On Tue, 10 May 2022 07:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andrew, when you have people eating insects as their only viable form of protein, this is not a vibrant society. Ask John how many bowls of beetles he had this morning.

It's called anthropo-entomophagy, also known as eating insects. It's
quite common in many parts of the planet:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Entomophagy&tbm=isch>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bug+market&tbm=isch>

"Bugs You Can Eat"
<https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ss/slideshow-bugs-you-can-eat>

Some people believe that it might be the answer to world hunger:
"Will you be eating insects soon? | The Economist"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8-uCob-_XE>

There are recipies online:
<https://time.com/3830167/eating-bugs-insects-recipes/>

Amazon and various online stores can supply you with samples and
ingredients:
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=edible+insects>
<https://www.edibleinsects.com>
<https://www.thailandunique.com/edible-insects-bugs> (from Thailand)

I sometimes munch on roasted crickets, fried mealworms, fried
superworms and chocolate covered ants. My only complaints are about
prices and availability.

If you don't like eating insects and bugs, think of the alternatives,
such as eating food made from coal:
"Can Food Be Made From Coal?"
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/food/1984/05/27/can-food-be-made-from-coal/d80567ac-c656-4e0b-9f54-d505bd6d261a/>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 10:21:11 AM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:12:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
> >> really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
> >> driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
> >> regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.
> >
> > The main purpose of hard hats on open-air jobs is to make it easy to
> > tell the workmen from spectators who need to be shooed out of the
> > workzone.
> +1. A hard hat says "I belong here, I know the rules and follow them".
> Finer gradations are possible -- visitors get semi-disposable "bump
> caps", possibly in an odd color. Management have spotless hard hats.
> Actual workers have dingy looking hard hats, in the winter they've got
> ear warmers on them. Those that wish to stand out can procure
> OSHA-approved cowboy style hard hats.
>
> But why rag on hard hats when we've just seen most of the world forced
> to learn a new pointless performative PPE dance? Walk up to the door of
> the pub, drag a minimal face rag out of your pocket, put it on, walk to
> your table, take it off and put it in your pocket. Eat, drink, and be
> merry until you have to stand up and walk to the john, then put the
> nasty contaminated face rag on until you get back to the table. Sit
> down, take it off ...
>
> --

Agree. We should re-implement the policies used in the mid and later 2020. Stop all gatherings and close restaurants, bars, meeting places. That would help to stamp out the Covid epidemic. But USians value human life very little. So we are happy to tolerate a couple hundred thousand extra dead people each year. 350,831 Covid deaths in 2020 per the CDC. 323 deaths each day according to the CDC right now. That only amounts to 118,000 dead each year. A pittance.

These were the leading causes of death in the USA in 2020. Heart disease: 696,962, Cancer: 602,350, COVID-19: 350,831, Accidents (unintentional injuries): 200,955, Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 160,264, Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 152,657 (Tommy thinks Covid should be included in this category), Alzheimer’s disease: 134,242, Diabetes: 102,188, Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,544 (or maybe Tommy thinks this is Covid), Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 52,547. Not sure why CDC has 2020 deaths and not 2021 deaths. Government is not too up to date on their websites.

But Covid killing only 118,000 per year at the current rate. That would be only 7th best killer. We can ignore it now.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:07:30 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/10/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 5:14:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/9/2022 9:47 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 8:22:58 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 05:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (chomp)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmet failed even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are SO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the risk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%"..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wearing seat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> percent for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a scam.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> safety seats is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (numerical)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be half
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of adequate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other half
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> taking risks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NHTSA that there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> major accident
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> risk of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notes drivel:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not dying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dinner will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
> >>>>>>>>>>>> without a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "bosses" when they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that is up
> >>>>>>>>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which probably
> >>>>>>>>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
> >>>>>>>>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
> >>>>>>>>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
> >>>>>>>>>>> over to watch for a bit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
> >>>>>>>>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
> >>>>>>>>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
> >>>>>>>>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
> >>>>>>>>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
> >>>>>>>>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
> >>>>>>>>>>> while driving or exiting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
> >>>>>>>>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
> >>>>>>>>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
> >>>>>>>>>> motor vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
> >>>>>>>>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
> >>>>>>>>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
> >>>>>>>>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
> >>>>>>>>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
> >>>>>>>>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
> >>>>>>>>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
> >>>>>>>>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
> >>>>>>>>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
> >>>>>>>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
> >>>>>>>> your life:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.
> >>>>>>> "lives in a dictatorship"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> pot, kettle, black.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But we can do something about it and this November will. Whereas, John lives in a dictatorship because it is all he has ever known in the military and likely afterwards,.
> >>>> Your comment simply demonstrates how little you know about what you
> >>>> are talking about. Thailand has a democratic - elected by the
> >>>> population - since 2019.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> John B.
> >>>
> >>> Not that Tommy is right (Ha Ha Ho Ho, had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard), but it seems Thailand is pretty new to the democracy game if they started it in 2019. Not that they can't learn from all the mistakes committed over hundreds of years by the other democracies. And do it right from the beginning.
> >>>
> >> That's not true, goes back to before The Great Pacific War.
> > Thailand has a Constitution change every couple of years. What the hoi palloi do is of no interest to the monarch and the monarchy. So you might say that the "Democracy" in Thailand serves at the behest of the monarch. When you have people on the very edge of starvation, exactly what do they care about democracy?
> >
> Are we discussing Thailand or DPRK?
>
> Thailand has a healthy economy, low poverty rate, a
> Constitutional monarchy (as England & others) and a dynamic
> if not at times frenetic political discourse.
>
> The cherry on top is that Thailand remains the only country
> on earth never colonized. Perfect? No. Hellhole? Not at all.
>
> If you want to pick on a failed system for systemic failure,
> I suggest the world's only ever Stalinist dynasty.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 10 May 2022 19:15:42 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/10/2022 4:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I don't know about "the land of the free and the brave" but here a
>> very large percentage of crimes are "solved" by cameras. Every gold
>> shop, for instance, has surveillance cameras and just about every
>> "gold shop robbery" reported in the news comes complete with a photo
>> of the robber. And speed cameras seem to be seen as simply an
>> extension of that.
>>
>> My wife recently got a ticket for an illegal left turn, complete with
>> photo showing the car and number plate. No cops, no arrest, just a
>> notice in the mailbox to come in and pay the fine.
>>
>> She was sort of peering at the notice with a frown on her face and I
>> asked her "what's the matter" and she replied, "I can't remember where
>> this was". No loud screams about unjust treatment, corrupt cops or
>> anything , just "well, I got caught" :-)
>
>Speed cameras are illegal in many states, including California, though a
>proposed bill would all them to be installed, on a test basis, in some
>cities. Red light cameras are legal and are used in some places, but
>they are very expensive to maintain so they are used sparingly.

