https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle, >> though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work? >>
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected, >> and cyclists aren’t having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.
Roger Merriman
San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is. Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling
the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there.
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right
place in the middle,
though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps
it does work?
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an
article in some now-defunct bike magazine titled something
like "Staying Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." The author was
Carol Szepansky, who was then communications director for
the League of American Bicyclists. She described her
experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in
Washington, DC.
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a
pedestrian suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps
inadvertently described many other problems as she gave tips
on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any
intersection, because traffic movements are so much more
complicated. Don't proceed on a regular green light when all
other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for the special green
light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the brake
levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She
actually said if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike,
avoid the facility and use a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:After two to three generations every city is new. That means that the
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Maybe for a America possibly but even so a few hundred years is no time at >> all for a city, which tend to the thousands of years, even local to me are >> some buildings around the 1000 year mark, the “new Church” in my local town
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle, >>>> though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected, >>>> and cyclists aren’t having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.
Roger Merriman
San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is.
Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling >>> the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there.
centre replaces the church from Saxon times ie 700/800 at least.
Old for a ship perhaps but not a city.
Lots of such cities absolutely are removing parking places, even San
Francisco wasn’t built for cars in mind as it predates them by 100 or so >> years.
Roger Merriman
only reality of Rome is the shattered ruins of the Colosseum that mean nothing at all to the present day Romans. Is there One thing that present
day Germans have in common with with the NAZI's? So San Francisco is as
old as present day Napoli or Paris.
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
After two to three generations every city is new. That means that theOn Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:Maybe for a America possibly but even so a few hundred years is no time at >>> all for a city, which tend to the thousands of years, even local to me are >>> some buildings around the 1000 year mark, the “new Church” in my local town
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected,
and cyclists aren’t having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.
Roger Merriman
San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is.
Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling >>>> the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there. >>>>
centre replaces the church from Saxon times ie 700/800 at least.
Old for a ship perhaps but not a city.
Lots of such cities absolutely are removing parking places, even San
Francisco wasn’t built for cars in mind as it predates them by 100 or so >>> years.
Roger Merriman
only reality of Rome is the shattered ruins of the Colosseum that mean
nothing at all to the present day Romans. Is there One thing that present
day Germans have in common with with the NAZI's? So San Francisco is as
old as present day Napoli or Paris.
Have you visited such places? Absolutely older housing and buildings do get replaced, but lot remains, even in london which isn’t that old by European standards after all it’s the 2nd capital city of England. And lot of it’s history is Norman in nature so only a 1000 or so years. Though it does have older history if not buildings.
Even locally there are buildings around the 500 year old mark, mainly
though not limited to pubs, some older buildings and houses in the central area, and less so as places grew and slowly gaps between the villages/towns where gone ie few hundred years ago london was a long away now it’s london.
Even a tree some 750 years old in one of the local parks.
Plenty of old stuff about lot of it has been modified over the years, but more importantly the road network and land is largely unchanged.
Roger Merriman
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle, >> though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an article in
some now-defunct bike magazine titled something like "Staying Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." The author was Carol Szepansky, who was then communications director for the League of American Bicyclists. She
described her experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in Washington, DC.
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a pedestrian
suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps inadvertently described
many other problems as she gave tips on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any intersection, because traffic movements are so much more complicated. Don't proceed on a
regular green light when all other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for
the special green light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the
brake levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She actually said
if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike, avoid the facility and use
a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
On 12/10/2023 10:30 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
After two to three generations every city is new. That means that theOn Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:Maybe for a America possibly but even so a few hundred years is no time at >>>> all for a city, which tend to the thousands of years, even local to me are >>>> some buildings around the 1000 year mark, the “new Church” in my local town
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected,
and cyclists aren’t having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.
Roger Merriman
San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is. >>>>> Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling >>>>> the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there. >>>>>
centre replaces the church from Saxon times ie 700/800 at least.
Old for a ship perhaps but not a city.
Lots of such cities absolutely are removing parking places, even San
Francisco wasn’t built for cars in mind as it predates them by 100 or so >>>> years.
Roger Merriman
only reality of Rome is the shattered ruins of the Colosseum that mean
nothing at all to the present day Romans. Is there One thing that present >>> day Germans have in common with with the NAZI's? So San Francisco is as
old as present day Napoli or Paris.
Have you visited such places? Absolutely older housing and buildings do get >> replaced, but lot remains, even in london which isn’t that old by European >> standards after all it’s the 2nd capital city of England. And lot of it’s
history is Norman in nature so only a 1000 or so years. Though it does have >> older history if not buildings.
Even locally there are buildings around the 500 year old mark, mainly
though not limited to pubs, some older buildings and houses in the central >> area, and less so as places grew and slowly gaps between the villages/towns >> where gone ie few hundred years ago london was a long away now it’s london.
Even a tree some 750 years old in one of the local parks.
Plenty of old stuff about lot of it has been modified over the years, but
more importantly the road network and land is largely unchanged.
Roger Merriman
Well, London hasn't suffered The Planners as much as some
other cities:
https://mymodernmet.com/paris-france-haussmannization/
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:30:14 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:39:52?PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
After two to three generations every city is new. That means that theOn Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49?AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>>>>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Maybe for a America possibly but even so a few hundred years is no time at >>>> all for a city, which tend to the thousands of years, even local to me are >>>> some buildings around the 1000 year mark, the “new Church” in my local town
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected,
and cyclists aren’t having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.
Roger Merriman
San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is. >>>>> Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling >>>>> the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there. >>>>>
centre replaces the church from Saxon times ie 700/800 at least.
Old for a ship perhaps but not a city.
Lots of such cities absolutely are removing parking places, even San
Francisco wasn’t built for cars in mind as it predates them by 100 or so >>>> years.
Roger Merriman
only reality of Rome is the shattered ruins of the Colosseum that mean
nothing at all to the present day Romans. Is there One thing that present >>> day Germans have in common with with the NAZI's? So San Francisco is as
old as present day Napoli or Paris.
Have you visited such places? Absolutely older housing and buildings do get >> replaced, but lot remains, even in london which isn’t that old by European >> standards after all it’s the 2nd capital city of England. And lot of it’s
history is Norman in nature so only a 1000 or so years. Though it does have >> older history if not buildings.
