Form Versus Function

[p***@hotmail.com]

We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.

Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.

This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
these low profile tires from road damage:

https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break

Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.

Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[D B Davis]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?

Those rims, what can you say? AFAIK wise guys, gangsters, and street
people pronounce it "reems," with a long e sound.
Interesting sfnal question. From my perspective there's a least
three types of sf that offer good prospects for "form over function."

1. Virtual worlds such as _UBIK_ (PKD) or _Simulacron 3_ (Galoye).

2. Degenerate sfnal worlds along the lines of Buck Roger's Han or Hari
Seldon's Galactic Empire. No concrete examples present themselves to
me from this type.

3. Humorous sarcastic sfnal worlds created by a Bob Shaw, an Eric Frank
Russell, Joe Haldeman, et al. Again no concrete examples come to
mind.

Thank you,

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

I think when Douglas Adams provided the updated
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" with a button
labelled, I think, Execute Mode Ready" in replacement
for "Standby" - it is to turn the device off -
he was only imitating reality. And likewise
with spaceship control panel of black buttons,
in a black console, with function labels also black.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Sirius_Cybernetics_Corporation>
quotes the Book: "It is very easy to be blinded to the
essential uselessness of [Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
products] by the sense of achievement you get from getting
them to work at all. In other words—and this is the rock
solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation's
Galaxy-wide success is founded—their fundamental design
flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design
flaws."

One example is the Happy Vertical People Transporter
(elevator), which can see the future, opens for you
before you want it (I'm not persuaded that this in
itself is an inconvenience), and has an opinion of
its own about which floor you should go to.

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Carnegie
One example is the Happy Vertical People Transporter
(elevator), which can see the future, opens for you
before you want it (I'm not persuaded that this in
itself is an inconvenience), and has an opinion of
its own about which floor you should go to.

In Real Life, we had decorative tailfins on cars, and
hood "air scoops" and various spoilers on autos that couldn't
be driven legally on highways at speeds that would allow those
latter 2 features to actually affect performance positively.

If you bought a Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird or Dodge Charger
Daytona, outfitted so such a rig could qualify as a "stock car"
under NASCAR rules, supplying "King" Richard Petty with a huge
advantage, you'd be able to take it to the local track and air
it out.

A high-end Porsche with a whale-tail screaming down the
Autobahn is probably getting benefit from its spoiler.
Crawling along on traffic on I-95, you might console yourself
that at least you "look cool." [While others speculate on
how far along you are in your mid-life crisis... :) ]

Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Robert Carnegie
One example is the Happy Vertical People Transporter
(elevator), which can see the future, opens for you
before you want it (I'm not persuaded that this in
itself is an inconvenience), and has an opinion of
its own about which floor you should go to.

In Real Life, we had decorative tailfins on cars, and
hood "air scoops" and various spoilers on autos that couldn't
be driven legally on highways at speeds that would allow those
latter 2 features to actually affect performance positively.

I still see those occasionally. I'm under the impression that
the manufacturers no longer put the things on their cars, so that
the ones I see have been attached to the finished product by some
body-shop artisan who doesn't care how some fool spends his
money. The one I saw a couple of weeks ago caused Hal to remark,
"And that little model can't even *do* the kind of speeds that
would require a spoiler."

And long ago, like in the 1930s, there was a _New Yorker_ cartoon
(reprinted in one of their retrospective collections) showing a
collection of typical cars of the period, each of which had the
shape of a box stacked atop a larger box. Except for one guy
who's driving something with exaggerated streamlining all over
it, looking like an aircraft without wings. He is saying to a
pedestrian, "And I've got wind resistance just about licked!"
He can say this to the pedestrian because he's in the middle of a
huge gridlock, bumper-to-bumper in every direction, and the
pedestrian might be going somewhere but he certainly isn't.

Post by Kevrob
If you bought a Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird or Dodge Charger
Daytona, outfitted so such a rig could qualify as a "stock car"
under NASCAR rules, supplying "King" Richard Petty with a huge
advantage, you'd be able to take it to the local track and air
it out.
A high-end Porsche with a whale-tail screaming down the
Autobahn is probably getting benefit from its spoiler.
Crawling along on traffic on I-95, you might console yourself
that at least you "look cool." [While others speculate on
how far along you are in your mid-life crisis... :) ]

Oh, dear, and that reminds me of another cartoon. It had four
panels. (I may or may not be getting the first three in order,
but it doesn't matter.) In the first panel, a guy is stripped
down in the locker room and the other guys are pointing and
laughing at him. In the second, he's in his doctor's office and
the doctor is pointing and laughing. In the third, he's in his
bedroom and his girlfriend is pointing and laughing. In the
fourth, he's driving a honking great SUV to the danger of
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Robert Carnegie
One example is the Happy Vertical People Transporter
(elevator), which can see the future, opens for you
before you want it (I'm not persuaded that this in
itself is an inconvenience), and has an opinion of
its own about which floor you should go to.

In Real Life, we had decorative tailfins on cars, and
hood "air scoops" and various spoilers on autos that couldn't
be driven legally on highways at speeds that would allow those
latter 2 features to actually affect performance positively.

I still see those occasionally. I'm under the impression that
the manufacturers no longer put the things on their cars, so that
the ones I see have been attached to the finished product by some
body-shop artisan who doesn't care how some fool spends his
money. The one I saw a couple of weeks ago caused Hal to remark,
"And that little model can't even *do* the kind of speeds that
would require a spoiler."

You might be surprised. Underneath the hood there might be a blower
and nitrous.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And long ago, like in the 1930s, there was a _New Yorker_ cartoon
(reprinted in one of their retrospective collections) showing a
collection of typical cars of the period, each of which had the
shape of a box stacked atop a larger box. Except for one guy
who's driving something with exaggerated streamlining all over
it, looking like an aircraft without wings. He is saying to a
pedestrian, "And I've got wind resistance just about licked!"
He can say this to the pedestrian because he's in the middle of a
huge gridlock, bumper-to-bumper in every direction, and the
pedestrian might be going somewhere but he certainly isn't.

Most of the performance of a Tesla isn't really usable in day to day
driving, but if it was just a dog-slow electric car it would have
never become "cool".

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
If you bought a Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird or Dodge Charger
Daytona, outfitted so such a rig could qualify as a "stock car"
under NASCAR rules, supplying "King" Richard Petty with a huge
advantage, you'd be able to take it to the local track and air
it out.
A high-end Porsche with a whale-tail screaming down the
Autobahn is probably getting benefit from its spoiler.
Crawling along on traffic on I-95, you might console yourself
that at least you "look cool." [While others speculate on
how far along you are in your mid-life crisis... :) ]

Oh, dear, and that reminds me of another cartoon. It had four
panels. (I may or may not be getting the first three in order,
but it doesn't matter.) In the first panel, a guy is stripped
down in the locker room and the other guys are pointing and
laughing at him. In the second, he's in his doctor's office and
the doctor is pointing and laughing. In the third, he's in his
bedroom and his girlfriend is pointing and laughing. In the
fourth, he's driving a honking great SUV to the danger of
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

[m***@sky.com]

(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted). Two things stick in my mind:

1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)

2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do everything right, as David Drake has found out - http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

I've had some back problems (a ruptured disc in the lumber spine 2 or 3 times, diagnosed twice but the earlier back problems started with something that felt exactly like the first diagnosed ruptured disc) and when it's acting up being in a car commonly makes it a lot worse

The worst case was when I'd tweaked the back during a squash tournament and had to go about 70km in the back seat to another set of courts.
Couldn't move.

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do everything right, as David Drake has found out - http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

I've had some back problems (a ruptured disc in the lumber spine 2 or 3 times, diagnosed twice but the earlier back problems started with something that felt exactly like the first diagnosed ruptured disc) and when it's acting up being in a car commonly makes it a lot worse
The worst case was when I'd tweaked the back during a squash tournament and had to go about 70km in the back seat to another set of courts.
Couldn't move.

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do everything right, as David Drake has found out - http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 09:17:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

I've had some back problems (a ruptured disc in the lumber spine 2 or 3 times, diagnosed twice but the earlier back problems started with something that felt exactly like the first diagnosed ruptured disc) and when it's acting up being in a car commonly makes it a lot worse
The worst case was when I'd tweaked the back during a squash tournament and had to go about 70km in the back seat to another set of courts.
Couldn't move.

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do everything right, as David Drake has found out - http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

Doesn't even have to be lane-splitting. Was coming out of class one
day, and there in front of me a woman stopped her BMW, double-parked,
and opened the door right in front of an oncoming Harley.
Unfortunately she had not yet gotten out of the car or she would have
gotten what she deserved. I don't know how badly the rider was
injured, but he didn't get up before the paramedics arrived.

[Kevrob]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes where
the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA auto
drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden State, or
is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider has to worry
about, riding between faster traffic on their "road side" and
the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting "doored" is one reason
some cities have put "separated bike lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest
to the curb, with a barrier on the other side, and parking on the other
side of that barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They
aren't common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Kevin R

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes where
the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA auto
drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden State, or
is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider has to worry
about, riding between faster traffic on their "road side" and
the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting "doored" is one reason
some cities have put "separated bike lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest
to the curb, with a barrier on the other side, and parking on the other
side of that barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They
aren't common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the situation I
described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers don't care if it is
legal or not, they either don't like motorcycles driving past them or
that motorcycles are able to move in the traffic when they can't, so
they try to punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car door in
stop-n-go freeway traffic.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:58:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes where
the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA auto
drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden State, or
is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider has to worry
about, riding between faster traffic on their "road side" and
the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting "doored" is one reason
some cities have put "separated bike lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest
to the curb, with a barrier on the other side, and parking on the other
side of that barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They
aren't common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the situation I
described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers don't care if it is
legal or not, they either don't like motorcycles driving past them or
that motorcycles are able to move in the traffic when they can't, so
they try to punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car door in
stop-n-go freeway traffic.

In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going on
it's another story.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:58:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes where
the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA auto
drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden State, or
is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider has to worry
about, riding between faster traffic on their "road side" and
the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting "doored" is one reason
some cities have put "separated bike lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest
to the curb, with a barrier on the other side, and parking on the other
side of that barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They
aren't common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the situation I
described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers don't care if it is
legal or not, they either don't like motorcycles driving past them or
that motorcycles are able to move in the traffic when they can't, so
they try to punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car door in
stop-n-go freeway traffic.

In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going on
it's another story.

What about when the car driver makes eye contact with the motorcyclist
in his side rear view mirror before opening the door in front of them?

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:18:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:58:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes where
the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in California
where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split. There have been
instances of car drivers stuck in traffic opening their doors in front
of motorcycles driving between stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA auto
drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden State, or
is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider has to worry
about, riding between faster traffic on their "road side" and
the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting "doored" is one reason
some cities have put "separated bike lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest
to the curb, with a barrier on the other side, and parking on the other
side of that barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They
aren't common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the situation I
described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers don't care if it is
legal or not, they either don't like motorcycles driving past them or
that motorcycles are able to move in the traffic when they can't, so
they try to punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car door in
stop-n-go freeway traffic.

In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going on
it's another story.

What about when the car driver makes eye contact with the motorcyclist
in his side rear view mirror before opening the door in front of them?

Then one would think it deliberate.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the situation I
described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers don't care if it is
legal or not, they either don't like motorcycles driving past them or
that motorcycles are able to move in the traffic when they can't, so
they try to punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car door in
stop-n-go freeway traffic.

If it weren't deliberate, checking your rear-view and side mirrors
might clue you in that a bicycle or motorcycle were going to pass
your stopped car. Of course, there are enough lousy drivers
who haven't used their mirrors since they passed their driving test,
so it may be inadvertent in the case of those folks. "Hanlon's
razor" applies.

Post by J. Clarke
In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going on
it's another story.

Turn on the radio. Have traffic reports pushed to your
smartphone. Use Waze. If you have to get out of your
car, look behind you, first. If the driver exiting the
car times it wrong, he or she may wind up being struck
by the `cycle.