The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 21:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/10/2022 6:39 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2022 10:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/9/2022 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No Thailand was never colonized, largely due to the King being very
>>>> adroit in balancing relations with various countries and the fact that
>>>> Siam was perfectly located to be a buffer state between colonies
>>>> controlled by the British and the French.
>>>>
>>>> He also freed the slaves, in 1874, said to be a result of observing
>>>> the damage done by the U.S.'s civil War.
>>>
>>> I've wondered about this before, but: Do present day Thais spend time
>>> condemning the country's historical figures for not abolishing slavery
>>> in, say, the 1500s?
>>
>> I've never seen or heard any comments about slavery at all :-)
>
>That's interesting.

Well, it was abolished more then 100 years ago and the "slaves" were
not different from everyone else in color, language or creed.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 19:59:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 May 2022 07:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Andrew, when you have people eating insects as their only viable form of protein, this is not a vibrant society. Ask John how many bowls of beetles he had this morning.
>
>It's called anthropo-entomophagy, also known as eating insects. It's
>quite common in many parts of the planet:
><https://www.google.com/search?q=Entomophagy&tbm=isch>
><https://www.google.com/search?q=bug+market&tbm=isch>
>
>"Bugs You Can Eat"
><https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ss/slideshow-bugs-you-can-eat>
>
>Some people believe that it might be the answer to world hunger:
>"Will you be eating insects soon? | The Economist"
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8-uCob-_XE>
>
>There are recipies online:
><https://time.com/3830167/eating-bugs-insects-recipes/>
>
>Amazon and various online stores can supply you with samples and
>ingredients:
><https://www.amazon.com/s?k=edible+insects>
><https://www.edibleinsects.com>
><https://www.thailandunique.com/edible-insects-bugs> (from Thailand)
>
>I sometimes munch on roasted crickets, fried mealworms, fried
>superworms and chocolate covered ants. My only complaints are about
>prices and availability.
>
>If you don't like eating insects and bugs, think of the alternatives,
>such as eating food made from coal:
>"Can Food Be Made From Coal?"
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/food/1984/05/27/can-food-be-made-from-coal/d80567ac-c656-4e0b-9f54-d505bd6d261a/>

Well, look at lobsters and scorpions.

They are both "Arthropods" and other then size look very much the
same. Neither has an interior skeleton but uses a "shell" to support
their body. They both have two large front "legs" with large claws for
holding and tearing and smaller legs to the rear for propulsion. They
both propagate by laying eggs, and they both are territorial and
prefer the dark.