Even locally there are buildings around the 500 year old mark, mainly
though not limited to pubs, some older buildings and houses in the central >> area, and less so as places grew and slowly gaps between the villages/towns >> where gone ie few hundred years ago london was a long away now it’s london.
Even a tree some 750 years old in one of the local parks.
Plenty of old stuff about lot of it has been modified over the years, but
more importantly the road network and land is largely unchanged.
Roger Merriman
I thought that London, or Lundinium to give it it's proper name, was originally built by the Romans, early in their occupation of the
country. Isn't there still a section of the Roman Wall in existence?
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:41:00 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 5:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right
place in the middle,
though I don’t think I’ve ridden any like that so perhaps
it does work?
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an
article in some now-defunct bike magazine titled something
like "Staying Safe in Protected Bike Lanes." The author was
Carol Szepansky, who was then communications director for
the League of American Bicyclists. She described her
experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in
Washington, DC.
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a
pedestrian suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps
inadvertently described many other problems as she gave tips
on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any
intersection, because traffic movements are so much more
complicated. Don't proceed on a regular green light when all
other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for the special green
light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the brake
levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She
actually said if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike,
avoid the facility and use a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
"avoid the facility and use a different street."
This has been my general MO for cycling all my life.
There is an old saying, "early to bed and early to rise..." which I've
always applied to recreational bike riding. You don't like traffic?
Get there early in the morning and there won't be any :-)
On 12/10/2023 7:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:41:00 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
"avoid the facility and use a different street."
This has been my general MO for cycling all my life.
There is an old saying, "early to bed and early to rise..." which I've
always applied to recreational bike riding. You don't like traffic?
Get there early in the morning and there won't be any :-)
That works if your objective is simply to pedal around for a while.
There are those of us who actually use bicycles to get to practical
places and do practical things. If it's so early in the morning that
there's no traffic, it's because the stores, offices, restaurants etc.
are still closed.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:30:14 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:39:52?PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
After two to three generations every city is new. That means that theOn Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:19:49?AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: >>>>>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Maybe for a America possibly but even so a few hundred years is no time at >>>> all for a city, which tend to the thousands of years, even local to me are >>>> some buildings around the 1000 year mark, the new Church in my local town
On 12/9/2023 11:13 AM, pH wrote:Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-business-protests-valencia-street-bike-lane/
I did not seem to hit a paywall in the frist 30 seconds on
the link. ymmv.
SF has opened a Madison WI style protected bike lane down
Valencia Street.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
pH
early Merry Christmas to all
(not afraid of the 'C'-word here!)
Thanks for that. I enjoyed the 'guerilla signage' link
showing the wide rift between theoretical ideologue Planners
and actual in the streets cyclists.
though I dont think Ive ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
The side would seem a better option as long as junction etc are protected,
and cyclists arent having to cross a road to use it and so on, ie needs to
be a unified network.
Roger Merriman
San Francisco is an old city with insufficient parking the way it is. >>>>> Removing ANY parking is a bad idea. At any one time you see cars circling >>>>> the block to find a parking space in order to attend a business there. >>>>>
centre replaces the church from Saxon times ie 700/800 at least.
Old for a ship perhaps but not a city.
Lots of such cities absolutely are removing parking places, even San
Francisco wasnt built for cars in mind as it predates them by 100 or so >>>> years.
Roger Merriman
only reality of Rome is the shattered ruins of the Colosseum that mean
nothing at all to the present day Romans. Is there One thing that present >>> day Germans have in common with with the NAZI's? So San Francisco is as
old as present day Napoli or Paris.
Have you visited such places? Absolutely older housing and buildings do get >> replaced, but lot remains, even in london which isnt that old by European >> standards after all its the 2nd capital city of England. And lot of its >> history is Norman in nature so only a 1000 or so years. Though it does have >> older history if not buildings.
Even locally there are buildings around the 500 year old mark, mainly
though not limited to pubs, some older buildings and houses in the central >> area, and less so as places grew and slowly gaps between the villages/towns >> where gone ie few hundred years ago london was a long away now its london. >>
Even a tree some 750 years old in one of the local parks.
Plenty of old stuff about lot of it has been modified over the years, but
more importantly the road network and land is largely unchanged.
Roger Merriman
I thought that London, or Lundinium to give it it's proper name, was originally built by the Romans, early in their occupation of the
country. Isn't there still a section of the Roman Wall in existence?
On 12/10/2023 6:02 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Get opinion pieces on lots of stuff, doesnt make them sound evidence or
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an article in
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle, >>>> though I dont think Ive ridden any like that so perhaps it does work? >>>
some now-defunct bike magazine titled something like "Staying Safe in
Protected Bike Lanes." The author was Carol Szepansky, who was then
communications director for the League of American Bicyclists. She
described her experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in
Washington, DC.
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a pedestrian
suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps inadvertently described
many other problems as she gave tips on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any intersection, because
traffic movements are so much more complicated. Don't proceed on a
regular green light when all other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for
the special green light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the
brake levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She actually said
if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike, avoid the facility and use >>> a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
fact as you were...
Evidence? I've posted many times links to the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety study that found more than ten times as many crashes on >bi-directional cycle tracks. I used to post links to the Ohio Department
of Transportation data showing over then times as many car-bike crashes
on the mile of bi-directional cycle track added to a Columbus
neighborhood, but ODOT seems to have buried that data. I've given links
to the YouTube video of a typical crash. And I've given the link to
Michael Colville-Andersen's excoriation of bi-directional cycle tracks.
Those weren't necessarily centered on the roadway. But they were >bi-directional, which I think is the main hazard. Well, apart from
getting into and out of a roadway-centered facility.
On 12/11/2023 4:49 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 03:54:10 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:59:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 6:02 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Get opinion pieces on lots of stuff, doesnt make them sound evidence or >>>>> fact as you were...
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an article in >>>>>> some now-defunct bike magazine titled something like "Staying Safe in >>>>>> Protected Bike Lanes." The author was Carol Szepansky, who was then >>>>>> communications director for the League of American Bicyclists. She >>>>>> described her experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in >>>>>> Washington, DC.