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the situation I
described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers don't care if it is
legal or not, they either don't like motorcycles driving past them or
that motorcycles are able to move in the traffic when they can't, so
they try to punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car door in
stop-n-go freeway traffic.

If it weren't deliberate, checking your rear-view and side mirrors
might clue you in that a bicycle or motorcycle were going to pass
your stopped car. Of course, there are enough lousy drivers
who haven't used their mirrors since they passed their driving test,
so it may be inadvertent in the case of those folks. "Hanlon's
razor" applies.

It came as a surprise to my mother that the mirrors were not there for
one's vanity.

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going on
it's another story.

Turn on the radio. Have traffic reports pushed to your
smartphone. Use Waze. If you have to get out of your
car, look behind you, first. If the driver exiting the
car times it wrong, he or she may wind up being struck
by the `cycle.

Smartphone is a recent development. Have no idea what Waze is. And
suppose the radio doesn't say anything?

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
If it weren't deliberate, checking your rear-view and side mirrors
might clue you in that a bicycle or motorcycle were going to pass
your stopped car. Of course, there are enough lousy drivers
who haven't used their mirrors since they passed their driving test,
so it may be inadvertent in the case of those folks. "Hanlon's
razor" applies.

It came as a surprise to my mother that the mirrors were not there for
one's vanity.

I can believe that! I used to own a used Chrysler Cirrus with light-
up vanity mirrors on the reverse of the flip-down sun visors.
Those who fard in cars, preferably as passengers, should order those.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going on
it's another story.

Turn on the radio. Have traffic reports pushed to your
smartphone. Use Waze. If you have to get out of your
car, look behind you, first. If the driver exiting the
car times it wrong, he or she may wind up being struck
by the `cycle.

Smartphone is a recent development.

Not everyone has one, true.

Post by J. Clarke
Have no idea what Waze is.

It's a navigation app.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze

Post by J. Clarke
And suppose the radio doesn't say anything?

That's one of Waze's "selling points." Places the
radio traffic reporters don't usually cover can show
up on it: "traffic has hit gridlock on Anytown RD
east of the southbound interstate on-ramp..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze#Crowdsourcing

Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Kevrob

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

Post by Kevrob
If it weren't deliberate, checking your rear-view and side
mirrors might clue you in that a bicycle or motorcycle were
going to pass your stopped car. Of course, there are enough
lousy drivers who haven't used their mirrors since they passed
their driving test, so it may be inadvertent in the case of
those folks. "Hanlon's razor" applies.

It came as a surprise to my mother that the mirrors were not
there for one's vanity.

I can believe that! I used to own a used Chrysler Cirrus with
light- up vanity mirrors on the reverse of the flip-down sun
visors. Those who fard in cars, preferably as passengers, should
order those.

They's standard equipment on pretty much all new cars, and have been
for years. On (both* sides). My Corolla is a base L model with zero
options, and has them.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the
situation I described (cars stopped in traffic) the car
drivers don't care if it is legal or not, they either don't
like motorcycles driving past them or that motorcycles are
able to move in the traffic when they can't, so they try to
punish or stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be
deliberate because their is no reason to be opening your car
door in stop-n-go freeway traffic.

If it weren't deliberate, checking your rear-view and side
mirrors might clue you in that a bicycle or motorcycle were
going to pass your stopped car. Of course, there are enough
lousy drivers who haven't used their mirrors since they passed
their driving test, so it may be inadvertent in the case of
those folks. "Hanlon's razor" applies.

It came as a surprise to my mother that the mirrors were not
there for one's vanity.

Given that nearly all cars include a vanity mirror on the back side
of the visor, including on the driver's side, that's not as
ridiculous as it should be.

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is
going on it's another story.

Turn on the radio. Have traffic reports pushed to your
smartphone. Use Waze. If you have to get out of your
car, look behind you, first. If the driver exiting the
car times it wrong, he or she may wind up being struck
by the `cycle.

Smartphone is a recent development.

But certainly exists.

Have no idea what Waze is.

One of many apps that you allow to track where you are, where
you're going, and how fast, which collates all that data to show
you traffic conditions.

And suppose the radio doesn't say anything?

Then you don't live in a place where traffic jambs are a regular
thing, and should be safe in assuming a really nasty accident. I
hear an average of two traffic reports every morning on my 20
minute drive to work. (And I don't listen to the AM station
dedicated solely to traffic conditions.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:58:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 12:17:32 PM UTC-4, Dimensional

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 2:17:02 PM UTC+10,

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get
messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes
where the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in
California where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split.
There have been instances of car drivers stuck in traffic
opening their doors in front of motorcycles driving between
stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA
auto drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden
State, or is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle
rider has to worry about, riding between faster traffic on
their "road side" and the cars parked along the curb/kerb?
Getting "doored" is one reason some cities have put "separated
bike lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest to the curb, with a
barrier on the other side, and parking on the other side of
that barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They
aren't common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the
situation I described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers
don't care if it is legal or not, they either don't like
motorcycles driving past them or that motorcycles are able to
move in the traffic when they can't, so they try to punish or
stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be deliberate because
their is no reason to be opening your car door in stop-n-go
freeway traffic.

In stop-n-go no. In stopped 20 minutes and wonder WTF is going
on it's another story.

I have lived in southern California, which, most years, have at
least five of the ten busiest freesays in the world, for nearly 40
years. Rush hour, literally every day, including weekends, rarely
exceeds 20 mph.

In all that time, I have been in that kind of traffic jamb once. A
friend was involved in it once, but that was on the I-5 where it
goes through Camp Pendleton (where there are *no* exitso open to
the public for at least 10 miles), and was caused by a brush fire
that had jumpted across the freeway.

Yeah, it happens, but it's *very* rare.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 12:17:32 PM UTC-4, Dimensional

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 2:17:02 PM UTC+10,

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get
messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes
where the rider is the motor.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in
California where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split.
There have been instances of car drivers stuck in traffic
opening their doors in front of motorcycles driving between
stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA
auto drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden
State, or is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider
has to worry about, riding between faster traffic on their
"road side" and the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting
"doored" is one reason some cities have put "separated bike
lanes" aka a "cycle track" closest to the curb, with a barrier
on the other side, and parking on the other side of that
barrier, if there's parking on that street at all. They aren't
common in the States, yet. New York has some.

Depends on how one defines "idiocy". It seems that in the
situation I described (cars stopped in traffic) the car drivers
don't care if it is legal or not, they either don't like
motorcycles driving past them or that motorcycles are able to
move in the traffic when they can't, so they try to punish or
stop the motorcycle riders. It HAS to be deliberate because
their is no reason to be opening your car door in stop-n-go
freeway traffic.

The correct word to describe it is "felony." And the first cops on
the scene will likely arrive via lane-splitting motorcycle
themselves, and they tend to be rather unsympathetic towards the
car driver.

It happens, but it's not all that common.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 12:17:32 PM UTC-4, Dimensional

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 2:17:02 PM UTC+10,

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get
messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

That's true, and equally true for bike riders on the bikes where
the rider is the motor.

Don't I know it, after a mild consussion, a wrist broken badly
enough to require a metal plate, a cracked collarbone, and bruising
so bad they were worried about nerve damage. From one accident.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in
California where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split.
There have been instances of car drivers stuck in traffic
opening their doors in front of motorcycles driving between
stopped cars.

Lane splitting isn't legal everywhere. Are most or many CA auto
drivers just ignorant that it is legal in the Golden State,

Most drivers are aware that it is perfectly legal, because if
you've been driving for more than one minute, you've seen the
Highway Patrol do it, and very likely the local cops, too.

It's not specifically legal, it's just not banned. The jist of it
is that there's no law prohibited multiple vehicles from sharing
the same lane, so long as it's done "safely," which includes a
defacto requirement of not going too much faster than surrounding
traffic.

And it will never been specifically banned, because CHP finds it
far too necessary to get to accidents quickly.

or
is this idiocy equivalent to what every bicycle rider has to
worry about, riding between faster traffic on their "road side"
and the cars parked along the curb/kerb? Getting "doored" is one
reason some cities have put "separated bike lanes" aka a "cycle
track" closest to the curb, with a barrier on the other side,
and parking on the other side of that barrier, if there's
parking on that street at all. They aren't common in the
States, yet. New York has some.

Bicycle lanes are pretty common here, but I've never seen any with
a barrier. On the other hand, other than the usual oblivious idiots
(and they are common), people are usually pretty tolerant of
cyclists, if only out of fear (go do a search on Critical Massholes
in San Franciso for why).
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
And it will never been specifically banned, because CHP finds it
far too necessary to get to accidents quickly.

I'm not allowed to turn on flashing lights and drive through red
lights either. Isn't it fairly easy to write a law that lets agents
of the law ignore it?

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Bicycle lanes are pretty common here, but I've never seen any with
a barrier. On the other hand, other than the usual oblivious idiots
(and they are common), people are usually pretty tolerant of
cyclists, if only out of fear (go do a search on Critical Massholes
in San Franciso for why).

Calgary's version in streetview. First just the barrier (looks like
you could open a car door right across it.
https://goo.gl/maps/e5fZdSgpJFR2

I had another one in mind, where they use those triangular temporary
barricades, then parking, then the traffic lanes, but streetview
hasn't revisited that avenue yet.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
And it will never been specifically banned, because CHP finds it
far too necessary to get to accidents quickly.

I'm not allowed to turn on flashing lights and drive through red
lights either. Isn't it fairly easy to write a law that lets
agents of the law ignore it?

In this case, I suspect it would be *far* more difficult. The
public is far too used to it, and if the CHP can do it, there's
obviously *no* safety concerns that outweight the benefits. (They
have their faults, but a reputation for unsafe highway practices
isn't among them.)

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Bicycle lanes are pretty common here, but I've never seen any
with a barrier. On the other hand, other than the usual
oblivious idiots (and they are common), people are usually
pretty tolerant of cyclists, if only out of fear (go do a search
on Critical Massholes in San Franciso for why).

Calgary's version in streetview. First just the barrier (looks
like you could open a car door right across it.
https://goo.gl/maps/e5fZdSgpJFR2

Yeah, makes perfect sense, though you'd have a hard time selling
cyclists here on having a two-way bicycle lane like that (unless
you put a barrier between them, as well). Plus, it takes up real
estate that is too expensive to use that way. Yeah, really, around
here, where freeway expansion cost a billion dollars a mile, not
including the price of the legal fight before planning can even
start.

But as I said, it's not a huge deal here, at least where I live (LA
may be different, but everything in LA tends to be more hazardous,
including breathing the air). People generally tend to respect the
bicycles they notice.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my
selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems, especially
in the lumbar spine.

I've had some back problems (a ruptured disc in the lumber
spine 2 or 3 times, diagnosed twice but the earlier back
problems started with something that felt exactly like the
first diagnosed ruptured disc) and when it's acting up being in
a car commonly makes it a lot worse
The worst case was when I'd tweaked the back during a squash
tournament and had to go about 70km in the back seat to another
set of courts. Couldn't move.

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get
messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

And sometimes its not even a mistake. I used to ride in
California where it is legal for motorcycles to lane split.
There have been instances of car drivers stuck in traffic
opening their doors in front of motorcycles driving between
stopped cars.

It happens. And occasionally, they have justice visited upon them
immediately, in addition to the criminal charges. (A friend saw it
happen. The biker got up, dusted himself off, and pulled the car
driver out of the car and beat him into intensive care. I don't
believe he was even charged, given the circumstances.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my
selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers we

re exposed to on trains. We tested it out by carrying it around
on cars (albeit not accurately mounted). Two things stick in my

Post by m***@sky.com
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can rea

d in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)

Post by m***@sky.com
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects.

It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to
produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected
to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.
I've had some back problems (a ruptured disc in the lumber spine
2 or 3 times, diagnosed twice but the earlier back problems
started with something that felt exactly like the first
diagnosed ruptured disc) and when it's acting up being in a car
commonly makes it a lot worse
The worst case was when I'd tweaked the back during a squash
tournament and had to go about 70km in the back seat to another
set of courts. Couldn't move.

