On Mon, 09 May 2022 16:13:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/9/2022 1:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2022 11:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/2022 7:56 AM, Tom Kunich 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,.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>>>>
>>>>> What have you done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>>>>> (unlike USA).
>>>>
>>>> Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."
>>>>
>>> Same here.
>>>
>>> Constitution be damned, Congress the Court and the
>>> Administrative State walk all over the plain text whenever
>>> expedient and with no recourse.
>>>
>>> p.s. Vajiralongkorn, as Elizabeth II, is not an absolute
>>> monarch. Mswati III is closer to absolute rule if you're
>>> looking for a current example.
>>
>> Andrew, I know that after a year of Biden that it looks that way and you might be losing hope. But that isn't the way it is, The Congress, President and Courts are answerable to the people one way or another. I'm quite sure that you will see that in November. As well as shootings of ballot box stuffers.
>>
>
>I did not single out one Administration, one Court or one
>Congress. It's a pervasive (pernicious?) trend of long duration.

On Mon, 9 May 2022 17:38:36 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
>> Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
>> bicycle lanes?
>
>In the U.S., what most places do is to design traffic calming measures
>to reduce the need to increase expenditures on law-enforcement for
>traffic control. Prior to the invention of traffic control signals, it
>was necessary to hire police officers to direct traffic at intersections.
>
>In the U.S., there is not enough money to continually pay salaries,
>benefits, pensions, and overhead for the number of police that would be
>necessary to do such law enforcement. It makes much more sense to put in
>the necessary infrastructure.

Yes, certainly.... but traffic speed camera's are cheap and there are
even "no left turn" type of camera's. You don't Have to have a cop
standing on every corner.
There are even automated signs that detect your speed and display
"Your speed is now..."