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
though I dont think Ive ridden any like that so perhaps it does work? >>>>>>
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a pedestrian
suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps inadvertently described >>>>>> many other problems as she gave tips on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any intersection, because >>>>>> traffic movements are so much more complicated. Don't proceed on a >>>>>> regular green light when all other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for >>>>>> the special green light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the >>>>>> brake levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She actually said >>>>>> if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike, avoid the facility and use >>>>>> a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
Evidence? I've posted many times links to the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety study that found more than ten times as many crashes on >>>> bi-directional cycle tracks. I used to post links to the Ohio Department >>>> of Transportation data showing over then times as many car-bike crashes >>>> on the mile of bi-directional cycle track added to a Columbus
neighborhood, but ODOT seems to have buried that data. I've given links >>>> to the YouTube video of a typical crash. And I've given the link to
Michael Colville-Andersen's excoriation of bi-directional cycle tracks. >>>>
Those weren't necessarily centered on the roadway. But they were
bi-directional, which I think is the main hazard. Well, apart from
getting into and out of a roadway-centered facility.
Golly, if you're afraid to ride on bi-directional bike paths, don't
ride on them. I ride them regularly: I sure hope I'm never reduced to
that ridiculous level of timidity.
Frank is correct that a IIHS study did show that a bi-directional bike
way had 11.4 times greater risk of injury then riding on the road.
But a review of the study made by Peter Furth, Professor of Civil
Engineering at Northeastern University. BS, MS, and PhD degrees from
MIT, seems to say something a bit different.
https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/2019/10/07/are-2-way-cycle-tracks-unsafe-a-closer-look-at-the-iihs-study/
Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
As an aside, note the date of the rebuttal - 2019, some 4 years ago. I
found the study with a 5 minute search while Frank didn't find it in 4
years.
Or perhaps because the original study said what he wanted to hear he
never bothered to look any further?
As Sir Francis Bacon said, some 400 years ago, "He prefers to believe
what he wants to be true."
Furth is a dedicated "paint & path" advocate. Of course he'll disagree
with a study whose data he doesn't like. But one disagreement does not >disprove the data.
Michael Colville-Andersen is perhaps the world's most prominent "paint & >path" advocate. But even he is strongly against bi-directional bike
lanes. >https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
And people like John should realize that there are many very intelligent
and dedicated cycling advocates who have analyzed not only the IIHS
study, but many more studies on the effects of various bike
infrastructure designs. They are well aware of the efforts of the
promotional team that includes Furth, Lusk, Teschke and others.
Try doing some reading from the links mentioned here: >http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.com/2012/08/bicycle-infrastructure-studies.html
There are dozens.
The issue is that some 70+ parking places were removed in
the process and it is doing a number on the businesses. At
some of whom are bicyclists themselves.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:14 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:18:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 4:49 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 03:54:10 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:59:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 6:02 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Get opinion pieces on lots of stuff, doesnt make them sound evidence or
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
though I dont think Ive ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an article in
some now-defunct bike magazine titled something like "Staying Safe in >>>>>>>> Protected Bike Lanes." The author was Carol Szepansky, who was then >>>>>>>> communications director for the League of American Bicyclists. She >>>>>>>> described her experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in >>>>>>>> Washington, DC.
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a pedestrian >>>>>>>> suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps inadvertently described >>>>>>>> many other problems as she gave tips on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any intersection, because
traffic movements are so much more complicated. Don't proceed on a >>>>>>>> regular green light when all other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for >>>>>>>> the special green light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the >>>>>>>> brake levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She actually said
if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike, avoid the facility and use
a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
fact as you were...
Evidence? I've posted many times links to the Insurance Institute for >>>>>> Highway Safety study that found more than ten times as many crashes on >>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks. I used to post links to the Ohio Department >>>>>> of Transportation data showing over then times as many car-bike crashes >>>>>> on the mile of bi-directional cycle track added to a Columbus
neighborhood, but ODOT seems to have buried that data. I've given links >>>>>> to the YouTube video of a typical crash. And I've given the link to >>>>>> Michael Colville-Andersen's excoriation of bi-directional cycle tracks. >>>>>>
Those weren't necessarily centered on the roadway. But they were
bi-directional, which I think is the main hazard. Well, apart from >>>>>> getting into and out of a roadway-centered facility.
Golly, if you're afraid to ride on bi-directional bike paths, don't
ride on them. I ride them regularly: I sure hope I'm never reduced to >>>>> that ridiculous level of timidity.
Frank is correct that a IIHS study did show that a bi-directional bike >>>> way had 11.4 times greater risk of injury then riding on the road.
But a review of the study made by Peter Furth, Professor of Civil
Engineering at Northeastern University. BS, MS, and PhD degrees from
MIT, seems to say something a bit different.
https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/2019/10/07/are-2-way-cycle-tracks-unsafe-a-closer-look-at-the-iihs-study/
Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
As an aside, note the date of the rebuttal - 2019, some 4 years ago. I >>>> found the study with a 5 minute search while Frank didn't find it in 4 >>>> years.
Or perhaps because the original study said what he wanted to hear he
never bothered to look any further?
As Sir Francis Bacon said, some 400 years ago, "He prefers to believe
what he wants to be true."
Furth is a dedicated "paint & path" advocate. Of course he'll disagree >>>with a study whose data he doesn't like. But one disagreement does not >>>disprove the data.
Michael Colville-Andersen is perhaps the world's most prominent "paint & >>>path" advocate. But even he is strongly against bi-directional bike >>>lanes. >>>https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html >>>
And people like John should realize that there are many very intelligent >>>and dedicated cycling advocates who have analyzed not only the IIHS >>>study, but many more studies on the effects of various bike >>>infrastructure designs. They are well aware of the efforts of the >>>promotional team that includes Furth, Lusk, Teschke and others.
Try doing some reading from the links mentioned here: >>>http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.com/2012/08/bicycle-infrastructure-studies.html
There are dozens.
...and most likely, dozens who disagree.
Well I did check one of Frankie's references and that study showed NOT
that the greatest danger was in bi-directional paths but at
intersections whether on bi-directional paths or otherwise.
It seems, at least from a minimal look that he and the anti's are
going to great length to argue against bike paths.
Oh yes, and the study I reviewed also showed that accidents in younger >riders, 5 - 15 years, was far greater then all others. So, based on
that study, it would seem that logically the argument should be
against younger riders rather the bi-directional paths.
