Re:statistically, cyclists don't hit pedestrians
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk?
If you bothered to google this: cyclists are involved in collisions with.6% of pedestrian injuries in NYC that warrant a trip to the doctor, ER, or a police report.
The other 99.4% are motor vehicle drivers.
The statistics do not account for whether the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault. Quite a few pedestrians rely on hearing to tell if a vehicle is coming - I have people step right into the road in front of me all the time, and it's particularly annoying since I'm more likely to be injured trying to avoid them and hitting something or crashing, or glancing off them and then crashing. They're likely to only get a bruised rib, whereas I'll probably get a broken arm.
Perhaps I should have clarified - in my town, cyclists over the age of 18 are considered motor vehicle operators and thus, legally ineligible to travel on the sidewalks. Therefore, any incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk in this city is automatically ruled to be the cyclists fault.
Snow Leopard was free for a while last year. By download or by disk. As part of the MobileMe shutdown and transition to iCloud, they were giving away Snow Leopard for free to anyone that filled out the form and asked for it, just in case the lack of Snow Leopard was the reason you weren't migrated to iCloud yet. I managed to snag a couple DVDs of the OS direct from Apple. Of course if you missed it, you're SOL now:-)
Penalties actually given for drunk/drugged/distracted drivers killing cyclists and pedestrians are still usually light around the Middle Atlantic/Southeast US.
Agreed - it blows my mind how the legal system can consider a person who willfully impaired themselves, then took control of a deadly weapon and used it against other people, as not being 100% culpable for murder; vehicular manslaughter, when committed by a drunk and/or enraged driver, is absolute bullshit.
Helmets? Publicize solid statistics on head injury reductions, then let natural selection purge the gene pool.
Agreed x2; if I want to be a moron and get myself killed by not wearing the proper protective gear, that's my prerogative.
It will show you every last *reported* injured biker. That's a very big and important distinction. Equally important is how many of those injuries were on public roads. Whether or not some kid on an off-road course injured himself is of little importance.
Depends on how "off-road" is defined; I agree a cyclist crashing into a tree on a backwoods trail shouldn't be included in the figures, but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk? Technically 'off-road,' but still occurred in an urban setting next to the road, so it should be counted, just like if a car were to do the same thing.
Also, I don't see any reference to a percentage by volume - of course more people will be injured by cars, because there are significantly more cars on the road than bikes.
> Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.
You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.
It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.
The fact that it's a free upgrade kind of implies you already have the hardware.
As for "expensive hardware," I have an '08 Macbook that meets the minimum specs for Mavericks (except that I never upgraded to Snow Leopard) - cost me about an hour of labor for a buddy who owns a pawn shop.
Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.
All well and good, but of all the things I could be called, Apple Fanboy definitely isn't one of them.
This is a clever ruse on Linus' part. The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.
You said it's a free upgrade, which implies that one has to already have purchased a copy of Windows 8 to get the software.
I don't have to buy shit to get the a Linux distro, nor for updates. Kinda not even close to the same thing.
Even if he doesn't want to talk about it, at least publicly, I know he's scared shitless.
In your state can I buy a nuclear weapon for personal protection? Why not?
Why is it that anti-Second Amendment anarchists always go straight to the ad hominems and reductio ad absurdums?
Seriously. Come up with some better arguments. Like, maybe ones that aren't complete nonsense.
But to answer your question, no. You can't buy a Lear jet, either, but I won't use that as an example, because I understand that it's completely batshit insane to bring such a reference into a conversation about car buying laws.
And if you buy a car and radically modify the engine and drivetrain, your warranty goes away.
Only on the parts you modify, and possibly related systems. For example, if you put a cold-air intake on your engine, the warranty still covers your driveshaft, wheels, cooling system, electronics, etc., but maybe not your exhaust.
Not saying the way it's currently set up is right, but on that same note, lobbying for a special exception to the rules just for you and no one else isn't right either.
Point being, the idea that Musk is championing social change for the greater good is pure bullshit. He just wants to sell more cars.
If you answered "yes" to either of these questions, then you can assume that yes, the NSA is monitoring you.
Along with the Chinese, Russians, French, British, Canadians,...., and just about everyone else in the local neighborhood.
To paraphrase the not-so-great Herbert Morrison, "Oh, the hyperbole!"
The little old lady down the street is not monitoring my, nor anyone else's, communications.
As for the Russians, Chinese, et. al... well, first off, there's zero evidence been offered that would show any of those nations you named have the equipment or capabilities that we know the NSA to have. Secondly, As I reside in America, even if they did I'm not really all that worried about some Chinese party insider getting ahold of my email, seeing that I'm not a fan of their policies, and deciding to use that information against me. My own government, on the other hand, can and has in the past used stuff said online to hunt down and persecute me, Jofi Joseph style.
He's got a massive ego, there's no denying it, but your rebuttal is quite terrible. The whole fiasco surrounding Top Gear was bad, but the Top Gear guys have their fair share of the blame: they did do this so that the car would end up behaving as they wanted it to behave (ie. badly), not as it actually did. It may be comedy, but it's still misrepresentation, and we are all fully aware that electric cars (or basically anything but a fuel car) is going to have to fight an uphill battle for adoption, so why make it harder for no good reason beyond your own obstinate vision of a car being noisy, gas guzzling machines?