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything

right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/
I think pretty much every bike rider knows that you can get
messed up badly due to a car making a mistake.

Something like 80% of all car drivers who get into an accident with
a motorcycle say some variety of "I never saw it."

You have to be aware enough of everything around you to compensate
for the fact that everybody is is oblivious. Or, as the guy who
taught me to ride said, "Assume that everyone on the road is trying
to kill you, and if they're not, it's only because they haven't
seen you yet."

I was far more seriously injured in a bicycle accident than
anything that happened on the motorcycle.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Kevrob]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Something like 80% of all car drivers who get into an accident with
a motorcycle say some variety of "I never saw it."
You have to be aware enough of everything around you to compensate
for the fact that everybody is is oblivious. Or, as the guy who
taught me to ride said, "Assume that everyone on the road is trying
to kill you, and if they're not, it's only because they haven't
seen you yet."
I was far more seriously injured in a bicycle accident than
anything that happened on the motorcycle.

Everything Terry wrote about awareness of surroundings on a motorcycle
is just as true on a bicycle. Human-powered bikes have a harder time
accelerating out of trouble, once the rider sees he's in it, and stopping
short when you don't know how to do it correctly is dangerous. Additive
velocities are less, though. I cringe when I see bicycle riders checking
their phones in traffic, or riding with headphones/earbuds in both ears.
Long ago I would sometimes ride with one earbud in, to hear the ballgame.
I decided I'd rather hear the traffic, and stopped doing that.

I've used the expression "keep your head on a swivel" to other riders.

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do everything right, as David Drake has found out - http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid maiming
myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank you. Why does
everyone who finds out that one rides a motorcycle have to tell one of
the dangers? We fucking KNOW the dangers. What you don't get is that
we don't CARE.

[Alan Baker]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a Corvette
I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive one
(seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but my
hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do everything right, as David Drake has found out - http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid maiming
myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank you. Why does
everyone who finds out that one rides a motorcycle have to tell one of
the dangers? We fucking KNOW the dangers. What you don't get is that
we don't CARE.

I get it fine.

You want to be free to comment on other's choices, but not have anyone
comment on yours...

...or is that wrong?

Believe me, I'm not criticizing your choice, or even really commenting
on it. I've ridden myself (albeit quite a way back), and I currently
race an open wheel road racing car (Formula F—formerly Formula Ford), so
I understand choosing something with risk involved.

[Kevrob]

Post by Alan Baker
Believe me, I'm not criticizing your choice, or even really commenting
on it. I've ridden myself (albeit quite a way back), and I currently
race an open wheel road racing car (Formula F—formerly Formula Ford), so
I understand choosing something with risk involved.

I don't have a problem with riders of motorcycles assuming risk,
and I concur the injuries and deaths visited on them are frequently,
if not in the majority of cases, largely the fault of the drivers
of 4-wheel vehicles - the "cagers." The closest I've ever come to
learning to ride a motorcycle was the moped I used one Florida winter,
but I have ridden a bicycle a lot as an adult, not only for exercise
and recreation, but also for commuting and other utility tasks like
shopping for groceries. I would often ride on well-traveled roads
without any special biking facilities, and in bad weather when I had to.

I was putting myself at risk, also. I tried not to ride like an idiot.
I put lights, mirror and horn on my bike, I wore bright clothing and
a vest with reflective strips like construction crews wear. The law
didn't require I wear a helmet, but I chose to. I stopped at STOP
signs and red lights, and I signaled my turns. I could still be run
off the road by a ton ore more of metal in the hands of a clueless,
careless, hostile and/or drunk driver. Hell, I've had idiots in
the passenger seat pitch bottles at my head as the pick-up truck
hauling them around passed me. BTW, I look nothing like "Lance,"
nor do I wear kit like I'm riding in the Tour. Hybrid bikes with
lights, a back rack and panniers don't win many stages.

What people can bitch about is socializing rich. When I was riding
my bike while out of work, or temping, I had no health insurance.
If I had been hit by some uninsured driver, or wiped out and hurt
myself seriously, my medical bills would have had to be paid by others
who were not otherwise responsible for them.* Now, would my health
insurer prefer I don't exercise, or ride? Risk is about what you do
compared to your alternatives. I don't plan to be one of those folks
who drives to the gym, works out, and drives home, or only rides his
bike on trails segregated from motorized traffic.

Kevin R

* I sustained a minor hand injury when I went over the handlebars
trying to stop rapidly on a steep hill, and my right knee acts up
a bit in humid weather, which I suspect is connected to a spill I
took riding through a disguised pothole one rainy day years ago.
If I had some insurance at the time, I might have had those
injuries treated.

[m***@sky.com]

(trimmed)

Post by Kevrob
who were not otherwise responsible for them.* Now, would my health
insurer prefer I don't exercise, or ride? Risk is about what you do
compared to your alternatives. I don't plan to be one of those folks
who drives to the gym, works out, and drives home, or only rides his
bike on trails segregated from motorized traffic.
Kevin R

FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks (https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even make an argument that if the government banned cycling without a helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries (but to be honest the figures are pretty variable, especially for the number of people discouraged so you can probably find arguments against this if you pick your facts and question carefully enough).

I don't claim to have a right to tell other people what to risks to take - I just want to ask them to think things through. My personal history is that as an increasingly cautious cyclist I have never needed medical treatment for a cycle injury but I happen to have heard of serious motorcycle injuries. In a school with a class size of 90 or so one guy in our year was hospitalized with a broken pelvis from a motorcycle accident, and one guy joined our year after missing a year of school from the same reason. In both cases they had been riding along with right of way when a lorry pulled out in front of them at a junction without looking. (We also had one girl killed with two others not from our school when the car they were driving went off the road at a bad corner and hit a tree - N.Ireland road safety was atrocious, probably because it wasn't a police priority at the time).

[Kevrob]

Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed)

Now, would my health insurer prefer I don't exercise, or ride?

<snip>

Post by m***@sky.com
If cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks (https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle).

<snip>

This was in the back of my mind, but thanks for providing a cite.

<snip>

BTW, the other 49 states might want to consider legalizing
lane splitting and filtering by those on motorcycles. Seems
that is actually safer.

[quote]

Even the U.S. Department of Transportation states that lane
splitting can “provide an escape route for motorcyclists who
would otherwise be trapped or struck from behind.” Indeed,
California, the only state to allow the practice, has significantly
fewer motorcyclist fatalities from rear-endings than other states.

[/quote]

http://www.laweekly.com/arts/heres-why-motorcyclists-engage-in-lane-splitting-and-its-not-just-to-get-somewhere-faster-video-5674102

I think that trumps "It's not fair! They should have to wait
their turn like everybody else!"

I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway:
share the road with everybody.*

Kevin R

* Including skateboarders, once the figure out how to put
brakes on those things! ;)

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed)

Now, would my health insurer prefer I don't exercise, or ride?

<snip>

Post by m***@sky.com
If cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks (https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle).

<snip>
This was in the back of my mind, but thanks for providing a cite.
<snip>
BTW, the other 49 states might want to consider legalizing
lane splitting and filtering by those on motorcycles. Seems
that is actually safer.
[quote]
Even the U.S. Department of Transportation states that lane
splitting can “provide an escape route for motorcyclists who
would otherwise be trapped or struck from behind.” Indeed,
California, the only state to allow the practice, has significantly
fewer motorcyclist fatalities from rear-endings than other states.
[/quote]
http://www.laweekly.com/arts/heres-why-motorcyclists-engage-in-lane-splitting-and-its-not-just-to-get-somewhere-faster-video-5674102
I think that trumps "It's not fair! They should have to wait
their turn like everybody else!"
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
share the road with everybody.*
Kevin R
* Including skateboarders, once the figure out how to put
brakes on those things! ;)

On the way in to work the other day, running late, traffic all of a
sudden comes to a near halt. Seems that there's some guy on a
bicycle, on a 55 mph two-land road, riding down the middle of his
lane, in a no-passing zone, with a long line of traffic backed up
behind him.

Sorry, but "share the road" should not give anybody the right to
impede traffic in order to get his exercise.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On the way in to work the other day, running late, traffic all of a
sudden comes to a near halt. Seems that there's some guy on a
bicycle, on a 55 mph two-land road, riding down the middle of his
lane, in a no-passing zone, with a long line of traffic backed up
behind him.
Sorry, but "share the road" should not give anybody the right to
impede traffic in order to get his exercise.

Law in my state requires bicyclists to ride "as far to the right as
practicable" that also comports with safety. "Taking the lane" can
be done in certain circumstances, but bicycle riders are under
the obligation not to be "road hogs" just as operators of any other
vehicles are. There are 20mph and 25mph stretches of road near me
where I still wouldn't take the lane, except to avoid a road hazard,
because local traffic will speed. I sometimes pull over and let the
tailgaters pass me on one such road I take to work, and that's when
I'm driving my Jeep! I was given a warning ticket by local police
who had taken to setting up radar just over a town line, where
the speed limit drops by 5 mph. All of a sudden the traffic goes
from going 5-10 mph over to 10-15 over. I'll let the "lead foots"
trigger the "speed trap," thank you very much.

A fit bicyclist on a road bike in the flat, can hit 25mph/40 km/h.
Taking the lane "just because" when you can't achieve half the
speed limit on a 2-lane is idiocy, I agree. I try to plan routes
that avoid roads with the higher speed limits. Most 2-lanes around
here wouldn't have a limit over 40mph, and if an alternate route
is available w/a 30mph limit, I'll take that.

My "share the road" advice is for everybody, not just those
driving cars and trucks.

Kevin R

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:44:28 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Sorry, but "share the road" should not give anybody the right to
impede traffic in order to get his exercise.

And it doesn't. The law clearly states that slow-moving vehicles must
get out of the way of faster-moving vehicles the first safe chance
they get.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:38:50 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:44:28 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Sorry, but "share the road" should not give anybody the right to
impede traffic in order to get his exercise.

And it doesn't. The law clearly states that slow-moving vehicles must
get out of the way of faster-moving vehicles the first safe chance
they get.

What the law says and what happens in the real world are two different
things.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:38:50 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:44:28 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Sorry, but "share the road" should not give anybody the right
to impede traffic in order to get his exercise.

And it doesn't. The law clearly states that slow-moving
vehicles must get out of the way of faster-moving vehicles the
first safe chance they get.

What the law says and what happens in the real world are two
different things.

Indeed. But complaining about the law when it's already being broken
makes one look espcially stoopid. (And look like a liberal.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Kevrob
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.

Cars execute Idaho stops every time the driver can see for sure that
there is no cross traffic and nobody coming who might turn across his
path -- there doesn't need to be a special rule for bikes.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:34:00 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Kevrob
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.

Cars execute Idaho stops every time the driver can see for sure that
there is no cross traffic and nobody coming who might turn across his
path -- there doesn't need to be a special rule for bikes.

In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and wants
to make an issue out of it.

[Peter Trei]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:34:00 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Kevrob
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.

Cars execute Idaho stops every time the driver can see for sure that
there is no cross traffic and nobody coming who might turn across his
path -- there doesn't need to be a special rule for bikes.

In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and wants
to make an issue out of it.

Which sometimes makes a lot of sense. Example:

I live off of Rt. 2, a not-quite Interstate 4 lane highway. At my (westbound)
exit, Depot Road crosses Rt2 on a bridge. The top of the ramp,
splits, and the folk heading north (a right turn) have a STOP sign.

But if you're at that point, there's a very good clear view to the left, and
a majority of drivers treat it as a Yield sign, and barely slow down.

The problem is, that about 100 yards down the road, Turnpike Road crosses Depot.
Coming from the east side, (same as the ramp), the entrance is invisible from
the location of the ramp. Similarly, the status of the ramp is invisible to a
driver on Turnpike intending to turn left.