And, before Frank leaps to his feet shouting "but you only checked one >reference" it should be noted that is exactly what Frank did with his
story of the old Geezer who couldn't unclip and tipped over, hit his
head and died as proof that Helmets are no good at all.
Turn about is, so they say, fair play.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:14 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:18:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 4:49 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 03:54:10 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:59:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 6:02 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 1:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Get opinion pieces on lots of stuff, doesnt make them sound evidence or
Not convinced cycle lane even segregated is the right place in the middle,
though I dont think Ive ridden any like that so perhaps it does work?
I've never ridden one. But maybe ten years ago, there was an article in
some now-defunct bike magazine titled something like "Staying Safe in >>>>>>>> Protected Bike Lanes." The author was Carol Szepansky, who was then >>>>>>>> communications director for the League of American Bicyclists. She >>>>>>>> described her experiences with a similar central "protected" lane in >>>>>>>> Washington, DC.
Her experience? A serious crash. In her case, IIRC, a pedestrian >>>>>>>> suddenly turned into her path. But she perhaps inadvertently described >>>>>>>> many other problems as she gave tips on how to stay safe.
Example: Look all around you, 360 degrees, at any intersection, because
traffic movements are so much more complicated. Don't proceed on a >>>>>>>> regular green light when all other traffic proceeds; instead, wait for >>>>>>>> the special green light for bicyclists. Keep your hands ready on the >>>>>>>> brake levers and prepare to stop at any instant ... etc. etc.
But her most important tip was to slow way, way down. She actually said
if you want to get somewhere quickly by bike, avoid the facility and use
a different street.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
fact as you were...
Evidence? I've posted many times links to the Insurance Institute for >>>>>> Highway Safety study that found more than ten times as many crashes on >>>>>> bi-directional cycle tracks. I used to post links to the Ohio Department >>>>>> of Transportation data showing over then times as many car-bike crashes >>>>>> on the mile of bi-directional cycle track added to a Columbus
neighborhood, but ODOT seems to have buried that data. I've given links >>>>>> to the YouTube video of a typical crash. And I've given the link to >>>>>> Michael Colville-Andersen's excoriation of bi-directional cycle tracks. >>>>>>
Those weren't necessarily centered on the roadway. But they were
bi-directional, which I think is the main hazard. Well, apart from >>>>>> getting into and out of a roadway-centered facility.
Golly, if you're afraid to ride on bi-directional bike paths, don't
ride on them. I ride them regularly: I sure hope I'm never reduced to >>>>> that ridiculous level of timidity.
Frank is correct that a IIHS study did show that a bi-directional bike >>>> way had 11.4 times greater risk of injury then riding on the road.
But a review of the study made by Peter Furth, Professor of Civil
Engineering at Northeastern University. BS, MS, and PhD degrees from
MIT, seems to say something a bit different.
https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/2019/10/07/are-2-way-cycle-tracks-unsafe-a-closer-look-at-the-iihs-study/
Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
As an aside, note the date of the rebuttal - 2019, some 4 years ago. I >>>> found the study with a 5 minute search while Frank didn't find it in 4 >>>> years.
Or perhaps because the original study said what he wanted to hear he
never bothered to look any further?
As Sir Francis Bacon said, some 400 years ago, "He prefers to believe
what he wants to be true."
Furth is a dedicated "paint & path" advocate. Of course he'll disagree
with a study whose data he doesn't like. But one disagreement does not
disprove the data.
Michael Colville-Andersen is perhaps the world's most prominent "paint & >>> path" advocate. But even he is strongly against bi-directional bike
lanes.
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
And people like John should realize that there are many very intelligent >>> and dedicated cycling advocates who have analyzed not only the IIHS
study, but many more studies on the effects of various bike
infrastructure designs. They are well aware of the efforts of the
promotional team that includes Furth, Lusk, Teschke and others.
Try doing some reading from the links mentioned here:
http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.com/2012/08/bicycle-infrastructure-studies.html
There are dozens.
...and most likely, dozens who disagree.
Well I did check one of Frankie's references and that study showed NOT
that the greatest danger was in bi-directional paths but at
intersections whether on bi-directional paths or otherwise.
It seems, at least from a minimal look that he and the anti's are
going to great length to argue against bike paths.
Oh yes, and the study I reviewed also showed that accidents in younger riders, 5 - 15 years, was far greater then all others. So, based on
that study, it would seem that logically the argument should be
against younger riders rather the bi-directional paths.
And, before Frank leaps to his feet shouting "but you only checked one reference" it should be noted that is exactly what Frank did with his
story of the old Geezer who couldn't unclip and tipped over, hit his
head and died as proof that Helmets are no good at all.
Turn about is, so they say, fair play.
On 12/11/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
to use by bicycles? High injury rate?
Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
finger with it and blame the knife maker?
Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
trying to do something about it?
Ah, John! You are so dedicated to your ignorance!
You perhaps forgot this video, or forgot to view it: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
That is one very typical car-bike crash with this facility design,
although not the only one. But it should be obvious that "automobiles
can't go there" is nonsense. These facilities always have _some_ >intersections. Those within cities tend to have many. Motorists normally
look only leftward, for oncoming cars. They are often unaware that
cyclists will be entering the intersection from their right.
That's
exactly what makes the "wrong way" direction much more dangerous - even >though every wrong way rider will say he feels safer "because I can see
the cars."
The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the
idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.
But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
are blaming someone else.
I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even >though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant >cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the >actual effects.
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but >still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go >figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:50:19 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:19:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/11/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
to use by bicycles? High injury rate?
Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
finger with it and blame the knife maker?
Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
trying to do something about it?
Ah, John! You are so dedicated to your ignorance!
You perhaps forgot this video, or forgot to view it: >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
Ignorant cyclist who wasn't watching where he was going doesn't prove >>anything.
Most of us riders who ride that kind of path know that you don't pass
in front of a stopped vehicle waiting to cross your path until you've
make eye contact with the driver.
I don't even like crossing in front of vehicles waiting at a red light
and I regularly avoid doing so. I prefer to cross when I can see a gap
in the oncoming traffic that will give me enough time to cross.
That is one very typical car-bike crash with this facility design, >>>although not the only one. But it should be obvious that "automobiles >>>can't go there" is nonsense. These facilities always have _some_ >>>intersections. Those within cities tend to have many. Motorists normally >>>look only leftward, for oncoming cars. They are often unaware that >>>cyclists will be entering the intersection from their right.