What's not to like?
(well, except that one is something like $20/lb :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 21:52:19 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:07:30 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/10/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 5:14:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 5/9/2022 9:47 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 8:22:58 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 05:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (chomp)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmet failed even
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are SO
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the risk
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wearing seat
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> percent for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a scam.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> safety seats is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (numerical)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they were
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping them
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be half
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of adequate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other half
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> taking risks
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NHTSA that there
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> major accident
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> risk of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notes drivel:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not dying
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Current
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dinner will be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> without a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "bosses" when they
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that is up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which probably
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>> >>>>>>>>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>> >>>>>>>>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>> >>>>>>>>>>> over to watch for a bit.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>> >>>>>>>>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>> >>>>>>>>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>> >>>>>>>>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>> >>>>>>>>>>> while driving or exiting.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>> >>>>>>>>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>> >>>>>>>>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>> >>>>>>>>>> motor vehicles.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>> >>>>>>>>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>> >>>>>>>>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>> >>>>>>>>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>> >>>>>>>>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>> >>>>>>>>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>> >>>>>>>>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>> >>>>>>>>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>> >>>>>>>>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>> >>>>>>>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>> >>>>>>>> your life:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.
>> >>>>>>> "lives in a dictatorship"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> pot, kettle, black.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But we can do something about it and this November will. Whereas, John lives in a dictatorship because it is all he has ever known in the military and likely afterwards,.
>> >>>> Your comment simply demonstrates how little you know about what you
>> >>>> are talking about. Thailand has a democratic - elected by the
>> >>>> population - since 2019.
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John B.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not that Tommy is right (Ha Ha Ho Ho, had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard), but it seems Thailand is pretty new to the democracy game if they started it in 2019. Not that they can't learn from all the mistakes committed over hundreds of years by the other democracies. And do it right from the beginning.
>> >>>
>> >> That's not true, goes back to before The Great Pacific War.
>> > Thailand has a Constitution change every couple of years. What the hoi palloi do is of no interest to the monarch and the monarchy. So you might say that the "Democracy" in Thailand serves at the behest of the monarch. When you have people on the very edge of starvation, exactly what do they care about democracy?
>> >
>> Are we discussing Thailand or DPRK?
>>
>> Thailand has a healthy economy, low poverty rate, a
>> Constitutional monarchy (as England & others) and a dynamic
>> if not at times frenetic political discourse.
>>
>> The cherry on top is that Thailand remains the only country
>> on earth never colonized. Perfect? No. Hellhole? Not at all.
>>
>> If you want to pick on a failed system for systemic failure,
>> I suggest the world's only ever Stalinist dynasty.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>
>Lest anyone come to the conclusion that Thailand is some democratic beacon of paradise, you might want to peruse this piece by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Security
>
>Some interesting parts of the article:
>
>Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with the monarch as the head of state. While almost every government since 1932 has accepted constitutional authority, the country has had 17 constitutions, the most recent drafted in 2007.
>
>In May 2014, following a military coup, the 2007 constitution was suspended (except provisions pertaining to the monarchy), and a council of military leaders took power. That council appointed a 200-member single-chamber interim legislature in late July. The leader of the council was named interim prime minister in late August.
>
>Thailand had a sophisticated legal system before Western influences led it to adopt a system of jurisprudence based on European models...... As part of the modernizing reforms of the late 19th century, a new legal system was developed, based primarily on the French (Napoleonic) model...... A significant aspect of the legal reforms of the late 19th century was the creation of an independent judiciary. This ideal proved difficult to realize, however, because of interference by politicians and the continuing presence of corruption within the system.
>
>Prior to the 1980s the political process in Thailand was usually controlled by elites whose power was derived from the military. However, the idea of parliamentary government, first enshrined in the constitutions of the 1930s, never totally disappeared.
>
>Elected parliaments began to gain influence over the political process in the 1980s, and since 1992 governmental power has been exercised through an elected National Assembly, except for a 15-month period in 2006–07, when the military took control.
>
>The role the military has played in the Thai political process reflects an often enunciated principle by leaders of the armed forces that only a well-disciplined military can preserve public order and protect the monarchy.
>
>The army has played a dominant role in Thailand’s politics, especially since the end of absolute rule by the monarch in 1932; it has often taken power through a coup. Strong public protests against a coup in 1991, the resignation following royal intervention of a government headed by a general in 1992, and the subsequent moves to ensure democratic government that culminated in the constitution of 1997 initially seemed to have ended army dominance of the Thai political system. However, the military coup of September 2006 proved that the pattern was indeed persistent.
>
>John, were you in Thailand when they had their recent military coups? The ones in 2014 and 2006-2007 and 1991-1992? Did they have lots and lots and lots and lots of military coups before that too? All the way back to 1932 when they setup their constitutional monarchy.
>
Yes, I first came to Thailand in 1970.