If a poor developing country can afford them why can't the richest
country in the world?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:20:26 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/9/2022 6:02 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:24 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2022 9:54 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 5/8/2022 7:33 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann 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.
> >>>>>> You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
> >>>>>> kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
> >>>>>> a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
> >>>>>> belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
> >>>>>> getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
> >>>>>> odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
> >>>>>> protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
> >>>>>> crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
> >>>>>> between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
> >>>>>> ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
> >>>>>> helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
> >>>>>> Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
> >>>>>> cost to the car.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at
> $
> >> 50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.
> >>>> Thanks (sarcastically) for focusing on the extreme most favorable to
> >>>> your argument. But as Jeff reported, the average cost of a _replacement_
> >>>> seat belt is $20 to $150. The original, installed on the production
> >>>> line, probably adds less then $20 to the price of a car. Median car
> >>>> price is over $45,000 these days. The seat belt is a few hundredths of
> >>>> a percent of the cost of a car.
> >>>
> >>> Lets add in the cost of the airbags too. That will get the total safety cost closer to my 0.36% for Trek Bontrager. Is 36 hundredths close to a few hundredths?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
> >>>> (from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
> >>>> rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
> >>>> afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
> >>>> could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
> >>>> been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
> >>>> law violations.)
> >>>
> >>> I am sure I have seen many stories about police or maybe Walmart giving away free bike helmets. And I think I have heard about free bike giveaways like your club did, also giving a free helmet with the bike. May I suggest doing that in the future?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.
> >>>> Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
> >>>> helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
> >>>> volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
> >>>> all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.
> >>>
> >>> I am well aware that sometimes even the simplest things are the most complicated. I still consider adjusting a helmet to be pretty simple. If you are going to bother wearing a helmet, adjust the sizing correctly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
> >>>> village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
> >>>> least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
> >>>> testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
> >>>> promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
> >>>> wearing a helmet backwards.
> >>>>>> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
> >>>>>> replacement,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.
> >>>> Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
> >>>> tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
> >>>> walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
> >>>> left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
> >>>> I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
> >>>> arm to my torso as I fell.
> >>>
> >>> Strange things can occur. Your helmet broke when in 99.99999999999999% of the time it should not have. Kind of like your helmeted friend falling over and dying with a helmet on his head. But I have had helmets that did not break from everyday usage. And ones that did break when crashed. As you would expect. So from my experience, helmets are not fragile. And I am sure they undergo some kind of testing that hits them to see if they break. They pass that test.
> >>>
> >>> An example. Counterpoint. Analogy. Drinking glasses made out of glass.. They are fragile. Drop them on the floor and you can expect them to break.. But sometimes they do not break. Or wash them by hand in the metal sink. Probably won't break even though you are bumping them into the metal sink and the pots and pans in the sink. I use glass drinking glasses and do not break them. I use helmets and do not break them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.
> >>>> And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
> >>>> Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
> >>>> - showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.
> >>>>
> >>>> "You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
> >>>> marketing strategy.
> >>>
> >>> I have never bought into the buy a new helmet every year mythology. I keep mine for many years. Only buy a new one when I see a new one on sale and the old one is getting kind of worn out from usage and is smelling too much. Or its adjustment, tightening system has gotten to loose. I am all for keeping your old helmet and using it for a long time. But if you do get in a crash, maybe then reconsider whether you need a new one to replace the now crushed, squished one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.
> >>>> Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
> >>>> restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
> >>>> people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
> >>>> when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
> >>>> U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
> >>>> hassle.
> >>>
> >>> I have used the cable lock through the vents on the helmet trick many times. It works. And its very easy. Other times I just wrap the strap around the downtube and front wheel. So its unlocked. But I've never had one stolen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And how about taking it overseas? We've taken our folding Bikes Friday
> >>>> across the ocean three times. It packs in a suitcase - but there's no
> >>>> room for a helmet. The Bike Friday community has had discussions about
> >>>> how to carry a helmet overseas. The weirdest recommendation has been to
> >>>> wear it on the plane. For us, that's been a non-problem.
> >>>
> >>> When I traveled overseas with my full size non folding bike, I packed the helmet in the same cardboard box as the bike. Or you could pack it into your regular luggage. Like I did with my panniers. A duffel bag or box with all the other gear. I think I used my handlebar bag as a carryon bag. How to carry my helmet on a flight is down near the very bottom of my worries and troubles.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, one of my wife's helmet had its thin ornamental plastic skin
> >>>> distort from the heat of our car parked in the sun.
> >>>>>> and their
> >>>>>> effectiveness is questionable at best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived.. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.
> >>>> It should be obvious, your experience says nothing about the helmet's
> >>>> protective value.
> >>>
> >>> No. Very wrong. My experience has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the helmet's protective value. I am reminded of that protective value every single day of my life. Or every single day since age 12. When I was 12, riding my bike to 7th grade. I was involved in a car bike crash. After regaining consciousness in the hospital, I discovered a lot of stiches in my forehead. A scar. A big scar developed from that. And every single day since then, when I look in a mirror, or see a picture of myself, I see what not wearing a helmet can cause. A large scar on my forehead. If I had been wearing a helmet that day over four decades ago, I would not have a daily reminder of how protective a helmet can be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.
> >>>> Of course crashes happen. But people who wring hands about bike crashes
> >>>> willfully ignore the far, far greater number of crashes that happen to
> >>>> people NOT on bikes! They pretend that falling and hitting one's head
> >>>> happens frequently on bikes, but rarely in other circumstances. It's
> >>>> perfectly clear that that is not only false, it's backwards!
> >>>
> >>> Yes, more people die from tripping and hitting their head while walking or slipping in the bathtub than dies from bicycle crashes. All are bad. And it makes sense to emphasize making bathtubs and walking more safe. And bicycling too. We have grab handles in bathtubs for some old people. And we make steps a uniform size so people won't trip as easily on stairs. And we try to make bicyclists wear helmets. But still more bathtub and stair tripping, slipping deaths. Just because we can't stop the top killers, does not mean we should not stop the small killers. Its called low hanging fruit. Take the small gains you can even if the big gain remains out of reach. I do not see anything wrong with this. If we save a life with a helmet on a bicyclist head, then that is good. Celebrate. And mourn for the bathtub slipper death. But be happy you saved the bicycle death with a helmet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, roughly 99.4% of fatal TBI cases have nothing to do with
> >>>> bicycling. The association of bicycling with serious or fatal TBI is a
> >>>> marketing myth.
> >>>>> Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow.
> >>>> As I've said, I've fallen quite a few times back when I was doing
> >>>> moderately adventurous mountain biking. Not high speed stuff; more like
> >>>> narrow woodland trails, but some scary stuff in old strip mining
> >>>> territories. I was never injured.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've suffered exactly two moving on-road falls, plus IIRC just one
> >>>> stationary lost-my-balance topple. My first moving fall was biking home
> >>>> after work, descending a super-steep (probably 15%) city street in
> >>>> winter at walking pace, when I turned to avoid broken glass and slipped
> >>>> on gravel. I scraped my knee and tore my jacket. The second was when the
> >>>> front forks of our tandem suddenly snapped off on hitting a pothole at
> >>>> 10 mph. I hurt my shoulder.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've never fallen because of a car crash, never slid out at speed on a
> >>>> turn, never run into another cyclist, never been taken down by a dog,
> >>>
> >>> A dog did sort of take me out. I think 7th or 8th grade. Biking home from school. Junior high. Dog ran out of the yard and ran sideways into my rear wheel. His body slammed into my rear wheel sideways. Bent the rear wheel way out of shape. Tacoed it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> etc. I've ridden avidly as an adult since 1973.
> >>>>
> >>>> I certainly had some falls as a kid, but I honestly remember the details
> >>>> of only one. It has a helmet moral. Basically, if I'd have worn a helmet
> >>>> it would certainly have been smashed, and many people would certainly
> >>>> have said "It saved your life." But I wore no helmet, I said "Wow, that
> >>>> hurt!" and I got up and continued delivering papers by bike.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TB3iFhTovPzQCAdrwn6bLH.jpg
>
> >
> > But is that a staged picture? Just to "prove" people do not know how to wear helmets and put them on wrong? Its a new STI bike. He is sitting on the toptube, not moving/riding. And smiling goofily. Did he just put the helmet on backwards for fun? Personally, I've never ever even tried to put a helmet on backwards. Never saw the point in doing that. Kind of like putting your shoes on the wrong foot. Why even bother doing that. Unless you are intentionally trying to look stupid. A Halloween costume?
> >
> I don't know; first up in an image search.
>
> But when we were in an urban area with daily bicycle rentals
> the helmet rate was about 1/3 backwards. My staff learned to
> never mention it. We'd get either an argument or an
> horrified embarrassed customer, neither of which make the
> day go any better.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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.