IMO, depending on a driver seeing a cyclist is foolish. I'm not >>particularly comfortable trusting that some stranger is going to do
the right thing, even if he sees me.
That's
exactly what makes the "wrong way" direction much more dangerous - even >>>though every wrong way rider will say he feels safer "because I can see >>>the cars."
That's a lie. No one in this forum has mentioned riding the "wrong
way."
The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the >>>idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.
There's another lie from Krygowski. I've not seen anyone in this forum >>suggest that bicyclists needn't be aware, especially when engaging
with vehicles.
But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
are blaming someone else.
I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even >>>though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant >>>cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the >>>actual effects.
<LOL> I know all about any "actual effects," and I'm not concerned
about Krygowski issuing blame. I ride where I think it's safe for me
to ride just as he does.
I'm also not concerned about what they do in Copenhagen.https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html >>
Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but >>>still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for >>>bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go >>>figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
I doubt that Krygowski is really concerned about other cyclists
"safety." I think he's much more concerned with substantiating his
claims that the way he rides is the only "right" way to ride.
I really wonder about Frank. From his post it seem that he lives in
some strange land where things are radically different then the rest
of the world.
He makes eye contact with an auto driver? He rides along crouched down
on his bike peering in car windows? Here we ride on roads with great
big trucks. One can only assume he carries a periscope so he can reach
up to peer in the truck windows.
And more interesting we here ride on roads with auto traffic in the
120 kph speed range. That is about 6 times faster then the bicycle,
about 110 ft/second. Obviously old Frank must be pretty fast on his
feet to make eye contact with the driver whipping past at that speed
to catch the driver's eye.
I just looked on the Web and I see that the average car is 177 inches
long... so you have some 1.6 seconds to get the driver's attention.
Given that Frank is well into his 70's I really do doubt that he has
the reflexes of a teenager any more.
Or to put it another way, I do believe he is "having us on" a bit. >https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/be-having-someone-on
On 12/11/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
To be honest I have never ridden on a bike path. In fact I can't even
remember seeing one. But, from the photos I see, bi-directional paths
are like a mini two lane highway, separated from the Auto highway in
some manner. And, if as Frank argues they are unsafe due to higher
injuries on them then who is to blame? A bicycle highway, restricted
to use by bicycles? High injury rate?
Obviously it can't be the automobiles as they can't go there.
Is the highway designers? Sort of a buy a kitchen knife and cut your
finger with it and blame the knife maker?
Or is it the cyclists that use this bike path? And if it is the
cyclists that are the problem why aren't the cyclists themselves
trying to do something about it?
Ah, John! You are so dedicated to your ignorance!
You perhaps forgot this video, or forgot to view it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
That is one very typical car-bike crash with this facility design,
although not the only one. But it should be obvious that "automobiles
can't go there" is nonsense. These facilities always have _some_ intersections. Those within cities tend to have many. Motorists normally
look only leftward, for oncoming cars. They are often unaware that
cyclists will be entering the intersection from their right. That's
exactly what makes the "wrong way" direction much more dangerous - even though every wrong way rider will say he feels safer "because I can see
the cars."
The ignorant cyclists (we have those in this group) tend to buy into the
idea that they are "protected" and don't have to be aware.
But, of course Frank and his ilk are "doing something about it." They
are blaming someone else.
I'm blaming the American bike advocates who demand such facilities, even though they are known to be more dangerous. I also blame the ignorant cyclists who amplify those demands without bothering to learn about the actual effects. https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
On 12/12/2023 11:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but >> still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
Sounds like others youve found some outlier to represent the whole, and yes some folks thinking is quite simplistic.
One of my points is that the London Embankment seems to be an outlier!
I've given links to not just one, but many studies that document lack of >safety increases, or even increased danger, from segregated bike >infrastructure. (For example, it was the Jensen before-after study that
found significant danger increases, but said that was OK if it got
people out of cars.)
More to the point, I think the broadest data indicate that it's nonsense
that segregated facilities will cause many people to abandon cars.
There
may be increases in bike use in some example facilities, but those are
often temporary, and may include existing cyclists simply moving over
from a different route - meaning no net increase.
It's still true that in the U.S., at least, national bike mode share is
a minuscule value that has not increased significantly despite decades
of fancy facility construction and starry-eyed promises. Safety promises
have also failed. Bicycling is a very safe activity, but I see no
evidence that facilities have made it safer.
So fortunes in public money have been spent, but stated objectives have
not come to pass.
At some point we should look at actual results. We
should recognize that "build it and they will come" was a line
originating in a fantasy movie.
Andrew has said something like "Those who love to ride will ride. Those
who don't will not," facilities or no. I've said that to really increase >cycling, you'll have to make motoring much less convenient. I don't
envision that ever happening in the U.S. as a whole.
If the London Embankment, short as it is, does host a large number of >cyclists, I think it's because it's a special case in terms of >difficult-to-replicate geometry, difficulty of driving in London, and a >segment of population that is amenable to bikes = something the U.S.
largely lacks.
Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
On 12/11/2023 1:49 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his
analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial
reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and
should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
"A gross misreading of the data" has been "he who must not
be named's" hallmark for many many years! From helmets, to
lights, to chain lubrication, to bicycle infrastructure, he
has specialized in intentional and gross misreading of data.
On 12/12/2023 12:44 PM, sms wrote:
On 12/11/2023 1:49 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
Dated 2019 / October 8, the closing sentence in his
analysis states,
"The conclusion that some are drawing from a superficial
reading of
the report, that two-way cycle tracks are dangerous and
should be
avoided, is a gross misreading of the data."
"A gross misreading of the data" has been "he who must not
be named's" hallmark for many many years! From helmets, to
lights, to chain lubrication, to bicycle infrastructure, he
has specialized in intentional and gross misreading of data.
Which is normal, not a problem.
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet
draw utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is
necessary, only varying weight and importance of various
criteria.
Here's a nice bike ride south from my daughter's block
(Howard and Clark) in Rogers Park south on Clark Street,
Chicago, a route I have ridden occasionally for many many
years and find useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl7ADsWhegk
contrast with the Lake Shore Path, on which I have never
ridden a bicycle and don't plan to ride:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwWvLBVon0w
Arguing about which (roughly parallel routes) is 'better' is
pointless.
