

I pay for your permanently brain damaged kids on life support after
you've tossed 'em around inside your rolling coffin. I pay for the
cops to bust you for the increased damage that you cause by your
excessive speeds, inattention or hostile and dangerous hissy fits. I
pay for the worldwide epidemic you inflict on us with your programmed
pursuit of a packaged plastic American dream you feel you deserve.

Then I have to listen to your obnoxiously puerile car alarms at all
hours when I personally care less than nought whether your precious
widdle car is vandalised into scrap before my eyes.

Hollwood, Madison Avenue, GMAC and NASCAR own your imagination, slag.
--
zk

[Mike Kruger]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
>>
>> If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
>> their other use?
>
> Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.
>
> The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice.

Yep. Ike was a general, and that's how he was convinced to go along with the
program.

There are even more uses that are less intentional than the ones Zoot
listed.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071011/full/news.2007.155.html

Moose use roads as a defence against bears.

(This is actually a pretty cool story. Sure, I posted it as a bit of a
joke -- but it helps make the point that societal structures are multi-use
structures in ways we often don't think of.)

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 10, 7:31 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
>
>
>
> <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
> >their other use?
>
> Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.
>
> The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice. ...

More accurately, a cold war artifice.

It's true that Ike was impressed with the German highway system (after
slogging across France), but really the idea that the US system would
be necessary for mass evacuation in case of nuclear attack was a
device to get average citizens to get on board. Nothing sells like
fear. Ask **** Ch@n#y about that.

Obviously, if there is need for mass evacuation, the highways would be
virtually useless. Which is proven every weekday at about 5 o'clock.

Robert

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 10, 7:35 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> Just because you have the right of way does
>
> > not mean that you're not an idiot.
>
> Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.
>
> Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
> of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
> Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
> walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
> the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
> country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
> brown and no orange at all.
>
> Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
> there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
> pool....
>
> (I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
> distributed.)

Shooting cross country skiers would be more sporting than shooting
elk.

Robert

[rmasoner@gmail.com]

On Oct 10, 7:35 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
Here was a cross-
> country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
> brown and no orange at all.

That might have been me. I don't hunt elk and generally don't pay
attention to when elk season is. I was hiking once through the woods
in Colorado wearing subdued tones a few years ago and heard *BLAM* not
far away. That's when I realized hunting season had opened. I also
looked in my pack for something bright and colorful.

RFM

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 14, 9:51 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> > limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else....
>
> That is an impossible standard for a motor vehicle operator to meet.
> Furthermore, it is also an impossible standard for a cyclist or pedestrian.
>
> Since you are an engineer, look up the LRFD method. Notice that the
> probability of failure can never be reduced to zero, no matter how high
> the resistance factors.

I suppose, then, that the word "guarantee" needs to be removed from
the English language. Right?

I think you should make that your personal project.

Get going, man! There's work to be done!

- Frank Krygowski

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 14, 9:58 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:45 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
> >>> pedestrian or cyclist.
> >> No, you can't.
>
> > How many years of proof do you require? Not only have I never hit a
> > pedestrian or cyclist, but I've never come nearly as close as you
> > have....
>
> For the use of the word "guarantee", driving an infinite number of years
> without incident would suffice.

Hmm. And silly me, I thought I'd have to avoid hitting cyclists and
pedestrians only until I died. That was my plan.

But if you like, I can extend my strategy for the next infinity of
reincarnations. No problem.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 14, 9:51 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
>>> limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else....
>> That is an impossible standard for a motor vehicle operator to meet.
>> Furthermore, it is also an impossible standard for a cyclist or pedestrian.
>>
>> Since you are an engineer, look up the LRFD method. Notice that the
>> probability of failure can never be reduced to zero, no matter how high
>> the resistance factors.
>
> I suppose, then, that the word "guarantee" needs to be removed from
> the English language. Right?
>
> I think you should make that your personal project.
>
> Get going, man! There's work to be done!