If a car comes off the ramp and turns onto Depot without stopping first, it
approaches Turnpike so quickly there's a danger of hitting a car trying to
turn left off of Turnpike onto Depot. If they are coming off of a dead stop,
there's enough time for it to be safe.

TL,DNR: The Stop sign is there for a reason, and an 'Idaho stop' can create a
a dangerous situation, which is *not* apparent to the car making the Idaho
stop.

Now, maybe in Idaho, where there's miles and miles of miles and miles,
sightlines are not obscured, and in many places it makes sense. But not in MA.

pt

[Bill Dugan]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:34:00 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Kevrob
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.

Cars execute Idaho stops every time the driver can see for sure that
there is no cross traffic and nobody coming who might turn across his
path -- there doesn't need to be a special rule for bikes.

In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and wants
to make an issue out of it.

CA also

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Bill Dugan
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:34:00 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Kevrob
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on crashes,
it makes sense to change the law.

Cars execute Idaho stops every time the driver can see for sure that
there is no cross traffic and nobody coming who might turn across his
path -- there doesn't need to be a special rule for bikes.

In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and wants
to make an issue out of it.

CA also

I don't know anyplace they are actually legal. Growing up in rural
Indiana I was driving farm trucks and tractors, including on the back
roads, as soon as I could reach the pedals. As long as the corn wasn't
high enough to block your view we just rolled right through the stop signs.

Then on the first day of drivers ed where we actually drove, the
instructor picked me up, I took off driving, and sailed right through
the first stop. Thought he was going to have a heart attack and he
threatened to fail me then and there.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Bill Dugan
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:34:00 -0400, Joy Beeson

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

Post by Kevrob
I'd also like to see the "Idaho stop" for bicycles, similar
to "Dead red" rules for motorcyclists. If it cuts down on
crashes, it makes sense to change the law.

Cars execute Idaho stops every time the driver can see for sure
that there is no cross traffic and nobody coming who might turn
across his path -- there doesn't need to be a special rule for
bikes.

In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and
wants to make an issue out of it.

CA also

Even if you're on a motorcycle that doesn't weigh enough to trigger
the sensor that turns the light green.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Bill Dugan
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and
wants to make an issue out of it.

CA also

Even if you're on a motorcycle that doesn't weigh enough to trigger
the sensor that turns the light green.

I have two motorbikes. There's a light on my standard route home from
work that, if I'm on the little one, won't turn for me. Fortunately
(?) traffic is picking up on that street and I'm seldom alone at the
liight.

If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go over to
press the pedestrian button.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Bill Dugan
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you
and wants to make an issue out of it.

CA also

Even if you're on a motorcycle that doesn't weigh enough to
trigger the sensor that turns the light green.

I have two motorbikes. There's a light on my standard route
home from work that, if I'm on the little one, won't turn for
me. Fortunately (?) traffic is picking up on that street and
I'm seldom alone at the liight.

A guy I know was stuck in a left turn lane in the wee hours, and
after several cycles of the light with *no* traffic either way,
pulled through the red arrow, and got pulled over by a squad car.
The guy flat didn't believe him that the light wouldn't change, and
that there was *no* legal way out of where he was for who knows how
many hours. Until a motorcycle cop from his own department pulled
up and set him straight.

Post by Greg Goss
If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go over
to press the pedestrian button.

That'll likely get you a bigger ticket around here, even if there's
no other traffic.

You used to see the occasional cyclist next to his bike on the
kickstand, jumping up and down as hard as he could, trying to
trigger the sensor. (It didn't work. I think the sensors were
capacitance based, no weight, now that I think about it.) I believe
they use different technology now, that actually picks up
motorcycles correctly.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Greg Goss
If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go over
to press the pedestrian button.

That'll likely get you a bigger ticket around here, even if there's
no other traffic.
You used to see the occasional cyclist next to his bike on the
kickstand, jumping up and down as hard as he could, trying to
trigger the sensor. (It didn't work. I think the sensors were
capacitance based, no weight, now that I think about it.) I believe
they use different technology now, that actually picks up
motorcycles correctly.

I don't think I've ever met one that looked like it was designed for
measuring weight. In snow country, a car-sized layer of wet snow
probably weighs more than my scooter. (especially if a normal-sized
person is on it - it was bought for my ex, who weighs less than half
what I do.)

The sensors always look like a groove to set a coil into. Sometimes
circular, sometimes octagon (square with corners cut), sometimes
square. Even on newly paved roads, you get these tar-filled grooves.
I assume that they pave the road, including over a feeder wire that
sticks out where they want the coil, then they cut the coil groove and
set the coil into it. Connect it to the electronics and fill in the
groove.

[Kevrob]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Greg Goss
If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go over
to press the pedestrian button.

That'll likely get you a bigger ticket around here, even if there's
no other traffic.
You used to see the occasional cyclist next to his bike on the
kickstand, jumping up and down as hard as he could, trying to
trigger the sensor. (It didn't work. I think the sensors were
capacitance based, no weight, now that I think about it.) I believe
they use different technology now, that actually picks up
motorcycles correctly.

I don't think I've ever met one that looked like it was designed for
measuring weight. In snow country, a car-sized layer of wet snow
probably weighs more than my scooter. (especially if a normal-sized
person is on it - it was bought for my ex, who weighs less than half
what I do.)
The sensors always look like a groove to set a coil into. Sometimes
circular, sometimes octagon (square with corners cut), sometimes
square. Even on newly paved roads, you get these tar-filled grooves.
I assume that they pave the road, including over a feeder wire that
sticks out where they want the coil, then they cut the coil groove and
set the coil into it. Connect it to the electronics and fill in the
groove.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

I'm pretty sure this is the standard tech:

"Inductive-loop traffic detector systems"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_loop#Vehicle_detection

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm

The trick bicyclists in areas where these are installed, and the
bike won't trip the light used was to dismount and lay the bike down
where the sensor grid should be. Especially if you had a steel-frame
bike, the proximity mimicked additional weight. Or, if you position
yourself on the loop detector, that might work.

http://bike.lacity.org/anatomy-of-a-bicycle-friendly-street-loop-detectors/

Kevin R

[Peter Trei]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Greg Goss
If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go over
to press the pedestrian button.

That'll likely get you a bigger ticket around here, even if there's
no other traffic.
You used to see the occasional cyclist next to his bike on the
kickstand, jumping up and down as hard as he could, trying to
trigger the sensor. (It didn't work. I think the sensors were
capacitance based, no weight, now that I think about it.) I believe
they use different technology now, that actually picks up
motorcycles correctly.

I don't think I've ever met one that looked like it was designed for
measuring weight. In snow country, a car-sized layer of wet snow
probably weighs more than my scooter. (especially if a normal-sized
person is on it - it was bought for my ex, who weighs less than half
what I do.)
The sensors always look like a groove to set a coil into. Sometimes
circular, sometimes octagon (square with corners cut), sometimes
square. Even on newly paved roads, you get these tar-filled grooves.
I assume that they pave the road, including over a feeder wire that
sticks out where they want the coil, then they cut the coil groove and
set the coil into it. Connect it to the electronics and fill in the
groove.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

"Inductive-loop traffic detector systems"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_loop#Vehicle_detection
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm
The trick bicyclists in areas where these are installed, and the
bike won't trip the light used was to dismount and lay the bike down
where the sensor grid should be. Especially if you had a steel-frame
bike, the proximity mimicked additional weight. Or, if you position
yourself on the loop detector, that might work.
http://bike.lacity.org/anatomy-of-a-bicycle-friendly-street-loop-detectors/
Kevin R

There are gadgets which will allegedly give your bike a big enough electro-
magnetic footprint to trigger the sensors:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/10/this-bicycle-gadget-makes-red-lights-turn-green/381752/

Here's an article on the problem from the roadbuilder side:

https://www.bikewalknc.org/bicycle-detection-at-traffic-signals/

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Bill Dugan
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you and
wants to make an issue out of it.

CA also

Even if you're on a motorcycle that doesn't weigh enough to trigger
the sensor that turns the light green.

I have two motorbikes. There's a light on my standard route home from
work that, if I'm on the little one, won't turn for me. Fortunately
(?) traffic is picking up on that street and I'm seldom alone at the
liight.
If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go over to
press the pedestrian button.

If I'm the only one at the light, there ain't a cop to see me check all
directions for traffic and then make the left turn after sitting there
for 15 minutes. ;)

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Bill Dugan
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:43:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
In CT and MA you'll get ticketed for that if a cop sees you
and wants to make an issue out of it.

CA also

Even if you're on a motorcycle that doesn't weigh enough to
trigger the sensor that turns the light green.

I have two motorbikes. There's a light on my standard route
home from work that, if I'm on the little one, won't turn for
me. Fortunately (?) traffic is picking up on that street and
I'm seldom alone at the liight.
If I'm the only one at the light, I get off the bike and go
over to press the pedestrian button.

If I'm the only one at the light, there ain't a cop to see me
check all directions for traffic and then make the left turn
after sitting there for 15 minutes. ;)

Unless, of course, he knows you come that way when there's little
other traffic, and is hiding nearby because he has a quota to meet.

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed)

Post by Kevrob
who were not otherwise responsible for them.* Now, would my health
insurer prefer I don't exercise, or ride? Risk is about what you do
compared to your alternatives. I don't plan to be one of those folks
who drives to the gym, works out, and drives home, or only rides his
bike on trails segregated from motorized traffic.
Kevin R

FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks (https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even make an argument that if the government banned cycling without a helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries (but to be honest the figures are pretty variable, especially for the number of people discouraged so you can probably find arguments against this if you pick your facts and question carefully enough).
I don't claim to have a right to tell other people what to risks to take - I just want to ask them to think things through. My personal history is that as an increasingly cautious cyclist I have never needed medical treatment for a cycle injury but I happen to have heard of serious motorcycle injuries. In a school with a class size of 90 or so one guy in our year was hospitalized with a broken pelvis from a motorcycle accident, and one guy joined our year after missing a year of school from the same reason. In both cases they had been riding along with right of way when a lorry pulled out in front of them at a junction without looking. (We also had one girl killed with two others not from our school when the car they were driving went off the road at a bad corner and hit a tree - N.Ireland road safety was atrocious, probably because it wasn't a police priority at the time).

The riders who worry me are the ones who claim to have been riding for
40 years and never crashed.

I've crashed a number of times (note that I am going to include more
detail here than is necessary because some _moron_ says regularly
"take the MSF course").

First time--approaching an intersection, stop sign on the intersecting
street, _not_ the street on which I was riding. When it's far too
late for me to stop, woman stopped at stop sign pulls out. My
options--hit car or hit ditch. Ditch was softer. MSF teaches no
technique that would have avoided this.

Second time. I have no idea what happened--one minute I'm riding
along, on a clear day, on a dry road, no traffic, and the next I'm
down. No injury, but no idea what happened. Maybe MSF teaches
something that would have prevented this but since I have no idea what
happened one cannot say what.

Third time. Bad judgment--rode to work after a snow storm. Hit a
snow bank. No injury, picked the bike up and continued on. This one
MSF might have prevented by teaching "don't ride in snowstorms".

Fourth time. Second in line at traffic light. Got rear ended. Bike
frame bent, I was fine. There is no skill that a motorcyclist can
possess that would prevent this.

Fifth time--not really a crash, at stop sign failed to get foot down
fast enough, fell over.

Sixth time. Went into a turn on gravel too hot and lost it. Note
that MSF does not teach anything about dirt riding in the standard
course. There is a dirt course that might have helped, but that is
not "the MSF course".

Seventh time. Managed to get crossed up with one wheel on one side of
board and the other on the other side. Should have stopped at that
point instead of trying to ride the back over the board. Didn't, went
down, broke rib on other board (there were two parallel). ATGATT
didn't help.