(both videos are longish; skip through to a few
representative segments in each)
On 12/12/2023 11:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Some of those advocates have even admitted to the increased dangers, but >>> still lobby for these things because they feel more crashes for
bicyclists are OK as long as they get some people out of their cars. Go
figure. "Kill cyclists? That's OK as long as we save the planet."
Sounds like others you’ve found some outlier to represent the whole, and >> yes some folks thinking is quite simplistic.
One of my points is that the London Embankment seems to be an outlier!
I've given links to not just one, but many studies that document lack of safety increases, or even increased danger, from segregated bike infrastructure. (For example, it was the Jensen before-after study that
found significant danger increases, but said that was OK if it got
people out of cars.)
More to the point, I think the broadest data indicate that it's nonsense
that segregated facilities will cause many people to abandon cars. There
may be increases in bike use in some example facilities, but those are
often temporary, and may include existing cyclists simply moving over
from a different route - meaning no net increase.
It's still true that in the U.S., at least, national bike mode share is
a minuscule value that has not increased significantly despite decades
of fancy facility construction and starry-eyed promises. Safety promises
have also failed. Bicycling is a very safe activity, but I see no
evidence that facilities have made it safer.
So fortunes in public money have been spent, but stated objectives have
not come to pass. At some point we should look at actual results. We
should recognize that "build it and they will come" was a line
originating in a fantasy movie.
Andrew has said something like "Those who love to ride will ride. Those
who don't will not," facilities or no. I've said that to really increase cycling, you'll have to make motoring much less convenient. I don't
envision that ever happening in the U.S. as a whole.
If the London Embankment, short as it is, does host a large number of cyclists, I think it's because it's a special case in terms of difficult-to-replicate geometry, difficulty of driving in London, and a segment of population that is amenable to bikes = something the U.S.
largely lacks.
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
their own facts.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 03:46:04 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:29:05 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
their own facts.
Data_collections/studies/etc do not necessarily produce a verified
fact, and that's a fact.
I've told this story before but once again.
I had a good friend who had a financial survey business in Bangkok. If
a company wanted to, in one case, build a copper refinery in S.
Thailand he would do surveys for things like copper use in the
country, copper sources, transportation costs, competition local and >international, costs of construction and operation, anticipated sales,
and so on, to determine if it was a good venture, or not.
Any way, we were talking about these surveys, or studies if you like,
one day and he commented, "Tell me what you want to prove and I'll
design a study to prove it.
With that comment in mind read over the details of how many of the
"pro or con" studies you see on the Web are configured and in many
cases you can predict the outcome of the study before you get to the
bottom of the page.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 03:46:04 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:29:05 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
their own facts.
Data_collections/studies/etc do not necessarily produce a verified
fact, and that's a fact.
I've told this story before but once again.
I had a good friend who had a financial survey business in Bangkok. If
a company wanted to, in one case, build a copper refinery in S.
Thailand he would do surveys for things like copper use in the
country, copper sources, transportation costs, competition local and international, costs of construction and operation, anticipated sales,
and so on, to determine if it was a good venture, or not.
Any way, we were talking about these surveys, or studies if you like,
one day and he commented, "Tell me what you want to prove and I'll
design a study to prove it.
With that comment in mind read over the details of how many of the
"pro or con" studies you see on the Web are configured and in many
cases you can predict the outcome of the study before you get to the
bottom of the page.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:exception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
their own facts.
Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an
The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President inhistory, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit
The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.
Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt
You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ballbearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.
Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunichexception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:21:23?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
their own facts.
Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an
in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit
The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President
reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.
The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.
Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt
bearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.
You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball
the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats andMailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".
clerk's staff to edit them. How could anyone think that is
a good idea? Add in the correlation between your name and
your vote for future reprisals and it's indefensible.
In actual live voting, marked ballots are stored before
several observers until end of day and each ballot is 'a
ballot' not 'That guy's ballot'.
The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy of
And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him
pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a
dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court
cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and
other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and
said there is not widespread fraud."
How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60 cases to date
the courts have said that you are wrong.
The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunichexception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:21:23?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet drawPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
their own facts.
Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an
in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit
The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President
reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.
The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.
Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt
bearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.
You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball
the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats andThe Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy ofMailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".
clerk's staff to edit them. How could anyone think that is
a good idea? Add in the correlation between your name and
your vote for future reprisals and it's indefensible.
In actual live voting, marked ballots are stored before
several observers until end of day and each ballot is 'a
ballot' not 'That guy's ballot'.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him
pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a
dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court
cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and
other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and
said there is not widespread fraud."
How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60 cases to date
the courts have said that you are wrong.
The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:21:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:exception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.
On 12/13/2023 6:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:21:23?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet draw >>>>>>>> utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only >>>>>>>> varying weight and importance of various criteria.People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to >>>>>>> their own facts.
Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an
in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit
The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President
reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.
The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.
Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt
bearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.
You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball
of the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats andMailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".
clerk's staff to edit them. How could anyone think that is
a good idea? Add in the correlation between your name and
your vote for future reprisals and it's indefensible.
In actual live voting, marked ballots are stored before
several observers until end of day and each ballot is 'a
ballot' not 'That guy's ballot'.
The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy
And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican
Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him
pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a
dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court
cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and
other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and
said there is not widespread fraud."
How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60 cases to date
the courts have said that you are wrong.
The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?
Inconclusive at best.
Dizzy Lizzie misstates the court record. No evidence nor
testimony was allowed; all were procedural, standing,
latches etc administrative rulings. Not one trial of fact.
One might say the issue is as yet unresolved. One might also
say that the excessive hoops through which the various
courts jumped to avoid an actual trial says something in itself.
Yes, in many cases the judge ruled that there was no evidence to
justify the claim and threw it out. But also true that many of the
judges were appointed by Republican governments.
And it seems that the cases were spread over much of the U.S. or at
least not restricted to Demo states. In one case the Trump campaign
and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple
cases in six states on a single day.
It seems to me (a guy reading the news ) that one of two situations
must exist (2) the vast majority of the claims are, in fact,
fraudulent, or (2) U.S courts are corrupt and given that some of the
cases were appealed to the Supreme Court (I believe) and that court
upheld the lower court's finding, it would appear that, if this is the
case. the entire U.S. legal system is corrupt.