On 5/10/2022 11:52 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:07:30 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/10/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 5:14:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2022 9:47 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 8:22:58 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 05:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wearing seat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> percent for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety seats is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (numerical)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be half
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of adequate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other half
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking risks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not dying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dinner will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bosses" when they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over to watch for a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while driving or exiting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>>>>>>>>>>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>>>>>>>>>>>> motor vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>>>>>>>>>>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>>>>>>>>>>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>>>>>>>>>>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>>>>>>>>>>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>>>>>>>>>>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>>>>>>>>>>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>>>>>>>>>>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>>>>>>>>>>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>>>>>>>>>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>>>>>>>>>> your life:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.
>>>>>>>>> "lives in a dictatorship"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pot, kettle, black.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we can do something about it and this November will. Whereas, John lives in a dictatorship because it is all he has ever known in the military and likely afterwards,.
>>>>>> Your comment simply demonstrates how little you know about what you
>>>>>> are talking about. Thailand has a democratic - elected by the
>>>>>> population - since 2019.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that Tommy is right (Ha Ha Ho Ho, had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard), but it seems Thailand is pretty new to the democracy game if they started it in 2019. Not that they can't learn from all the mistakes committed over hundreds of years by the other democracies. And do it right from the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>> That's not true, goes back to before The Great Pacific War.
>>> Thailand has a Constitution change every couple of years. What the hoi palloi do is of no interest to the monarch and the monarchy. So you might say that the "Democracy" in Thailand serves at the behest of the monarch. When you have people on the very edge of starvation, exactly what do they care about democracy?
>>>
>> Are we discussing Thailand or DPRK?
>>
>> Thailand has a healthy economy, low poverty rate, a
>> Constitutional monarchy (as England & others) and a dynamic
>> if not at times frenetic political discourse.
>>
>> The cherry on top is that Thailand remains the only country
>> on earth never colonized. Perfect? No. Hellhole? Not at all.
>>
>> If you want to pick on a failed system for systemic failure,
>> I suggest the world's only ever Stalinist dynasty.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>
> Lest anyone come to the conclusion that Thailand is some democratic beacon of paradise, you might want to peruse this piece by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Security
>
> Some interesting parts of the article:
>
> Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with the monarch as the head of state. While almost every government since 1932 has accepted constitutional authority, the country has had 17 constitutions, the most recent drafted in 2007.
>
> In May 2014, following a military coup, the 2007 constitution was suspended (except provisions pertaining to the monarchy), and a council of military leaders took power. That council appointed a 200-member single-chamber interim legislature in late July. The leader of the council was named interim prime minister in late August.
>
> Thailand had a sophisticated legal system before Western influences led it to adopt a system of jurisprudence based on European models...... As part of the modernizing reforms of the late 19th century, a new legal system was developed, based primarily on the French (Napoleonic) model...... A significant aspect of the legal reforms of the late 19th century was the creation of an independent judiciary. This ideal proved difficult to realize, however, because of interference by politicians and the continuing presence of corruption within the system.
>
> Prior to the 1980s the political process in Thailand was usually controlled by elites whose power was derived from the military. However, the idea of parliamentary government, first enshrined in the constitutions of the 1930s, never totally disappeared.
>
> Elected parliaments began to gain influence over the political process in the 1980s, and since 1992 governmental power has been exercised through an elected National Assembly, except for a 15-month period in 2006–07, when the military took control.
>
> The role the military has played in the Thai political process reflects an often enunciated principle by leaders of the armed forces that only a well-disciplined military can preserve public order and protect the monarchy.
>
> The army has played a dominant role in Thailand’s politics, especially since the end of absolute rule by the monarch in 1932; it has often taken power through a coup. Strong public protests against a coup in 1991, the resignation following royal intervention of a government headed by a general in 1992, and the subsequent moves to ensure democratic government that culminated in the constitution of 1997 initially seemed to have ended army dominance of the Thai political system. However, the military coup of September 2006 proved that the pattern was indeed persistent.
>
> John, were you in Thailand when they had their recent military coups? The ones in 2014 and 2006-2007 and 1991-1992? Did they have lots and lots and lots and lots of military coups before that too? All the way back to 1932 when they setup their constitutional monarchy.
>
> I don't know. It seems a bit hard to think of Thailand as a democracy when they have a military coup seizing power every 5-10-15 years or so. But I guess they have more years of democracy than military coups. So by percentage time it qualifies as a democracy I guess. Up until the military decides to seize power again.
>

On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/

The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
Court.

Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>
> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
> do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
> constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
> by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
> Court.

Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into this "The
right to confront witnesses"?

Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the USA?

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:44:23 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
> > On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
> >> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
> >> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
> >> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
> >
> > The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
> > do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
> > constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
> > by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
> > Court.
> Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into this "The
> right to confront witnesses"?
>
> Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the USA?
Traffic tickets are normally solved in traffic court but over the years many blacks have taken these things into misdemeanor courts claiming discrimination. This would normally not work in ALL prior administrations sometimes because of discrimination but mostly because a radar enhanced speeding ticket is plainly not discriminatory unless you can prove that one class of citizen isn't given traffic tickets and others have. That is nearly impossible..

On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
>>> rather amusing
>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
>>> cameras, which
>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
>>> Never!
>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>
>>
>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
>> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
>> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
>> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
>> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>> Court.
>
> Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
> this "The right to confront witnesses"?
>
> Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
> USA?

Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
administrative matter (such as parking overtime).

Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
system with incrementally more draconian punishments
escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
driving without a license...

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

On Wed, 11 May 2022 08:43:35 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>
>The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
>do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
>constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
>by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>Court.

The logic is irrefutable.... a photo isn't constitutional? You people
have, as the saying goes, "gone right round the bend".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/11/2022 3:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 08:43:35 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>
>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
>> do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
>> constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
>> by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>> Court.
>
> The logic is irrefutable.... a photo isn't constitutional? You people
> have, as the saying goes, "gone right round the bend".

"...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..."