Eighth time. Coming down a hill, there was a damp patch at the
bottom. I had ridden up about two hours previously with no issue.
Temperature about 45. Apparently that spot cooled faster than the
surrounding area because there was now black ice on it. When you hit
black ice in a curve on a motorcycle you go down. Perhaps with
superhuman skill (not something that one learns in a two-day MSF
course) you could keep it upright and sliding sideways until it hits
the grass and high-sides you. As it was I low-sided, no injury to me,
broke the clutch lever off the bike, so couldn't ride home, had to get
it towed.

Total injuries--twisted ankle twice, one broken rib.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I like
to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was talking
about making that illegal. If cycling is your only form of
exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine
/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even make
an argument that if the government banned cycling without a
helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular disease and
cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than it would save
in head injuries (but to be honest the figures are pretty
variable, especially for the number of people discouraged so you
can probably find arguments against this if you pick your facts
and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of motorcycle
fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of miles ridden
dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe, because more experienced
riders stopped riding (and went back to cars, which are more
polluting, and cause more traffic congestion).

From the research i've seen, if you are in a motorcycle accident
below 35 mph or so, you *really* want to be wearing a helmet. Above
that, while you won't likely die of a concussion, you'll die of a
broken neck (from the weight of the helmet) instead. In short, the
only real difference is that it's more likely to be an open casket
funeral.

My experience, however, was that wearing a helmet made me *far*
more likely to be in an accident in the first place. I never found
a helmet that let me hear anything other than the bike, and hearing
is a very important way to anticipate that the moron behind you in
a car is completely unaware that you're there when he wants to
change lanes. There were times I could *feel* the pressure wave of
a car behind me on the back of my neck.

While a helmet helps tremendously in low speed accidents, it
doesn't help nearly as much as not having one.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I like
to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was talking
about making that illegal. If cycling is your only form of
exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine
/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even make
an argument that if the government banned cycling without a
helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular disease and
cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than it would save
in head injuries (but to be honest the figures are pretty
variable, especially for the number of people discouraged so you
can probably find arguments against this if you pick your facts
and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of motorcycle
fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of miles ridden
dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe, because more experienced
riders stopped riding (and went back to cars, which are more
polluting, and cause more traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
From the research i've seen, if you are in a motorcycle accident
below 35 mph or so, you *really* want to be wearing a helmet. Above
that, while you won't likely die of a concussion, you'll die of a
broken neck (from the weight of the helmet) instead. In short, the
only real difference is that it's more likely to be an open casket
funeral.
My experience, however, was that wearing a helmet made me *far*
more likely to be in an accident in the first place. I never found
a helmet that let me hear anything other than the bike, and hearing
is a very important way to anticipate that the moron behind you in
a car is completely unaware that you're there when he wants to
change lanes. There were times I could *feel* the pressure wave of
a car behind me on the back of my neck.
While a helmet helps tremendously in low speed accidents, it
doesn't help nearly as much as not having one.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I
like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was
talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your only
form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazi
ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even
make an argument that if the government banned cycling without
a helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular disease
and cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than it would
save in head injuries (but to be honest the figures are pretty
variable, especially for the number of people discouraged so
you can probably find arguments against this if you pick your
facts and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of
miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe, because
more experienced riders stopped riding (and went back to cars,
which are more polluting, and cause more traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Post by Alan Baker
Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have produced
sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied about it.

Tell you what, you post a $1,000 bond in escrow, that goes to me if
I produce a source, and I'll bother. Not doing so will be an
admission that you know I'm right, and your real goal is to suck my
dick some more.

Which we all know is the case.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I
like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was
talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your only form
of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling without
a helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular disease and
cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than it would save
in head injuries (but to be honest the figures are pretty
variable, especially for the number of people discouraged so
you can probably find arguments against this if you pick your
facts and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of motorcycle
fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of miles ridden
dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe, because more
experienced riders stopped riding (and went back to cars, which
are more polluting, and cause more traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Post by Alan Baker
Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have produced
sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied about it.

You've never produced sources.

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Tell you what, you post a $1,000 bond in escrow, that goes to me if I
produce a source, and I'll bother. Not doing so will be an admission
that you know I'm right, and your real goal is to suck my dick some
more.

Nope. You made the claim: you post a source.

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Which we all know is the case.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I
like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was
talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your only
form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga
zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular
disease and cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than
it would save in head injuries (but to be honest the figures
are pretty variable, especially for the number of people
discouraged so you can probably find arguments against this
if you pick your facts and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of
miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe,
because more experienced riders stopped riding (and went back
to cars, which are more polluting, and cause more traffic
congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied about
it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as you're
told.

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Tell you what, you post a $1,000 bond in escrow, that goes to
me if I produce a source, and I'll bother. Not doing so will be
an admission that you know I'm right, and your real goal is to
suck my dick some more.

Nope. You made the claim: you post a source.

You want to know, you look. I can't be bothered to feed your mental
illness. Now run along, pervert, the grownups are having a
conversation. As Mummy for a cookie before bed.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because I
like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government was
talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your only
form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga
zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in cardiovascular
disease and cancer through discouraging cycle commuting than
it would save in head injuries (but to be honest the figures
are pretty variable, especially for the number of people
discouraged so you can probably find arguments against this
if you pick your facts and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of
miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe,
because more experienced riders stopped riding (and went back
to cars, which are more polluting, and cause more traffic
congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied about
it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as you're
told.

You made no such prediction.

All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post a link to a
post where you'd produced a source...

...but I predict you won't.

:-)

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Tell you what, you post a $1,000 bond in escrow, that goes to
me if I produce a source, and I'll bother. Not doing so will be
an admission that you know I'm right, and your real goal is to
suck my dick some more.

Nope. You made the claim: you post a source.

You want to know, you look. I can't be bothered to feed your mental
illness. Now run along, pervert, the grownups are having a
conversation. As Mummy for a cookie before bed.

Your claim: you support it.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because
I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government
was talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your
only form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the
risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-ma
ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging
cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries (but
to be honest the figures are pretty variable, especially
for the number of people discouraged so you can probably
find arguments against this if you pick your facts and
question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of
miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe,
because more experienced riders stopped riding (and went
back to cars, which are more polluting, and cause more
traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied about
it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as you're
told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post a
link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of retards
like you. The nurses don't like it when you start masturbating in
the common room.

Post by Alan Baker
:-)

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Tell you what, you post a $1,000 bond in escrow, that goes to
me if I produce a source, and I'll bother. Not doing so will
be an admission that you know I'm right, and your real goal
is to suck my dick some more.

Nope. You made the claim: you post a source.

You want to know, you look. I can't be bothered to feed your
mental illness. Now run along, pervert, the grownups are having
a conversation. As Mummy for a cookie before bed.

Your claim: you support it.

You wanna suck my dick again, get that chipped tooth fixed. It
leaves *marks*.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago, because
I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK government
was talking about making that illegal. If cycling is your
only form of exercise, the benefits vastly outweigh the
risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-ma
ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging
cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries (but
to be honest the figures are pretty variable, especially
for the number of people discouraged so you can probably
find arguments against this if you pick your facts and
question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number of
miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe,
because more experienced riders stopped riding (and went
back to cars, which are more polluting, and cause more
traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied about
it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as you're
told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post a
link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of retards
like you. The nurses don't like it when you start masturbating in
the common room.

A lot of talk...

...but still no source.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago,
because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK
government was talking about making that illegal. If
cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits
vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-
ma ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could
even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging
cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries (but
to be honest the figures are pretty variable, especially
for the number of people discouraged so you can probably
find arguments against this if you pick your facts and
question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number
of miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe,
because more experienced riders stopped riding (and went
back to cars, which are more polluting, and cause more
traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Post by Alan Baker
Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied
about it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as
you're told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post a
link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of retards
like you. The nurses don't like it when you start masturbating
in the common room.

A lot of talk...
...but still no source.

Still no admission of your relentless lying, or any indication
that your mental illness is being treated.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago,
because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK
government was talking about making that illegal. If
cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits
vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-
ma ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could
even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging
cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries (but
to be honest the figures are pretty variable, especially
for the number of people discouraged so you can probably
find arguments against this if you pick your facts and
question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the number
of miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I believe,
because more experienced riders stopped riding (and went
back to cars, which are more polluting, and cause more
traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Post by Alan Baker
Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied
about it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as
you're told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post a
link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of retards
like you. The nurses don't like it when you start masturbating
in the common room.

A lot of talk...
...but still no source.

Still no admission of your relentless lying, or any indication
that your mental illness is being treated.

Because I haven't lied.

And if you could prove I have, you'd have jumped at the chance.

:-)

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
om

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago,
because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK
government was talking about making that illegal. If
cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits
vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matter
s- ma ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could
even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging
cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries
(but to be honest the figures are pretty variable,
especially for the number of people discouraged so you
can probably find arguments against this if you pick
your facts and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the
number of miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I
believe, because more experienced riders stopped riding
(and went back to cars, which are more polluting, and
cause more traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied
about it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as
you're told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post
a link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of
retards like you. The nurses don't like it when you start
masturbating in the common room.

A lot of talk...
...but still no source.

Still no admission of your relentless lying, or any indication
that your mental illness is being treated.

Because I haven't lied.

Liar.

Post by Alan Baker
And if you could prove I have, you'd have jumped at the chance.

Every time you see me talking to someone else, you get to jealous
you lose control, and come barking like a syphilitic pit bull on
crack, humping my pantleg. Your sexual obsession with me is so
obvious that you cannot possibly not be aware that everyone knows.

So you're also an exhibitionist to your list of perversions.

Post by Alan Baker
:-)

Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
om

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago,
because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the UK
government was talking about making that illegal. If
cycling is your only form of exercise, the benefits
vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matter
s- ma ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned cycling
without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through discouraging
cycle commuting than it would save in head injuries
(but to be honest the figures are pretty variable,
especially for the number of people discouraged so you
can probably find arguments against this if you pick
your facts and question carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number of
motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the
number of miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely, I
believe, because more experienced riders stopped riding
(and went back to cars, which are more polluting, and
cause more traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I have
produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and lied
about it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as
you're told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is post
a link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of
retards like you. The nurses don't like it when you start
masturbating in the common room.

A lot of talk...
...but still no source.

Still no admission of your relentless lying, or any indication
that your mental illness is being treated.

Because I haven't lied.

Liar.

Nope.

:-)

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker
And if you could prove I have, you'd have jumped at the chance.

Every time you see me talking to someone else, you get to jealous
you lose control, and come barking like a syphilitic pit bull on
crack, humping my pantleg. Your sexual obsession with me is so
obvious that you cannot possibly not be aware that everyone knows.

No. I see you post thinks that are obviously wrong and I correct them.

You aren't special.

:-)

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
So you're also an exhibitionist to your list of perversions.

Post by Alan Baker
:-)

Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.

Amusement is indicated by a smile, Terry. You should look it up.

:-)

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:08 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
.c om

Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW I looked at the numbers on this a while ago,
because I like to bicycle without a helmet, and the
UK government was talking about making that illegal.
If cycling is your only form of exercise, the
benefits vastly outweigh the risks
(https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matt
er s- ma ga zi

ne /activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycle). I could even

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by m***@sky.com
make an argument that if the government banned
cycling without a helmet it would cost more lives in
cardiovascular disease and cancer through
discouraging cycle commuting than it would save in
head injuries (but to be honest the figures are
pretty variable, especially for the number of people
discouraged so you can probably find arguments
against this if you pick your facts and question
carefully enough).

When California passed their helmet law, the number
of motorcycle fatalies dropped by about 1/3, but the
number of miles ridden dropped by about 1/2. Largely,
I believe, because more experienced riders stopped
riding (and went back to cars, which are more
polluting, and cause more traffic congestion).

Sounds like bullshit to me.

That's because you're mentally retarded.

Bet you can't produce the cite...

As I have explained before, many times, every time I
have produced sources, you have pretended I didn't and
lied about it.

You've never produced sources.

Liar. As predicted. Good little monkey, doing exactly as
you're told.