Even do any consulting on the side? Ever consider loss prevention and
liability? If so, you would not use the word guarantee in such a
cavalier manner.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[Tom Sherman]

r15757@aol.com aka Robert ??? wrote:
> On Oct 10, 7:35 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>> Just because you have the right of way does
>>
>>> not mean that you're not an idiot.
>> Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.
>>
>> Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
>> of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
>> Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
>> walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
>> the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
>> country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
>> brown and no orange at all.
>>
>> Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
>> there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
>> pool....
>>
>> (I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
>> distributed.)
>
> Shooting cross country skiers would be more sporting than shooting
> elk.

Is there a season for downhill skiers?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[websurf1@cox.net]

On Oct 14, 11:05 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Oct 10, 7:35 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> > Just because you have the right of way does
>
> > > not mean that you're not an idiot.
>
> > Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.
>
> > Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
> > of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
> > Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
> > walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
> > the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
> > country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
> > brown and no orange at all.
>
> > Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
> > there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
> > pool....
>
> > (I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
> > distributed.)
>
> Shooting cross country skiers would be more sporting than shooting
> elk.
>
> Robert

Perhaps. But not as good eating.

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:23:20 -0000, r15757@aol.com wrote:

>On Oct 10, 7:31 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
>>
>>
>>
>> <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
>> >their other use?
>>
>> Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.
>>
>> The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice. ...
>
>More accurately, a cold war artifice.
>
>It's true that Ike was impressed with the German highway system (after
>slogging across France), but really the idea that the US system would
>be necessary for mass evacuation in case of nuclear attack was a
>device to get average citizens to get on board. Nothing sells like
>fear. Ask **** Ch@n#y about that.
>
>Obviously, if there is need for mass evacuation, the highways would be
>virtually useless. Which is proven every weekday at about 5 o'clock.

I thought a major part of the plan was to facilitate the moving of
ICBMs around the country as a backup for the hardened silo strategy.

Swiss highways are designed to take-off and land fighter jets
discretely hangered in the adjacent picturesque barns.
--
zk

[rmasoner@gmail.com]

On Oct 15, 4:37 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:

> I thought a major part of the plan was to facilitate the moving of
> ICBMs around the country as a backup for the hardened silo strategy.

You might be thinking of the "Midgetman" ICBMs developed in the 80s
that were designed to be deployed to truck-mounted mobile launchers.
The Interstate system design predates Midgetman by about three
decades.

RFM

[Zoot Katz]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:03:14 -0000, rmasoner@gmail.com wrote:

>On Oct 15, 4:37 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought a major part of the plan was to facilitate the moving of
>> ICBMs around the country as a backup for the hardened silo strategy.
>
>You might be thinking of the "Midgetman" ICBMs developed in the 80s
>that were designed to be deployed to truck-mounted mobile launchers.
>The Interstate system design predates Midgetman by about three
>decades.
>
Since its inception in 1956, Interstate Highway lanes are the width
they are and the overpasses are set at their height so that they
enable passage of trucks carrying missiles.
--
zk

[Acquanera]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:13:52 -0700, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:03:14 -0000, rmasoner@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Oct 15, 4:37 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought a major part of the plan was to facilitate the moving of
>>> ICBMs around the country as a backup for the hardened silo strategy.
>>
>>You might be thinking of the "Midgetman" ICBMs developed in the 80s
>>that were designed to be deployed to truck-mounted mobile launchers.
>>The Interstate system design predates Midgetman by about three
>>decades.
>>
>Since its inception in 1956, Interstate Highway lanes are the width
>they are and the overpasses are set at their height so that they
>enable passage of trucks carrying missiles.

Yep - the width of the lanes, the strength of the foundation,
the clearance of overpasses - Ike had the interstate system
designed with the cold war in mind. One of the big bugaboos
during WW-2 was the crappy road system. It made it difficult
and slow to transport supplies and people from 'A' to 'B'.

If you look at the maps, you'll see that MOST highways don't go
across the country, but from city to city to city. They radiate
outwards from every big city pretty much straight towards the
next big city. Wagon routes. This meant that to get from NYC
to LA you had to follow a very "wiggly" path with a big delay
negotiating city traffic at every node along the route. The
quality of the roads was usually crap too. So, Ike had a vision ...