You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you like and
don't like (despite the best efforts of some right-wingers to do just that).

If someone were actually watching the live video then perhaps it would
be a different story than someone watching a recording.

Even the pilot program in San Jose will not be issuing traffic citations
and they are not speed cameras. They could be used in the future as red
light cameras
<https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/dangerous-intersection-in-san-jose-gets-camera/>.

In any case, using cameras to enforce against vehicle incursions into
bicycle lanes is a lot different than installing red light cameras.
You'd need thousands of cameras because of the length of the bicycle
lanes. Protected bicycle lanes, on the major bicycle routes, are a much
more cost-effective solution.

On one major route in my city the conversion from paint to concrete has
effectively solved the problem of illegal parking in the bicycle lanes.
The cost was minimal. <https://goo.gl/maps/zUSugqtMo5sqwboj9>. We've
also had some funding from a big fruit company to help with improving
the bicycle infrastructure.

On unprotected bicycle lanes there is still a problem with illegal
vehicle intrusion but our sheriff's deputies are very good at quickly
responding when a cyclists calls in a violation.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
> >> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
> >>> rather amusing
> >>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
> >>> cameras, which
> >>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
> >>> Never!
> >>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
> >>
> >>
> >> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
> >> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
> >> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
> >> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
> >> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
> >> Court.
> >
> > Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
> > this "The right to confront witnesses"?
> >
> > Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
> > USA?
> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).

Nonsense. See https://www.foleygriffin.com/blog/2021/april/is-a-traffic-ticket-a-criminal-offense-/

"Most traffic tickets are not criminal offenses. Instead, the majority of traffic tickets are classified as infractions, also known as violations and civil infractions. Although these acts or omissions are prohibited by law, they are not considered crimes.

Common traffic infractions include:

Going 5 or 10 mph over the speed limit
Rolling a stop sign
Forgetting to use your blinker
Failing to yield to pedestrians
Operating a vehicle without proper lighting
Not wearing your seatbelt

If you get a traffic ticket for one of these infractions, you may have to go to traffic court. However, traffic court is different than criminal court, and the consequences are much different. Most traffic infractions do not result in jail time, but you may have to pay fines, receive points on your license, or go to traffic school."

>
> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
> driving without a license...

So what should happen to a person who drives so badly and violates so many traffic laws
that he accumulates so many "points" as to temporarily lose his driver's license? Maybe give
him a gold star and a bunch of flowers? Or wait - let him mount a siren on his car so everyone
gets out of his way and lets him drive as fast as he likes!

Sheesh.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 11 May 2022 07:58:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

much snipped...

>>
>>
>> Lest anyone come to the conclusion that Thailand is some democratic beacon of paradise, you might want to peruse this piece by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Security
>>
>> Some interesting parts of the article:
>>
>> Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with the monarch as the head of state. While almost every government since 1932 has accepted constitutional authority, the country has had 17 constitutions, the most recent drafted in 2007.
>>
>> In May 2014, following a military coup, the 2007 constitution was suspended (except provisions pertaining to the monarchy), and a council of military leaders took power. That council appointed a 200-member single-chamber interim legislature in late July. The leader of the council was named interim prime minister in late August.
>>
>> Thailand had a sophisticated legal system before Western influences led it to adopt a system of jurisprudence based on European models...... As part of the modernizing reforms of the late 19th century, a new legal system was developed, based primarily on the French (Napoleonic) model...... A significant aspect of the legal reforms of the late 19th century was the creation of an independent judiciary. This ideal proved difficult to realize, however, because of interference by politicians and the continuing presence of corruption within the system.
>>
>> Prior to the 1980s the political process in Thailand was usually controlled by elites whose power was derived from the military. However, the idea of parliamentary government, first enshrined in the constitutions of the 1930s, never totally disappeared.
>>
>> Elected parliaments began to gain influence over the political process in the 1980s, and since 1992 governmental power has been exercised through an elected National Assembly, except for a 15-month period in 2006–07, when the military took control.
>>
>> The role the military has played in the Thai political process reflects an often enunciated principle by leaders of the armed forces that only a well-disciplined military can preserve public order and protect the monarchy.
>>
>> The army has played a dominant role in Thailand’s politics, especially since the end of absolute rule by the monarch in 1932; it has often taken power through a coup. Strong public protests against a coup in 1991, the resignation following royal intervention of a government headed by a general in 1992, and the subsequent moves to ensure democratic government that culminated in the constitution of 1997 initially seemed to have ended army dominance of the Thai political system. However, the military coup of September 2006 proved that the pattern was indeed persistent.
>>
>> John, were you in Thailand when they had their recent military coups? The ones in 2014 and 2006-2007 and 1991-1992? Did they have lots and lots and lots and lots of military coups before that too? All the way back to 1932 when they setup their constitutional monarchy.
>>
>> I don't know. It seems a bit hard to think of Thailand as a democracy when they have a military coup seizing power every 5-10-15 years or so. But I guess they have more years of democracy than military coups. So by percentage time it qualifies as a democracy I guess. Up until the military decides to seize power again.
>>
>
>All that's roughly correct but in their region Thailand is
>relatively prosperous and stable. As Mr Slocumb reports
>daily life for Thais is acceptable and various military
>regimes have functioned as technical administrators more
>than 'oppressors of the citizenry'. Military regimes run the
>gamut from competent to disaster, from order to kleptocracy,
>from restoration to ad hoc and even gratuitous savagery.
>Merely being a military administration doesn't necessarily
>say much about the health of society and the economy (see
>also US occupation of Japan for example).