You made no such prediction.
All you'd have to do to actually prove what you say is
post a link to a post where you'd produced a source...

Which you would ignore, pretend wasn't posted, and lie
about.

Post by Alan Baker
...but I predict you won't.

Indeed, I am not prone to feeding the mental illness of
retards like you. The nurses don't like it when you start
masturbating in the common room.

A lot of talk...
...but still no source.

Still no admission of your relentless lying, or any
indication that your mental illness is being treated.

Because I haven't lied.

Liar.

Nope.

Liar.

Post by Alan Baker
:-)

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker
And if you could prove I have, you'd have jumped at the
chance.

Every time you see me talking to someone else, you get to
jealous you lose control, and come barking like a syphilitic
pit bull on crack, humping my pantleg. Your sexual obsession
with me is so obvious that you cannot possibly not be aware
that everyone knows.

No.

Yes.

Post by Alan Baker
I see you post thinks that are obviously wrong and I correct
them.

That's not even a coherent special. I can only assume you were too
distracted masturbating at the thought of my attention. Again.

Post by Alan Baker
You aren't special.

Yes, I am. But unlike you, not in a "rides the short bus to
school" way.

Post by Alan Baker
:-)

Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini
So you're also an exhibitionist to your list of perversions.

Post by Alan Baker
:-)

Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.

Amusement is indicated by a smile, Terry. You should look it up.
:-)

Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
My experience, however, was that wearing a helmet made me *far*
more likely to be in an accident in the first place. I never found
a helmet that let me hear anything other than the bike, and hearing
is a very important way to anticipate that the moron behind you in
a car is completely unaware that you're there when he wants to
change lanes. There were times I could *feel* the pressure wave of
a car behind me on the back of my neck.
While a helmet helps tremendously in low speed accidents, it
doesn't help nearly as much as not having one.

I learned to ride motorbike in my middle fifties. A lot of the
perceptual stuff that you learn as a teenager will never impinge on an
old dog learning new tricks.

Since I've never ridden "wiithout", I can't say whether I would ever
have developed the perceptions you describe.

My helmet is a full-face one with a swingable chin bar. But in your
case, would you be better off with one of those skull-cap minimum
helmets?

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
My experience, however, was that wearing a helmet made me *far*
more likely to be in an accident in the first place. I never
found a helmet that let me hear anything other than the bike,
and hearing is a very important way to anticipate that the moron
behind you in a car is completely unaware that you're there when
he wants to change lanes. There were times I could *feel* the
pressure wave of a car behind me on the back of my neck.
While a helmet helps tremendously in low speed accidents, it
doesn't help nearly as much as not having one.

I learned to ride motorbike in my middle fifties. A lot of the
perceptual stuff that you learn as a teenager will never impinge
on an old dog learning new tricks.

Perhaps. Sadly, I learned to ride in my mid 20s, and simply now
longer have the reflexes. Plus, again, the "much, much, much,
*much* heavier traffic" thing.

Post by Greg Goss
Since I've never ridden "wiithout", I can't say whether I would
ever have developed the perceptions you describe.

Maybe you would, may not. Part of what makes you learn that stuff
is, again, how heave the traffic is. If the car behind you is more
than a few dozen feet back, you won't get the air pressure on the
back of the neck thing, but hearing is always useful.

Post by Greg Goss
My helmet is a full-face one with a swingable chin bar. But in
your case, would you be better off with one of those skull-cap
minimum helmets?

That *might* have worked, but most of them (including the ones the
CHP used) have a leather flap that covers the ears, which will do
the same thing.

Plus, the law required helmets that met a specific DOT standard
(and were varified as such), which many of the skull cap versions
did (including the ones the CHP uses), but a lot of local cops
didn't believe it, even when you showed them the tag inside the
fucking helmet. A lot of bogus tickets were handed out in the early
days. Enough of them eventually got tossed out that the local cops
started to figure it out, but that was just too much bullshit for
me on all accounts. (Plus, my bike had died, so it was more a
matter or not replacing it than of deciding to stop riding.)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my
selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems, especially
in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank
you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I get it fine.
You want to be free to comment on other's choices, but not have
anyone comment on yours...
...or is that wrong?
Believe me, I'm not criticizing your choice, or even really
commenting on it. I've ridden myself (albeit quite a way back),
and I currently race an open wheel road racing car (Formula
F—formerly Formula Ford), so I understand choosing something
with risk involved.

Alan, you don't understand the difference between your ass an hole
in the ground.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Alan Baker

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my
selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems, especially
in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank
you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I get it fine.
You want to be free to comment on other's choices, but not have
anyone comment on yours...
...or is that wrong?
Believe me, I'm not criticizing your choice, or even really
commenting on it. I've ridden myself (albeit quite a way back),
and I currently race an open wheel road racing car (Formula
F—formerly Formula Ford), so I understand choosing something
with risk involved.

Alan, you don't understand the difference between your ass an hole
in the ground.

Irony.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Alan Baker

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at
a Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used
to drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when
I was in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of
my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems,
especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you
do everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank
you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I get it fine.
You want to be free to comment on other's choices, but not
have anyone comment on yours...
...or is that wrong?
Believe me, I'm not criticizing your choice, or even really
commenting on it. I've ridden myself (albeit quite a way
back), and I currently race an open wheel road racing car
(Formula F—formerly Formula Ford), so I understand
choosing something with risk involved.

Alan, you don't understand the difference between your ass an
hole in the ground.

Irony.

Yeah, it's dripping off your chin.

Again.

You pervert, you.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling
it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted). Two
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health
effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high
enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be
expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar
spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank
you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW the
dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than where I
live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently scored the #1 spot
on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be riding, because a
skilled, experienced rider can, indeed, compensate for bad drivers.
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have around here,
with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I mainly stopped riding
because my little 400 died at about the same time as California
passed their stupid helmet law, which decreased motorcycle
fatalities by 1/3 - while decreasing the number of miles ridden by
1/2.)

Though I've been tempted, more than once, for cross-country trips.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling
it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted). Two
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people
can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health
effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high
enough to produce health problem for some commuters and might be
expected to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar
spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid maiming
myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank you. Why
does everyone who finds out that one rides a motorcycle have to
tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW the dangers. What you
don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than where I
live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently scored the #1 spot on
*bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be riding, because a skilled,
experienced rider can, indeed, compensate for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.

It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...

...such as turn left directly into your path without signalling...

...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have around here,
with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I mainly stopped riding
because my little 400 died at about the same time as California
passed their stupid helmet law, which decreased motorcycle fatalities
by 1/3 - while decreasing the number of miles ridden by 1/2.)

Got a cite for that?

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Though I've been tempted, more than once, for cross-country trips.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis.  Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive
one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it but
my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by carrying
it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted). Two things stick
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most people
can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of health
effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars was high enough
to produce health problem for some commuters and might be expected
to give people back problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid maiming
myself.  I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank you.  Why
does everyone who finds out that one rides a motorcycle have to
tell one of the dangers?  We fucking KNOW the dangers.  What you
don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than where I
live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently scored the #1 spot on
*bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be riding, because a skilled,
experienced rider can, indeed, compensate for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...
...such as turn left directly into your path without signalling...
...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

So don't drive in Miami. (Seriously, the one time I visited Miami
_EVERY-FRICKING-BODY_ was making left turns without signalling or even
f*cking slowing down. Including on eight lane major thoroughfares with
50 mph speed limits. It was absolutely insane.)

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On 2018-07-30 10:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis.  Every time I look at
a Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used
to drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when
I was in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of
my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems,
especially in the lumbar spine.

On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you
do everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself.  I think I'll keep on taking my chances
thank you.  Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers?  We fucking KNOW
the dangers.  What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than
where I live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently scored
the #1 spot on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be riding,
because a skilled, experienced rider can, indeed, compensate
for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...
...such as turn left directly into your path without
signalling...
...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

So don't drive in Miami. (Seriously, the one time I visited
Miami _EVERY-FRICKING-BODY_ was making left turns without
signalling or even f*cking slowing down. Including on eight
lane major thoroughfares with 50 mph speed limits. It was
absolutely insane.)

In southern California, the general consensus is that if you
signal, it's only gives the asshole next to you more warning to cut
you off. Really. It's not *entirely* true, but people believe that
for a reason.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I
was in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my
selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems,
especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank
you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than
where I live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently scored
the #1 spot on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be riding,
because a skilled, experienced rider can, indeed, compensate
for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...

Same is true with a car. Or a tank.

Post by Alan Baker
...such as turn left directly into your path without
signalling...

If it's physically possible for a car to do that, you aren't paying
close enough attention, and are a shitty rider.

Post by Alan Baker
...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

I have personal experience that says otherwise. But then, you're
*always* so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have around
here, with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I mainly stopped
riding because my little 400 died at about the same time as
California passed their stupid helmet law, which decreased
motorcycle fatalities by 1/3 - while decreasing the number of
miles ridden by 1/2.)

Got a cite for that?

Still hungry for my man-meat, liar-boy?

We know you are.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I
was in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my
selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some commuters
and might be expected to give people back problems,
especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you do
everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances thank
you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than
where I live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently scored
the #1 spot on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be riding,
because a skilled, experienced rider can, indeed, compensate
for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...

Same is true with a car. Or a tank.

Post by Alan Baker
...such as turn left directly into your path without
signalling...

If it's physically possible for a car to do that, you aren't paying
close enough attention, and are a shitty rider.

Post by Alan Baker
...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

I have personal experience that says otherwise. But then, you're
*always* so full of shit your eyes are brown.

You know what they say about anecdotal evidence...

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have around
here, with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I mainly stopped
riding because my little 400 died at about the same time as
California passed their stupid helmet law, which decreased
motorcycle fatalities by 1/3 - while decreasing the number of
miles ridden by 1/2.)

Got a cite for that?

Still hungry for my man-meat, liar-boy?
We know you are.

Wow. That's so very adult of you!

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:17:00 -0700 (PDT),

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at
a Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used
to drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when
I was in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of
my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some
commuters and might be expected to give people back
problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you
do everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances
thank you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than
where I live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently
scored the #1 spot on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be
riding, because a skilled, experienced rider can, indeed,
compensate for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...

Same is true with a car. Or a tank.

...such as turn left directly into your path without
signalling...

If it's physically possible for a car to do that, you aren't
paying close enough attention, and are a shitty rider.

...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

I have personal experience that says otherwise. But then,
you're *always* so full of shit your eyes are brown.

You know what they say about anecdotal evidence...

Yeah, they say "Alan Baker is a mentally ill retard who wants to
suck his hero's dick some more."

They're very smart that way.

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have around
here, with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I mainly
stopped riding because my little 400 died at about the same
time as California passed their stupid helmet law, which
decreased motorcycle fatalities by 1/3 - while decreasing the
number of miles ridden by 1/2.)

Got a cite for that?

Still hungry for my man-meat, liar-boy?
We know you are.

Wow. That's so very adult of you!

I'm only imitating you, liar-boy. If you don't like what you see in
the mirror, then don't look in it.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:17:00 -0700 (PDT),

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at
a Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used
to drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when
I was in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of
my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the vibration
passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested it out by
carrying it around on cars (albeit not accurately mounted).
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise - most
people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a bit of
acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some cars
was high enough to produce health problem for some
commuters and might be expected to give people back
problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if you
do everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances
thank you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides a
motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking KNOW
the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than
where I live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently
scored the #1 spot on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still be
riding, because a skilled, experienced rider can, indeed,
compensate for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...

Same is true with a car. Or a tank.

...such as turn left directly into your path without
signalling...

If it's physically possible for a car to do that, you aren't
paying close enough attention, and are a shitty rider.

...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

I have personal experience that says otherwise. But then,
you're *always* so full of shit your eyes are brown.

You know what they say about anecdotal evidence...

Yeah, they say "Alan Baker is a mentally ill retard who wants to
suck his hero's dick some more."
They're very smart that way.