On 12/13/2023 9:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:21:09 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/13/2023 6:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:21:23?AM UTC-8,
AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09?PM UTC-8,Mailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
sms wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on knownPeople are entitled to their own opinions. They are
facts and yet draw
utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is
necessary, only
varying weight and importance of various criteria.
not entitled to
their own facts.
Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF
you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved
procedure in which you have to be for some actual
reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling
place. This involves you mailing FOR an exception and
the government mailing back to your registered
address a form in which after revealing personal
information you end up placing your personal
signature at the end of it.
The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats
performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of
identifying the person returning the ballot and from
the very first this was designed to commit voter
fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President
in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the
deadline for closing the election until enough phony
votes were collected. All of this is true so why did
the Republicans go with calling this an honest
election when it was entirely designed to commit
election fraud,
The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing
did not mention that there was another bullet in the
car that was a different caliber and could not have
been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot
Kennedy with.
Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report
of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The
reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous
is also a total lie. Any large power generator is
dangerous to some extent but liquid salt reactors
simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is
breached.
You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media
has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no
way that you could tell a real fact without
personally observing something yourself. Didn't
Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball
bearing with another and then say he buys matched
sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault
because he has been told this by someone he trusts
who got their "facts" in the same manner.
Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students
teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part
of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit
he considers "fact".
clerk's staff to edit them. How could anyone think
that is
a good idea? Add in the correlation between your name and
your vote for future reprisals and it's indefensible.
In actual live voting, marked ballots are stored before
several observers until end of day and each ballot is 'a
ballot' not 'That guy's ballot'.
The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines
were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy
of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it
took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of
the machine count and a copy of the count in and out of
the main computer. In short - the manner in which they
did the election where Biden was declared the winner
was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we
have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the
Democrats and have the slightest belief that the
Republicans will have any say in the honest election?
And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House
Republican
Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and
many around him
pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And
that is a
dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were
over 60 court
cases where judges, including judges appointed by
President Trump and
other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in
many cases and
said there is not widespread fraud."
How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60
cases to date
the courts have said that you are wrong.
The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?
Inconclusive at best.
Dizzy Lizzie misstates the court record. No evidence nor
testimony was allowed; all were procedural, standing,
latches etc administrative rulings. Not one trial of fact.
One might say the issue is as yet unresolved. One might also
say that the excessive hoops through which the various
courts jumped to avoid an actual trial says something in
itself.
Yes, in many cases the judge ruled that there was no
evidence to
justify the claim and threw it out. But also true that
many of the
judges were appointed by Republican governments.
And it seems that the cases were spread over much of the
U.S. or at
least not restricted to Demo states. In one case the Trump
campaign
and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost
multiple
cases in six states on a single day.
It seems to me (a guy reading the news ) that one of two
situations
must exist (2) the vast majority of the claims are, in fact,
fraudulent, or (2) U.S courts are corrupt and given that
some of the
cases were appealed to the Supreme Court (I believe) and
that court
upheld the lower court's finding, it would appear that, if
this is the
case. the entire U.S. legal system is corrupt.
Another aspect of Andrew's claim: If the election was as
crooked as Andrew implies, how is it that the Republicans
were so incompetent at pressing their claims? If a judge
said "bad procedure" or "no standing" or "wrong
jurisdiction" or whatever, why would they not correct their
errors and continue to fight for justice, truth and/or
Republican dominance?
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
(...)
Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
In today's news, another area untouched by the courts: >https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coming-clean-1-in-5-admits-2020-election-fraud/ar-AA1loaZw
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:23:05?AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:mail-in ballots say they signed a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member. On the question of voting in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. more Republican mail-in voters (24%) than Democrats (17%) or
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
"Survey of 1,085 National Likely Voters
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95%
level of confidence."
Yep, that a little more than the 1065 needed for confidence level:
<https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html>
Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
"Answered by the 30% of respondents who voted by absentee or mail-in
ballot: During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a
state where you were no longer a permanent resident?"
Then there's this little nugget from that link:
"Among those who cast mail-in ballots in 2020, nearly equal percentages of Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters admitted to fraudulent activities. For example, 19% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 17% of unaffiliated voters who cast 2020
But of course, this information is generally ignored (or even rejected) because it doesn't fit the magatard narrative that democratic voters committed fraud on a massive scale. The Washington Examiner very notably deleted that information.
On 12/13/2023 6:52 PM, John B. wrote:exception and the government mailing back to your registered address a form in which after revealing personal information you end up placing your personal signature at the end of it.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:21:23?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2023 10:11 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 5:29:09?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
As I wrote recently, people can agree on known facts and yet draw >>>>>>> utterly different conclusions. No 'misreading' is necessary, only >>>>>>> varying weight and importance of various criteria.People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to >>>>>> their own facts.
Tell me how you know what facts are. For instance, IF you file for a mail-in ballot it is a pretty involved procedure in which you have to be for some actual reason to be unable to vote in a normal polling place. This involves you mailing FOR an
in history, the Democrats simply kept extending the deadline for closing the election until enough phony votes were collected. All of this is true so why did the Republicans go with calling this an honest election when it was entirely designed to commit
The mass mailings of ballots that the Democrats performed on the 2020 election had NO WAY of identifying the person returning the ballot and from the very first this was designed to commit voter fraud. After Trump won more votes than any President
reactors simply STOP a reaction if the casing in any way is breached.
The Warren Commission "investigating" JFK's killing did not mention that there was another bullet in the car that was a different caliber and could not have been shot out of the gun that Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy with.
Tell me how you determine "facts". The latest report of room temperature fusion was an entire sham. The reports on Thorium fission reactors being dangerous is also a total lie. Any large power generator is dangerous to some extent but liquid salt
bearing with another and then say he buys matched sets in large groups? This isn't Andrew's fault because he has been told this by someone he trusts who got their "facts" in the same manner.
You are a private citizen and the Slime Stream Media has been entirely corrupted. There is absolutely no way that you could tell a real fact without personally observing something yourself. Didn't Andrew just say that you couldn't replace a ball
the count in and out of the main computer. In short - the manner in which they did the election where Biden was declared the winner was constructed entirely for election fraud. Can we have the slightest trust for ANY election run by the Democrats andMailing ballots early is essentially asking the county
Think for a moment - FRANK stood in front of students teaching them FACTS. While I'm sure that a large part of them were true we have seen the sort of bull shit he considers "fact".
clerk's staff to edit them. How could anyone think that is
a good idea? Add in the correlation between your name and
your vote for future reprisals and it's indefensible.