I think part of the Thai rather lackadaisical attitude toward the
various government we've had is that the governments don't seem to
change the laws in any significant manner, regarding the way the
general population is treated.

The pro/anti abortion laws in the U.S. for example. The news has it
that everyone is leaping up and down and waving their arms and
screaming pro and con in the U.S., while in Thailand (my wife tells
me) the law has been NO abortions except in the case of rape or
medical emergency, as long as she can remember and there has been no
movement to allow it.

And, the police do, from time to time, shoot people and unlike the
U.S. I can't remember any loud outcries about police brutality.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 3:09:37 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
> >> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
> >>> rather amusing
> >>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
> >>> cameras, which
> >>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
> >>> Never!
> >>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
> >>
> >>
> >> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
> >> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
> >> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
> >> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
> >> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
> >> Court.
> >
> > Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
> > this "The right to confront witnesses"?
> >
> > Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
> > USA?
> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).
>
> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
> driving without a license...

Now you've done it. The loathsome 5 will all of one voice declare how illegal traffic tickets are.

On Wed, 11 May 2022 16:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> > Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
>> >> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
>> >>> rather amusing
>> >>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
>> >>> cameras, which
>> >>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
>> >>> Never!
>> >>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
>> >> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
>> >> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
>> >> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
>> >> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>> >> Court.
>> >
>> > Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
>> > this "The right to confront witnesses"?
>> >
>> > Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
>> > USA?
>> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
>> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
>> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).
>
>Nonsense. See https://www.foleygriffin.com/blog/2021/april/is-a-traffic-ticket-a-criminal-offense-/
>
>"Most traffic tickets are not criminal offenses. Instead, the majority of traffic tickets are classified as infractions, also known as violations and civil infractions. Although these acts or omissions are prohibited by law, they are not considered crimes.
>
>Common traffic infractions include:
>
> Going 5 or 10 mph over the speed limit
> Rolling a stop sign
> Forgetting to use your blinker
> Failing to yield to pedestrians
> Operating a vehicle without proper lighting
> Not wearing your seatbelt
>
>If you get a traffic ticket for one of these infractions, you may have to go to traffic court. However, traffic court is different than criminal court, and the consequences are much different. Most traffic infractions do not result in jail time, but you may have to pay fines, receive points on your license, or go to traffic school."
>
>>
>> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
>> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
>> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
>> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
>> driving without a license...
>
>So what should happen to a person who drives so badly and violates so many traffic laws
>that he accumulates so many "points" as to temporarily lose his driver's license? Maybe give
>him a gold star and a bunch of flowers? Or wait - let him mount a siren on his car so everyone
>gets out of his way and lets him drive as fast as he likes!
>
>Sheesh.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Well, one assumes that traffic laws were promulgated for a reason.
Perhaps in an effort to reduce traffic "accidents".

If this hypothesis is correct then the laws should be enforced...
shouldn't they? Or is there some logic in making laws that are
intended not to be enforced?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/11/2022 5:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 08:43:35 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>
>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
>> do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
>> constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
>> by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>> Court.
>
> The logic is irrefutable.... a photo isn't constitutional? You people
> have, as the saying goes, "gone right round the bend".
>

You were a US citizen once, yes?
6th Amendment.

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

On 5/11/2022 6:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
>>>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
>>>>> rather amusing
>>>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
>>>>> cameras, which
>>>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
>>>>> Never!
>>>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
>>>> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
>>>> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
>>>> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
>>>> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>>>> Court.
>>>
>>> Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
>>> this "The right to confront witnesses"?
>>>
>>> Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
>>> USA?
>> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
>> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
>> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).
>
> Nonsense. See https://www.foleygriffin.com/blog/2021/april/is-a-traffic-ticket-a-criminal-offense-/
>
> "Most traffic tickets are not criminal offenses. Instead, the majority of traffic tickets are classified as infractions, also known as violations and civil infractions. Although these acts or omissions are prohibited by law, they are not considered crimes.
>
> Common traffic infractions include:
>
> Going 5 or 10 mph over the speed limit
> Rolling a stop sign
> Forgetting to use your blinker
> Failing to yield to pedestrians
> Operating a vehicle without proper lighting
> Not wearing your seatbelt
>
> If you get a traffic ticket for one of these infractions, you may have to go to traffic court. However, traffic court is different than criminal court, and the consequences are much different. Most traffic infractions do not result in jail time, but you may have to pay fines, receive points on your license, or go to traffic school."
>
>>
>> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
>> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
>> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
>> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
>> driving without a license...
>
> So what should happen to a person who drives so badly and violates so many traffic laws
> that he accumulates so many "points" as to temporarily lose his driver's license? Maybe give
> him a gold star and a bunch of flowers? Or wait - let him mount a siren on his car so everyone
> gets out of his way and lets him drive as fast as he likes!
>
> Sheesh.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
>
>

I was describing, not advocating.