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have around
here, with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I mainly
stopped riding because my little 400 died at about the same
time as California passed their stupid helmet law, which
decreased motorcycle fatalities by 1/3 - while decreasing the
number of miles ridden by 1/2.)

Got a cite for that?

Still hungry for my man-meat, liar-boy?
We know you are.

Wow. That's so very adult of you!

I'm only imitating you, liar-boy. If you don't like what you see in
the mirror, then don't look in it.

Nope. You really ain't.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

On 2018-07-30 10:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:17:00 -0700 (PDT),

Post by m***@sky.com
(Trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his
face.

I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look
at a Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I
used to drive one (seriously--it didn't feel
uncomfortable when I was in it but my hemorrhoids went
way within a month of my selling it).

I worked for a short time on a box to measure the
vibration passengers were exposed to on trains. We tested
it out by carrying it around on cars (albeit not
1) Trains are a lot smoother than cars (no surprise -
most people can read in trains, reading in cars takes a
bit of acclimatization)
2) There are standards for vibration exposure, because of
health effects. It looked a lot like vibration in some
cars was high enough to produce health problem for some
commuters and might be expected to give people back
problems, especially in the lumbar spine.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my
motorcycle . . .

Think hard as you can get hurt on a motorcycle even if
you do everything right, as David Drake has found out -
http://david-drake.com/2018/newsletter-104/

I've been riding for nearly 40 years and managed to avoid
maiming myself. I think I'll keep on taking my chances
thank you. Why does everyone who finds out that one rides
a motorcycle have to tell one of the dangers? We fucking
KNOW the dangers. What you don't get is that we don't
CARE.

I'm guessing you live in a place with lighter traffic than
where I live. If I lived in, say, Omaha (which recently
scored the #1 spot on *bad* drivers in the US), I'd still
be riding, because a skilled, experienced rider can,
indeed, compensate for bad drivers.

Mostly, that's true.
It's the time that someone does something truly idiotic...

Same is true with a car. Or a tank.

...such as turn left directly into your path without
signalling...

If it's physically possible for a car to do that, you aren't
paying close enough attention, and are a shitty rider.

...that no amount of experience or skill will cover.

I have personal experience that says otherwise. But then,
you're *always* so full of shit your eyes are brown.

You know what they say about anecdotal evidence...

Yeah, they say "Alan Baker is a mentally ill retard who wants
to suck his hero's dick some more."
They're very smart that way.

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Ninapenda Jibini

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
But compensating for the sheer density of cars we have
around here, with my aging reflexes, is not for me. (I
mainly stopped riding because my little 400 died at about
the same time as California passed their stupid helmet law,
which decreased motorcycle fatalities by 1/3 - while
decreasing the number of miles ridden by 1/2.)

Got a cite for that?

Still hungry for my man-meat, liar-boy?
We know you are.

Wow. That's so very adult of you!

I'm only imitating you, liar-boy. If you don't like what you
see in the mirror, then don't look in it.

Nope. You really ain't.

Liar.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by J. Clarke
I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive
one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it
but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

If you can afford a Corvette, you can afford to have the uphostery
redone.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

For a newer model with a bigger motor?

(Friend of mine once had a Kawasaki 900, which he got up to 160 mph
on the highway. He said there was plenty more power left, but he ran
out of guts before the bike did.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke
I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to drive
one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was in it
but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling it).

If you can afford a Corvette, you can afford to have the uphostery
redone.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

For a newer model with a bigger motor?
(Friend of mine once had a Kawasaki 900, which he got up to 160 mph
on the highway. He said there was plenty more power left, but he ran
out of guts before the bike did.)

I took my 550 out to find the top speed. To my surprise, I bounced
off a "guts limit" several times at 135K (84 MPH). Depending on the
website, the bike is capable of 180 to 185 K (112 to 115 MPH)

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke
I think I'm over my mid-life crisis. Every time I look at a
Corvette I think about how bad my butt hurt when I used to
drive one (seriously--it didn't feel uncomfortable when I was
in it but my hemorrhoids went way within a month of my selling
it).

If you can afford a Corvette, you can afford to have the
uphostery redone.

Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand I am thinking about trading in my motorcycle . . .

For a newer model with a bigger motor?
(Friend of mine once had a Kawasaki 900, which he got up to 160
mph on the highway. He said there was plenty more power left,
but he ran out of guts before the bike did.)

I took my 550 out to find the top speed. To my surprise, I
bounced off a "guts limit" several times at 135K (84 MPH).
Depending on the website, the bike is capable of 180 to 185 K
(112 to 115 MPH)

I don't recall ever actually going over the speed limit on mine,
though even at 400 cc, it was actually capabale of it. But I was
never in that much of a hurry to get anywhere, especially my own
funeral.

The most terrfying moment I ever had was as a paseneger, behind the
guy who taught me to ride, on his Harley. We were lane splitting
(convincing me beyond any possible doubt that I would never do
this), and I realized there were two cars at a complete stop, not
too far ahead, whose mirros were close enough together that the
Harley's mirros would *not* fit betwen them. And John wasn't
slowing down. At *just* the right moment, he dipped to one side,
sending one mirror over, and the other below, the car mirrors. I
nearly shit my pants. To him (he'd been riding for 30+ years, on
and off, at that point, and learned in Japan where the requirements
for a license are *much* stricter), it was a day that ends in "y."

[Greg Goss]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Oh, dear, and that reminds me of another cartoon. It had four
panels. (I may or may not be getting the first three in order,
but it doesn't matter.) In the first panel, a guy is stripped
down in the locker room and the other guys are pointing and
laughing at him. In the second, he's in his doctor's office and
the doctor is pointing and laughing. In the third, he's in his
bedroom and his girlfriend is pointing and laughing. In the
fourth, he's driving a honking great SUV to the danger of
everyone else in sight, with a maniacal grin on his face.

In another usenet group a couple of decades ago, several of the women
present in the discussion started calling certain kinds of cars SAYD
cars. Sorry about your dick.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Kevrob
In Real Life, we had decorative tailfins on cars, and
hood "air scoops" and various spoilers on autos that couldn't
be driven legally on highways at speeds that would allow those
latter 2 features to actually affect performance positively.
If you bought a Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird or Dodge Charger
Daytona, outfitted so such a rig could qualify as a "stock car"
under NASCAR rules, supplying "King" Richard Petty with a huge
advantage, you'd be able to take it to the local track and air
it out.

As you say, at that time NASCAR racers had to use the actual cars
as sold to the public with only allowed modifications, and safety
equipment such as a full roll cage. The Superbird had a rear wing
to provide aerodynamic down force (at 180 mph):

https://www.carstuffshow.com/blogs/1970-plymouth-road-runner-superbird-clone.htm

To work properly such a device must be mounted high enough to be
in the smooth airflow above the car. In this case, it had to be
somewhat higher than that so that on the civilian version the trunk
lid could be opened! Well, too high is better than too low and the
wing supports also acted as tailfins to improve stability.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Johann Klammer]

Post by Robert Carnegie
I think when Douglas Adams provided the updated
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" with a button
labelled, I think, Execute Mode Ready" in replacement
for "Standby" - it is to turn the device off -
he was only imitating reality. And likewise
with spaceship control panel of black buttons,
in a black console, with function labels also black.

I remember actually seeing those buttons on an LCD flat panel.

[Moriarty]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

I think when Douglas Adams provided the updated
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" with a button
labelled, I think, Execute Mode Ready" in replacement
for "Standby" - it is to turn the device off -
he was only imitating reality. And likewise
with spaceship control panel of black buttons,
in a black console, with function labels also black.

Ah yes! Zaphod: "It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it."

-Moriarty

[m***@sky.com]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

One story behind one of my favourite words, skeuomorph, suggests that form vs function is not new. The theory is that flint daggers were given a form which mimicked a form of new-fangled bronze daggers (they had fake mold marks to mimic those the bronze daggers acquired as an artifact of their casting). However a web search suggests that whatever truth is out there is now buried under several layers of interpretation, re-interpretation, and sociological theory.

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-without-active-sound-design/>.

And I'm reminded of substance over form. Sitting at a traffic light.
Guy in other lane signals to roll window down. He wants to race.
Trash talks my car to his girl. I take him up on it. Roll window
back up. Light changes. I presume his 383 Roadrunner made all manner
of noise as he manhandled his Hurst shifter. I wouldn't know, the
only sound in the Mercedes 300 SEL 6.3 was the tick-tick-tick of the
clock as the Roadrunner vanished into the distance behind me.

Post by m***@sky.com
One story behind one of my favourite words, skeuomorph, suggests that form vs function is not new. The theory is that flint daggers were given a form which mimicked a form of new-fangled bronze daggers (they had fake mold marks to mimic those the bronze daggers acquired as an artifact of their casting). However a web search suggests that whatever truth is out there is now buried under several layers of interpretation, re-interpretation, and sociological theory.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size, and
many different aspects of performance. On top of this, sometimes
there is a further compromise with style. Customers or designers
want the device to look a certain way that actually interferes with
the device's function. Such an occasion is at hand with respect to
some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/
Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes
a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast,
complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that
the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that
designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing
with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-withou
t-active-sound-design/>.

Plenty of current high-end cars have artificial engine noise piped into
the cockpit.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2016/jun/13/a-roar-deal-
why-your-cars-engine-noise-might-be-fake

pt

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 19:58:32 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size, and
many different aspects of performance. On top of this, sometimes
there is a further compromise with style. Customers or designers
want the device to look a certain way that actually interferes with
the device's function. Such an occasion is at hand with respect to
some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/
Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes
a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast,
complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that
the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that
designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing
with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-withou
t-active-sound-design/>.

Plenty of current high-end cars have artificial engine noise piped into
the cockpit.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2016/jun/13/a-roar-deal-
why-your-cars-engine-noise-might-be-fake

If you had bothered to follow the link you would have found a
demonstration of same.

Post by Cryptoengineer
pt

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 19:58:32 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size, and
many different aspects of performance. On top of this, sometimes
there is a further compromise with style. Customers or designers
want the device to look a certain way that actually interferes with
the device's function. Such an occasion is at hand with respect to
some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of

friction)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by p***@hotmail.com
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-

news/

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm )

describes

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast,
complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that
the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that
designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing
with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-

withou

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by J. Clarke
t-active-sound-design/>.

Plenty of current high-end cars have artificial engine noise piped into
the cockpit.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2016/jun/13/a-roar-

deal-

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Cryptoengineer
why-your-cars-engine-noise-might-be-fake

If you had bothered to follow the link you would have found a
demonstration of same.

Yes. That confirms my point. We're already entering into 'The Marching
Morons' territory. There's a lot of other links I could have listed.

pt

[Greg Goss]

Post by Cryptoengineer
Plenty of current high-end cars have artificial engine noise piped into
the cockpit.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2016/jun/13/a-roar-deal-
why-your-cars-engine-noise-might-be-fake

I drive a Ford imitation of a Prius. In parking lot maneuvers, the
gasoline engine rarely bothers to start. So I'm running silent.
There have been several cases where someone backing away after putting
something into their trunk, or dealing with something on their
smartphone or such, walk into my path.

There were advocates a while back for pumping engine noise out the
front of electric cars, to remind pedestrians that we exist.

[Greg Goss]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-without-active-sound-design/>.
And I'm reminded of substance over form. Sitting at a traffic light.
Guy in other lane signals to roll window down. He wants to race.
Trash talks my car to his girl. I take him up on it. Roll window
back up. Light changes. I presume his 383 Roadrunner made all manner
of noise as he manhandled his Hurst shifter. I wouldn't know, the
only sound in the Mercedes 300 SEL 6.3 was the tick-tick-tick of the
clock as the Roadrunner vanished into the distance behind me.

Post by m***@sky.com
One story behind one of my favourite words, skeuomorph, suggests that form vs function is not new. The theory is that flint daggers were given a form which mimicked a form of new-fangled bronze daggers (they had fake mold marks to mimic those the bronze daggers acquired as an artifact of their casting). However a web search suggests that whatever truth is out there is now buried under several layers of interpretation, re-interpretation, and sociological theory.