In actual live voting, marked ballots are stored before
several observers until end of day and each ballot is 'a
ballot' not 'That guy's ballot'.
The Democrat claim was that the vote counting machines were incorrect but all it required was to have a copy of your ballot and a copy of the vote count. And all it took then was for the poll watchers to have a copy of the machine count and a copy of
And yet "Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican
Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him
pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a
dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court
cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and
other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and
said there is not widespread fraud."
How can that be Tommy? You claim voter fraud and in 60 cases to date
the courts have said that you are wrong.
The courts are wrong? Or Tom is wrong?
Inconclusive at best.
Dizzy Lizzie misstates the court record. No evidence nor
testimony was allowed; all were procedural, standing,
latches etc administrative rulings. Not one trial of fact.
One might say the issue is as yet unresolved. One might also
say that the excessive hoops through which the various
courts jumped to avoid an actual trial says something in itself.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:43:05 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com" ><funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:mail-in ballots say they signed a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member. On the question of voting in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. more Republican mail-in voters (24%) than Democrats (17%) or
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:23:05?AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>>
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
"Survey of 1,085 National Likely Voters
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95%
level of confidence."
Yep, that a little more than the 1065 needed for confidence level:
<https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html>
Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
"Answered by the 30% of respondents who voted by absentee or mail-in
ballot: During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a
state where you were no longer a permanent resident?"
Then there's this little nugget from that link:
"Among those who cast mail-in ballots in 2020, nearly equal percentages of Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters admitted to fraudulent activities. For example, 19% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 17% of unaffiliated voters who cast 2020
But of course, this information is generally ignored (or even rejected) because it doesn't fit the magatard narrative that democratic voters committed fraud on a massive scale. The Washington Examiner very notably deleted that information.
Voting out of state is far more common than one might suspect. For
example, much of the college student population has their legal
residence at their parents home, while they vote at the college. For >California: ><https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/students> >"As a Californian living away from home while attending a college,
trade school or technical school, you may choose to register to vote
using your home away from home address you use while at school or your >traditional home address."
I've also seen people who are simply to lazy to re-register to vote
every time they move. They consider the vote-by-mail to be a useful >convenience and take advantage of it.
Yet another are people who officially live at someone else address so
to save on their automobile insurance bill (redlining). For a time, I
had 3 people living in my PO Box all for the purpose of saving money
on auto insurance. Untangling the mess that created was a little too
much, so I did a virtual eviction.
We have a substantial homeless population. In order to receive public >assistance, they need an address. Usually, it's one of the 3rd party
mailbox services who provide this address. For example: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Boxes_Etc>
I've also noticed that many apartment buildings have far more
apartment numbers than genuine apartments. These extra apartment
numbers appear on the voter registrations as someone's legal
residence. My guess(tm) is this practice is also useful for inflating
the eligible voter lists and might partly explain why we have such a
low voter turnout of eligible voters.
The sinkhole of corruption is bottomless.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:37:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In today's news, another area untouched by the courts:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coming-clean-1-in-5-admits-2020-election-fraud/ar-AA1loaZw
Maybe. If you ask voters about a month after an election, who was
running for various high offices and for whom did they vote for, you
will get some interesting answers. The overwhelming number will say
they voted for the winner, and not remember who was the loser (or
other candidates). I can usually remember 1 month later, but beyond
that, I often draw a blank.
Another example of memory failure is currency. Try this experiment.
Take a piece of paper and write who is on the front of the various denominations of Federal Reserve Notes (also known as paper money). No
fair peeking inside your wallet or looking them up online. Extra
credit if you can describe what is on the back of the note. You've
probably seen thousands of these Federal Reserve Notes in your
lifetime and you can't recall what they look like? Well, don't worry.
You're not alone. I've tried this test on myself repeatedly and fail miserably every time.
Do you really believe a self-selected group of "likely voters" can
recall for whom they voted and exactly how they cheated? Younger
voters maybe, but older voters, probably unlikely. However, 3 years
later, I suspect very few will remember.
Hmmm... that's odd. The link in the MSN article to the original Heartland/Rasmussen report is missing: <https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election>
Wrong URL in the MSN article. This should work: <https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election>
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
"Survey of 1,085 National Likely Voters
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95%
level of confidence."
Yep, that a little more than the 1065 needed for confidence level: <https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html>
Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
"Answered by the 30% of respondents who voted by absentee or mail-in
ballot: During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a
state where you were no longer a permanent resident?"
Huh? 0.30 * 1085 = 311 people voted in a different state where they
were no longer a resident? That means 1/3 of their 1,085 "likely
voters" moved to a different state in the middle of pandemic? I don't
think so.
Pre-selecting the sample population after calculating the margin of
error is not the way it's done. The margin of error should be 5.6%,
not 3%.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:22:51 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/questions_voters_fraud_heartland_december_2023>
(...)
Looks like all the questions were "yes/no".
I missed the question where they asked for who you voted for in the
last election. Larger print size is helpful.
In Firefox, select "reader view" or toggle [F9].
For Chrome, it's a mess: <https://www.howtogeek.com/895596/google-chromes-reader-mode-has-been-quietly-removed/>
For Edge: <ctrl><shift><R> or just toggle [F9] for "immersive mode".
So, why would Rasmussen make all the survey questions appear difficult
to read and the various browsers sabotage their own reader mode? A
tiny unreadable font size is hardly an accident.
p.s. I have noticed in my PO box plenty of forwarded mail
clearly marked 'do not forward'
Did you catch that? Liebermann has told us that he is guilty of a felony of allowing people to use HIS PO Box to illegally and falsely purchase insurance thereby committing a fraud upon the insurance companies. Now all we need to find is the names ofthe Insurance companies that were thereby scammed and we can send Liebermann away for the remainder of his life, Not that that will be long since a person's resistance against cancer has to do with the strength of his immune system. Oh, that's right,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 69:45:39 |
| Calls: | 6,694 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,346,306 |
| Posted today: | 1 |