On Mon, 9 May 2022 16:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/9/2022 7:56 AM, Tom Kunich 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,.
>> >
>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>
>> What have you done?
>>
>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>> (unlike USA).
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>OK.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
>Thailand was invaded by Japan in WW2. The invaded Thailand then decided to sign an agreement, alliance, with Japan and the Axis powers. And declared war against UK and USA.
>
>I guess there is an official difference between being colonized and being invaded and subjugated.

On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:12:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@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.

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

On Mon, 9 May 2022 19:47:54 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.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.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:40:11 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:20:26 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > But when we were in an urban area with daily bicycle rentals
> > the helmet rate was about 1/3 backwards. My staff learned to
> > never mention it. We'd get either an argument or an
> > horrified embarrassed customer, neither of which make the
> > day go any better.
> > --
>
> OK. I am more or less aware the depths of human stupidity is almost endless. But even backwards, it still might give more protection than no helmet.

<sigh> And for so many helmet promoters, after decades of ever decreasing evidence of benefit, that's become
the standard: "Well, it _may_ provide _some_ protection."

We used to have a poster here (Guy Chapman) who was, because of the data he'd seen, a confirmed helmet skeptic.
He occasionally mentioned a fall he'd had while cycling - one in which his "life was saved" by the "wooly hat" he
was wearing. Was he right? After all, a wooly hat provides _some_ protection.

BTW, the weirdest helmet use I saw was during our coast-to-coast ride. We passed through one tourist town with
a rather famous bike trail. Lots of people bumbling about on bikes, including one woman wearing an immense
straw hat, the size of a cowboy's Ten Gallon Hat.

Atop the straw hat's crown, at least eight inches above her head, was perched a bike helmet. But hey, it still might give
_some_ protection!

- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2022 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2022 16:13:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2022 1:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2022 11:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 7:56 AM, Tom Kunich 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,.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have you done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>>>>>> (unlike USA).
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."
>>>>>
>>>> Same here.
>>>>
>>>> Constitution be damned, Congress the Court and the
>>>> Administrative State walk all over the plain text whenever
>>>> expedient and with no recourse.
>>>>
>>>> p.s. Vajiralongkorn, as Elizabeth II, is not an absolute
>>>> monarch. Mswati III is closer to absolute rule if you're
>>>> looking for a current example.
>>>
>>> Andrew, I know that after a year of Biden that it looks that way and you might be losing hope. But that isn't the way it is, The Congress, President and Courts are answerable to the people one way or another. I'm quite sure that you will see that in November. As well as shootings of ballot box stuffers.
>>>
>>
>> I did not single out one Administration, one Court or one
>> Congress. It's a pervasive (pernicious?) trend of long duration.
>
> Well it all started out pretty well with the Federal government
> enabled to " provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the
> United States". But then you went to translating what "general
> welfare" meant and look where you are now (:-)
> ]
>
+1

On 5/9/2022 9:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2022 16:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2022 7:56 AM, Tom Kunich 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,.
>>>>
>>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>>
>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>>
>>> What have you done?
>>>
>>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>>> (unlike USA).
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>> OK.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
>> Thailand was invaded by Japan in WW2. The invaded Thailand then decided to sign an agreement, alliance, with Japan and the Axis powers. And declared war against UK and USA.
>>
>> I guess there is an official difference between being colonized and being invaded and subjugated.
>
> Well, Yes, there is a difference.
>
> During WW II Thailand continued to govern themselves while "allowing"
> the Japanese to establish military bases in their territory... Just
> like they allowed the US to establish military bases in the country in
> the 1960's - I believe that last U.S. base closed in 1976??
>