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

On 5/11/2022 7:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 07:58:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>
> much snipped...
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lest anyone come to the conclusion that Thailand is some democratic beacon of paradise, you might want to peruse this piece by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Security
>>>
>>> Some interesting parts of the article:
>>>
>>> Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with the monarch as the head of state. While almost every government since 1932 has accepted constitutional authority, the country has had 17 constitutions, the most recent drafted in 2007.
>>>
>>> In May 2014, following a military coup, the 2007 constitution was suspended (except provisions pertaining to the monarchy), and a council of military leaders took power. That council appointed a 200-member single-chamber interim legislature in late July. The leader of the council was named interim prime minister in late August.
>>>
>>> Thailand had a sophisticated legal system before Western influences led it to adopt a system of jurisprudence based on European models...... As part of the modernizing reforms of the late 19th century, a new legal system was developed, based primarily on the French (Napoleonic) model...... A significant aspect of the legal reforms of the late 19th century was the creation of an independent judiciary. This ideal proved difficult to realize, however, because of interference by politicians and the continuing presence of corruption within the system.
>>>
>>> Prior to the 1980s the political process in Thailand was usually controlled by elites whose power was derived from the military. However, the idea of parliamentary government, first enshrined in the constitutions of the 1930s, never totally disappeared.
>>>
>>> Elected parliaments began to gain influence over the political process in the 1980s, and since 1992 governmental power has been exercised through an elected National Assembly, except for a 15-month period in 2006–07, when the military took control.
>>>
>>> The role the military has played in the Thai political process reflects an often enunciated principle by leaders of the armed forces that only a well-disciplined military can preserve public order and protect the monarchy.
>>>
>>> The army has played a dominant role in Thailand’s politics, especially since the end of absolute rule by the monarch in 1932; it has often taken power through a coup. Strong public protests against a coup in 1991, the resignation following royal intervention of a government headed by a general in 1992, and the subsequent moves to ensure democratic government that culminated in the constitution of 1997 initially seemed to have ended army dominance of the Thai political system. However, the military coup of September 2006 proved that the pattern was indeed persistent.
>>>
>>> John, were you in Thailand when they had their recent military coups? The ones in 2014 and 2006-2007 and 1991-1992? Did they have lots and lots and lots and lots of military coups before that too? All the way back to 1932 when they setup their constitutional monarchy.
>>>
>>> I don't know. It seems a bit hard to think of Thailand as a democracy when they have a military coup seizing power every 5-10-15 years or so. But I guess they have more years of democracy than military coups. So by percentage time it qualifies as a democracy I guess. Up until the military decides to seize power again.
>>>
>>
>> All that's roughly correct but in their region Thailand is
>> relatively prosperous and stable. As Mr Slocumb reports
>> daily life for Thais is acceptable and various military
>> regimes have functioned as technical administrators more
>> than 'oppressors of the citizenry'. Military regimes run the
>> gamut from competent to disaster, from order to kleptocracy,
>>from restoration to ad hoc and even gratuitous savagery.
>> Merely being a military administration doesn't necessarily
>> say much about the health of society and the economy (see
>> also US occupation of Japan for example).
>
> I think part of the Thai rather lackadaisical attitude toward the
> various government we've had is that the governments don't seem to
> change the laws in any significant manner, regarding the way the
> general population is treated.
>
> The pro/anti abortion laws in the U.S. for example. The news has it
> that everyone is leaping up and down and waving their arms and
> screaming pro and con in the U.S., while in Thailand (my wife tells
> me) the law has been NO abortions except in the case of rape or
> medical emergency, as long as she can remember and there has been no
> movement to allow it.
>
> And, the police do, from time to time, shoot people and unlike the
> U.S. I can't remember any loud outcries about police brutality.
>

There are a lot of ways to score 'civility'. Here's one.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/THA/thailand/murder-homicide-rate

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate

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

On Wed, 11 May 2022 19:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/11/2022 5:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 08:43:35 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank, rather amusing
>>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance cameras, which
>>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never! Never!
>>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>>
>>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places has nothing to
>>> do with surveillance. It has to do with the sixth amendment to the U.S.
>>> constitution. Oddly, red light cameras have been declared constitutional
>>> by some courts, and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>>> Court.
>>
>> The logic is irrefutable.... a photo isn't constitutional? You people
>> have, as the saying goes, "gone right round the bend".
>>
>
>You were a US citizen once, yes?
>6th Amendment.

Still am.

The right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of
counsel for his defense.

But, if I am not mistaken the inanimate results of a test... for blood
alcohol or narcotics is admissible. Evidence, such as burglar tools
and weapons are admissible. And I believe, even more recently messages
posted on the Internet.