Back iin 1975, I was driving my econobox (Mazda 1200 ("Familia" in
some countries) 1168 cc (61 cubic inch)) next to a Ferrari at a
stoplight. In a pre-AC Kelowna, the windows are down. I give him
this demented grin and started revving my four-banger. He started
laughing so hard that when the light turned green, he blew a shift and
chugged to a stall in the middle of the intersection.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Greg Goss
Back iin 1975, I was driving my econobox (Mazda 1200 ("Familia" in
some countries) 1168 cc (61 cubic inch)) next to a Ferrari at a
stoplight. In a pre-AC Kelowna, the windows are down. I give him
this demented grin and started revving my four-banger. He started
laughing so hard that when the light turned green, he blew a shift and
chugged to a stall in the middle of the intersection.

Heh. How does it go, "The most dangerous component in a car is
the nut behind the wheel"?

Also, do you recall a song from the (I think) 1950s entitled
"Beep beep"?

https://genius.com/The-playmates-beep-beep-lyrics

[J. Clarke]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-without-active-sound-design/>.
And I'm reminded of substance over form. Sitting at a traffic light.
Guy in other lane signals to roll window down. He wants to race.
Trash talks my car to his girl. I take him up on it. Roll window
back up. Light changes. I presume his 383 Roadrunner made all manner
of noise as he manhandled his Hurst shifter. I wouldn't know, the
only sound in the Mercedes 300 SEL 6.3 was the tick-tick-tick of the
clock as the Roadrunner vanished into the distance behind me.

Post by m***@sky.com
One story behind one of my favourite words, skeuomorph, suggests that form vs function is not new. The theory is that flint daggers were given a form which mimicked a form of new-fangled bronze daggers (they had fake mold marks to mimic those the bronze daggers acquired as an artifact of their casting). However a web search suggests that whatever truth is out there is now buried under several layers of interpretation, re-interpretation, and sociological theory.

Back iin 1975, I was driving my econobox (Mazda 1200 ("Familia" in
some countries) 1168 cc (61 cubic inch)) next to a Ferrari at a
stoplight. In a pre-AC Kelowna, the windows are down. I give him
this demented grin and started revving my four-banger. He started
laughing so hard that when the light turned green, he blew a shift and
chugged to a stall in the middle of the intersection.

Just an aside, but same intersection, a couple weeks later, same guy,
only this time I was in a Ferrari 330GTC. Pretty much the same
outcome, except the Ferrari made a good bit more noise.

I'm surprised the guy managed to stall it. Ferraris are hard to
stall--12 cylinder means that every time it's about to, another
cylinder fires.

[Greg Goss]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm ) describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to people is different from designing with wind tunnels and computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a powerful
engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started slightly
_before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking of a different
story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-without-active-sound-design/>.
And I'm reminded of substance over form. Sitting at a traffic light.
Guy in other lane signals to roll window down. He wants to race.
Trash talks my car to his girl. I take him up on it. Roll window
back up. Light changes. I presume his 383 Roadrunner made all manner
of noise as he manhandled his Hurst shifter. I wouldn't know, the
only sound in the Mercedes 300 SEL 6.3 was the tick-tick-tick of the
clock as the Roadrunner vanished into the distance behind me.

Post by m***@sky.com
One story behind one of my favourite words, skeuomorph, suggests that form vs function is not new. The theory is that flint daggers were given a form which mimicked a form of new-fangled bronze daggers (they had fake mold marks to mimic those the bronze daggers acquired as an artifact of their casting). However a web search suggests that whatever truth is out there is now buried under several layers of interpretation, re-interpretation, and sociological theory.

Back iin 1975, I was driving my econobox (Mazda 1200 ("Familia" in
some countries) 1168 cc (61 cubic inch)) next to a Ferrari at a
stoplight. In a pre-AC Kelowna, the windows are down. I give him
this demented grin and started revving my four-banger. He started
laughing so hard that when the light turned green, he blew a shift and
chugged to a stall in the middle of the intersection.

Just an aside, but same intersection, a couple weeks later, same guy,
only this time I was in a Ferrari 330GTC. Pretty much the same
outcome, except the Ferrari made a good bit more noise.
I'm surprised the guy managed to stall it. Ferraris are hard to
stall--12 cylinder means that every time it's about to, another
cylinder fires.

It might have been something else that looked the same.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by J. Clarke

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:47:08 AM UTC+1,

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that
actually interferes with the device's function. Such an
occasion is at hand with respect to some types of automobile
tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the
tread. In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires.
Some critics call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this
have little distance to flex to allow for irregularities in
the road surface, and hence are subject to severe damage from
running over potholes. There is no corresponding advantage in
handling. Racing tires achieve better handling not by being
low as such but by being wide. This gives them a larger
contact patch which allows the designers to use a softer
rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction) in the
tread and still have the required tread life. The tires on
modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these passenger
car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin
-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won
-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a
reasonable side wall height in the first place. It does seem
to work OK; in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new
wheel was able to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour
without damage, whereas the same tire mounted on a
conventional wheel was destroyed at half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a
technology where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm )
describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually
being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't
actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect
it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to
people is different from designing with wind tunnels and
computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a
powerful engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started
slightly _before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking
of a different story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-
without-active-sound-design/>.
And I'm reminded of substance over form. Sitting at a traffic
light. Guy in other lane signals to roll window down. He wants
to race. Trash talks my car to his girl. I take him up on it.
Roll window back up. Light changes. I presume his 383
Roadrunner made all manner of noise as he manhandled his Hurst
shifter. I wouldn't know, the only sound in the Mercedes 300
SEL 6.3 was the tick-tick-tick of the clock as the Roadrunner
vanished into the distance behind me.

I had a 1966 Plymouth Satellite when I moved to California,
something of a boat. It had rust holes in the back quarterpanels
you could stick your head through, and was gernally beat to shit.
It also had a 318 V8 with mechanical lifters (enablign very high
RPMs), a factory installed shift kit in the transmission, and a
positive traction rear end, as it was originally bought to tow a
boat.

Had a guy in a Datsun Z pull up next to me at a stoplight, and
start revving his engine like he wanted to race stoplights. OK, no
problem. My car would only do about 85, but it would get there
*real* damn fast, and racing stoplights doesn't leave enough room
to get much above 50, no matter how hot your car is. We were dead
even until he had to shift into second gear, and my modified
transmission jumped about a car length head of him.

I treasure the look on his face when we stopped at the next light.
And when it turned green, I zoomed away like a maniac again, and he
accelerated at a very sedate pace.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Kevrob]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by J. Clarke

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:47:08 AM UTC+1,

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that
actually interferes with the device's function. Such an
occasion is at hand with respect to some types of automobile
tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the
tread. In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires.
Some critics call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this
have little distance to flex to allow for irregularities in
the road surface, and hence are subject to severe damage from
running over potholes. There is no corresponding advantage in
handling. Racing tires achieve better handling not by being
low as such but by being wide. This gives them a larger
contact patch which allows the designers to use a softer
rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction) in the
tread and still have the required tread life. The tires on
modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these passenger
car tires.
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin
-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won
-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a
reasonable side wall height in the first place. It does seem
to work OK; in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new
wheel was able to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour
without damage, whereas the same tire mounted on a
conventional wheel was destroyed at half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a
technology where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm )
describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually
being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't
actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect
it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to
people is different from designing with wind tunnels and
computer models to minimise air resistance.

IIRC that same car had sound effects that sounded like a
powerful engine and lits of wind noise and so on, that started
slightly _before_ it started moving (although I may be thinking
of a different story). Well,
<https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/06/16/video-bmw-m2-tested-with-and-
without-active-sound-design/>.
And I'm reminded of substance over form. Sitting at a traffic
light. Guy in other lane signals to roll window down. He wants
to race. Trash talks my car to his girl. I take him up on it.
Roll window back up. Light changes. I presume his 383
Roadrunner made all manner of noise as he manhandled his Hurst
shifter. I wouldn't know, the only sound in the Mercedes 300
SEL 6.3 was the tick-tick-tick of the clock as the Roadrunner
vanished into the distance behind me.

I had a 1966 Plymouth Satellite when I moved to California,
something of a boat. It had rust holes in the back quarterpanels
you could stick your head through, and was gernally beat to shit.
It also had a 318 V8 with mechanical lifters (enablign very high
RPMs), a factory installed shift kit in the transmission, and a
positive traction rear end, as it was originally bought to tow a
boat.
Had a guy in a Datsun Z pull up next to me at a stoplight, and
start revving his engine like he wanted to race stoplights. OK, no
problem. My car would only do about 85, but it would get there
*real* damn fast, and racing stoplights doesn't leave enough room
to get much above 50, no matter how hot your car is. We were dead
even until he had to shift into second gear, and my modified
transmission jumped about a car length head of him.
I treasure the look on his face when we stopped at the next light.
And when it turned green, I zoomed away like a maniac again, and he
accelerated at a very sedate pace.

Satellites and Road Runners used the same basic body in the late 60s.
A Sat with that much power under the hood really moving doesn't
surprise me.

Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by m***@sky.com
The start of Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm )
describes a car that is built to appear fast, without actually
being fast, complete with a misreading speedometer. It doesn't
actually say that the style compromises the form, but I expect
it does - I expect that designing to appear streamlined to
people is different from designing with wind tunnels and
computer models to minimise air resistance.

One could argue that, since the car is specifically *intended* to not
be able to go fast, if the styling keeps it from going fast, it
actually is serving function, not impeding it.

It all depends on who you ask what the proper function is, the
designer or the driver.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Alan Baker]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
We are well aware that any device we build is a collection of
design compromises: cost, available materials, weight, size,
and many different aspects of performance. On top of this,
sometimes there is a further compromise with style. Customers
or designers want the device to look a certain way that actually
interferes with the device's function. Such an occasion is at
hand with respect to some types of automobile tires.
Many cars are now being sold with tires that are too shallow,
measuring from the lower edge of the rim of the wheel to the tread.
In the industry these are termed "low profile" tires. Some critics
call them "rubber band" tires. Tires like this have little distance
to flex to allow for irregularities in the road surface, and hence
are subject to severe damage from running over potholes. There
is no corresponding advantage in handling. Racing tires achieve
better handling not by being low as such but by being wide. This
gives them a larger contact patch which allows the designers to
use a softer rubber compound (with a higher coefficient of friction)
in the tread and still have the required tread life. The tires
on modern formula 1 racing cars are not as low as these
passenger car tires.

Wow. There is so much wrong in this paragraph...

1. The purpose of lower profile tires is to provide a sidewall which can
be sufficiently stiff to prevent distortion at a LOWER pressure. That
allows for a larger contact patch.

2. Racing tires have short sidewalls for precisely the reason I described.

3. The tires on modern Formula 1 cars are constrained by a very old rule
requiring 13" rims. IOW, they have taller sidewalls because it is
legislated that way, not because it is better for performance. Check out
the German touring car championship, where the car designers are free to
use what they want.

4. And there are other advantages to using shorter sidewalls on larger
diameter rims, such as the ability to fit larger brakes with greater
heat capacity.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
This problem has been discussed in the automotive press many
times over the years. The essential silliness of the situation
was highlighted recently when the Michelin company announced
the development of a wheel with a resilient rim to protect
https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-room/press-and-news/michelin-news/Innovation/MICHELIN-ACORUS-technology-it-bends-but-it-won-t-break
Looking at the cross section of the "ACORUS" rim, one can see
that it in effect provides a prosthetic side wall so that the
tire plus rim acts as if the tire were designed with a reasonable
side wall height in the first place. It does seem to work OK;
in a test, a low profile tire mounted on the new wheel was able
to go over a pot hole at 35 miles per hour without damage, whereas
the same tire mounted on a conventional wheel was destroyed at
half that speed.
Has a science fiction writer ever used this trope of a technology
where function is compromised by style?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist