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

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