On 5/9/2022 9:47 PM, russellseaton1@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.
>

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

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.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 7:07:30 AM UTC-7, 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 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?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2022 10:25 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2022 17:38:36 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
>>> Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
>>> bicycle lanes?
>>
>> In the U.S., what most places do is to design traffic calming measures
>> to reduce the need to increase expenditures on law-enforcement for
>> traffic control. Prior to the invention of traffic control signals, it
>> was necessary to hire police officers to direct traffic at intersections.
>>
>> In the U.S., there is not enough money to continually pay salaries,
>> benefits, pensions, and overhead for the number of police that would be
>> necessary to do such law enforcement. It makes much more sense to put in
>> the necessary infrastructure.
>
> Yes, certainly.... but traffic speed camera's are cheap and there are
> even "no left turn" type of camera's. You don't Have to have a cop
> standing on every corner.
> There are even automated signs that detect your speed and display
> "Your speed is now..."
>
> If a poor developing country can afford them why can't the richest
> country in the world?

The U.S. could certainly afford speed cameras, red light cameras and
more. As evidence, there are companies that essentially rent the cameras
to area police departments, process the images, send out the ticket
notices, etc. for a cut of the revenue. They make a profit on the deal.

Since they make a profit, ISTM a city could do the same by purchasing
the system and running it. Patents permitting, of course.

The problem in the U.S. is that members of one "law and order" political
party have decided that automatically enforcing traffic laws is an
infringement on their constituents' freedom.

"If God didn't want people to blow through school zones and red lights
at 40 mph, He wouldn't have invented diesel pickup trucks!" Or something
like that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:12:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@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 ...

--

On 5/10/2022 10:21 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:12:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@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 ...
>

Because Science!

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

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 :-)

Although that skin "color" or perhaps "shade" is of some concern with
lighter being thought if as more genteel.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:18:20 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/10/2022 10:21 AM, 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 ...
> >
> Because Science!

Well, you have to admit that Radey really hit the nail on the head.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 11:18:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/9/2022 10:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 17:38:36 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
>>>> Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
>>>> bicycle lanes?
>>>
>>> In the U.S., what most places do is to design traffic calming measures
>>> to reduce the need to increase expenditures on law-enforcement for
>>> traffic control. Prior to the invention of traffic control signals, it
>>> was necessary to hire police officers to direct traffic at intersections.
>>>
>>> In the U.S., there is not enough money to continually pay salaries,
>>> benefits, pensions, and overhead for the number of police that would be
>>> necessary to do such law enforcement. It makes much more sense to put in
>>> the necessary infrastructure.
>>
>> Yes, certainly.... but traffic speed camera's are cheap and there are
>> even "no left turn" type of camera's. You don't Have to have a cop
>> standing on every corner.
>> There are even automated signs that detect your speed and display
>> "Your speed is now..."
>>
>> If a poor developing country can afford them why can't the richest
>> country in the world?
>
>The U.S. could certainly afford speed cameras, red light cameras and
>more. As evidence, there are companies that essentially rent the cameras
>to area police departments, process the images, send out the ticket
>notices, etc. for a cut of the revenue. They make a profit on the deal.
>
>Since they make a profit, ISTM a city could do the same by purchasing
>the system and running it. Patents permitting, of course.
>
But that is true of parking meters isn't it? Or at least it was as the
town I grew up in installed meters under that sort of agreement.

I believe that it may be the most economical system as the parking
meter company buys, installs and maintains the meters and hands over
what is essentially free money to the town.

>The problem in the U.S. is that members of one "law and order" political
>party have decided that automatically enforcing traffic laws is an
>infringement on their constituents' freedom.
>
>"If God didn't want people to blow through school zones and red lights
>at 40 mph, He wouldn't have invented diesel pickup trucks!" Or something
>like that.

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" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 07:12:51 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/9/2022 9:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 16:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2022 7:56 AM, Tom Kunich 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,.
>>>>>
>>>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>>>
>>>> What have you done?
>>>>
>>>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>>>> (unlike USA).
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>
>>> OK.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
>>> Thailand was invaded by Japan in WW2. The invaded Thailand then decided to sign an agreement, alliance, with Japan and the Axis powers. And declared war against UK and USA.
>>>
>>> I guess there is an official difference between being colonized and being invaded and subjugated.
>>
>> Well, Yes, there is a difference.
>>
>> During WW II Thailand continued to govern themselves while "allowing"
>> the Japanese to establish military bases in their territory... Just
>> like they allowed the US to establish military bases in the country in
>> the 1960's - I believe that last U.S. base closed in 1976??
>>
>
>I know several US officers who served in Thailand in the
>last 20~30 years. We keep a substantial presence there yet.

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

>On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 7:07:30 AM UTC-7, 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
>
>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.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.