Why so then why not then photos of the crime in progress?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/11/2022 8:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 3:09:37 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
>>>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
>>>>> rather amusing
>>>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
>>>>> cameras, which
>>>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
>>>>> Never!
>>>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
>>>> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
>>>> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
>>>> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
>>>> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>>>> Court.
>>>
>>> Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
>>> this "The right to confront witnesses"?
>>>
>>> Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
>>> USA?
>> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
>> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
>> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).
>>
>> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
>> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
>> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
>> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
>> driving without a license...
>
> Now you've done it. The loathsome 5 will all of one voice declare how illegal traffic tickets are.

Once again, Tom demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension by
getting things precisely backwards.

Wow.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 11 May 2022 22:02:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/11/2022 8:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 3:09:37 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>> Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
>>>>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
>>>>>> rather amusing
>>>>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
>>>>>> cameras, which
>>>>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
>>>>>> Never!
>>>>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
>>>>> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
>>>>> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
>>>>> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
>>>>> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>>>>> Court.
>>>>
>>>> Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
>>>> this "The right to confront witnesses"?
>>>>
>>>> Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
>>>> USA?
>>> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
>>> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
>>> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).
>>>
>>> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
>>> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
>>> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
>>> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
>>> driving without a license...
>>
>> Now you've done it. The loathsome 5 will all of one voice declare how illegal traffic tickets are.
>
>Once again, Tom demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension by
>getting things precisely backwards.
>
>Wow.

With Tom... and his cohort (of 1)... I suspect it is a matter of being
noticed. They post some utterly ridiculous statement and when someone
replies to their idiocy they sit there, smugly thinking, "Hey! I must
be somebody. Look! Someone noticed me!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 12.05.2022 um 02:18 schrieb John B.:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 16:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2022 11:44 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>> Am 11.05.2022 um 17:43 schrieb sms:
>>>>> On 5/11/2022 12:52 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The logic for not having speed cameras is, to be frank,
>>>>>> rather amusing
>>>>>> in that Los Angeles has some 25,000 CCTV surveillance
>>>>>> cameras, which
>>>>>> is apparently O.K. but speed cameras? Oh Horrors! Never!
>>>>>> Never!
>>>>>> https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason that speed cameras are banned in many places
>>>>> has nothing to do with surveillance. It has to do with the
>>>>> sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Oddly, red light
>>>>> cameras have been declared constitutional by some courts,
>>>>> and it's never been appealed all the way to the Supreme
>>>>> Court.
>>>>
>>>> Baffled: in what sense does the sixth amendment come into
>>>> this "The right to confront witnesses"?
>>>>
>>>> Is a speeding ticket really a "criminal prosecution" in the
>>>> USA?
>>> Of course. It's a moving violation on public roads as
>>> opposed to a civil matter (tort between citizens) or an
>>> administrative matter (such as parking overtime).
>>
>> Nonsense. See https://www.foleygriffin.com/blog/2021/april/is-a-traffic-ticket-a-criminal-offense-/
>>
>> "Most traffic tickets are not criminal offenses. Instead, the majority of traffic tickets are classified as infractions, also known as violations and civil infractions. Although these acts or omissions are prohibited by law, they are not considered crimes.
>>
>> Common traffic infractions include:
>>
>> Going 5 or 10 mph over the speed limit
>> Rolling a stop sign
>> Forgetting to use your blinker
>> Failing to yield to pedestrians
>> Operating a vehicle without proper lighting
>> Not wearing your seatbelt
>>
>> If you get a traffic ticket for one of these infractions, you may have to go to traffic court. However, traffic court is different than criminal court, and the consequences are much different. Most traffic infractions do not result in jail time, but you may have to pay fines, receive points on your license, or go to traffic school."
>>
>>>
>>> Oh by the way if it were merely a moderate fine people
>>> wouldn't fight them so tenaciously. States have a 'points'
>>> system with incrementally more draconian punishments
>>> escalating to loss of license and then imprisonment for
>>> driving without a license...
>>
>> So what should happen to a person who drives so badly and violates so many traffic laws
>> that he accumulates so many "points" as to temporarily lose his driver's license? Maybe give
>> him a gold star and a bunch of flowers? Or wait - let him mount a siren on his car so everyone
>> gets out of his way and lets him drive as fast as he likes!
>>
>> Sheesh.
>
> Well, one assumes that traffic laws were promulgated for a reason.
> Perhaps in an effort to reduce traffic "accidents".
>
> If this hypothesis is correct then the laws should be enforced...
> shouldn't they? Or is there some logic in making laws that are
> intended not to be enforced?

Criminal prosecution is not and cannot be the only way for law
enforcement. As AMuzi mentions, administrative matters (parking
overtime) and minor traffic infringements can be enforced by law as well.

In Europe (Napoleonic Law), we have the escalation path
1) (administrative) fixed penalty fine
- accept and pay or reject giving reason ("I did not drive", "it was an
emergency")
2) written proceedings to evaluate the fine
- accept and pay (with increased costs) or put to administrative court
3) court proceeedings

In several European countries, payment in step 1 within a few weeks
reduces the penalty by a sigificant amount