Malarkey - I've actually seen the episode, and not only do they not put the car through anything more rigorous than other cars tested, Jeremy Clarkson (you know, the guy who would rather have his testicles eaten by a million angry bees than compliment an electric car) actually praised both the car and the company at the end of the show.
Not to mention, a wheel really did lock up at speed and almost kill the Stig, which Tesla readily admits did happen.
Likewise, I don't recall him making excuses for the car's performance, either the Roadster or the S. There's been a lot of talk about both models and sometimes expectations went a bit overboard.
So, he did but didn't overspeak the features of the vehicle then renege? Not really 100% what you're trying to say here.
Lastly but most importantly, his wrestling with car sales rules in many states is undeniably good.
In reference to the Texas fiasco, no - it would be undeniably good if he was trying to get the law changed because it's wrong, but that's not the case - he was trying to get a special exception made for his company, and fuck everyone else.
Just like one would expect from a self-serving capitalist.
So... basically what you're saying is, the people our government puts in charge of the most deadly, destructive arsenal ever known are, essentially, the worst of the worst and laziest of laziest?
So what exactly would you suggest they put on the box to explain all of this information?
How about instead of using the word "buy" they instead use the more accurate "rent" or "lease?" Perhaps state this little factoid clearly, somewhere that the consumer will definitely see it, instead of burying the info somewhere inside a 250 page EULA?
Personally, I don't buy the whole "morality is hard" concept; being honest and up-front about things pretty damn easy in my experience.
Hydrogen fires are some of the safest to be around
Agreed. The worst thing I've ever seen hydrogen do was pop a lead acid battery. Which was kinda neat, until I noticed that the acid was eating through my clothing...
No, but the fact there are other douche-bags on the planet is no excuse for being one.
and he is doing something that will push us in the right direction.
According to you. Me, I fail to see the merit in the concept of having everyone drive around in what is, essentially, a big-ass pile of heavily polluting blood minerals that won't get you to your destination without taking a minimum hour break every couple hundred miles.
Not to mention, even if electric cars are "the right direction," Elon Musk doesn't give half a fuck about that - he's a capitalist, therefore he's in it for the money. If altruistic progress was his goal he'd be selling Teslas at a loss just to get them in the hands of the people who would benefit the most.
Also, it takes considerable effort to get hydrogen gas from dihydrogen monoxide. Perhaps he knows this already?
Uh, that was a dig, not a comparison or question of science. I figured it was obvious.
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The cause of the Hindenberg incident has never actually been determined. Maybe do a little research yourself before launching the ad hominems, eh?
Thanks for playing.
What? The fact no one is sure what sparked the fire doesn't invalidate his point that hydrogen can explode/burn.
True; also true is that many people would cite a major disaster like the Hindenburg* in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cells purely as a scare tactic. And, you know - you shouldn't criticize someone else's lack of knowledge when yours is found wanting as well.
Slashdot Mirror
but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk?
If you bothered to google this: cyclists are involved in collisions with .6% of pedestrian injuries in NYC that warrant a trip to the doctor, ER, or a police report.
The other 99.4% are motor vehicle drivers.
The statistics do not account for whether the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault. Quite a few pedestrians rely on hearing to tell if a vehicle is coming - I have people step right into the road in front of me all the time, and it's particularly annoying since I'm more likely to be injured trying to avoid them and hitting something or crashing, or glancing off them and then crashing. They're likely to only get a bruised rib, whereas I'll probably get a broken arm.
Perhaps I should have clarified - in my town, cyclists over the age of 18 are considered motor vehicle operators and thus, legally ineligible to travel on the sidewalks. Therefore, any incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk in this city is automatically ruled to be the cyclists fault.
YMMV based on local ordinance.
Snow Leopard was free for a while last year. By download or by disk. As part of the MobileMe shutdown and transition to iCloud, they were giving away Snow Leopard for free to anyone that filled out the form and asked for it, just in case the lack of Snow Leopard was the reason you weren't migrated to iCloud yet. I managed to snag a couple DVDs of the OS direct from Apple. Of course if you missed it, you're SOL now :-)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/04/19/upgrade-your-old-mac-to-snow-leopard-for-free/
Awesome as that would have been, I didn't get the Macbook until February this year :(
Still, $30 for a full version upgrade isn't breaking the pocketbook.
Penalties actually given for drunk/drugged/distracted drivers killing cyclists and pedestrians are still usually light around the Middle Atlantic/Southeast US.
Agreed - it blows my mind how the legal system can consider a person who willfully impaired themselves, then took control of a deadly weapon and used it against other people, as not being 100% culpable for murder; vehicular manslaughter, when committed by a drunk and/or enraged driver, is absolute bullshit.
Helmets? Publicize solid statistics on head injury reductions, then let natural selection purge the gene pool.
Agreed x2; if I want to be a moron and get myself killed by not wearing the proper protective gear, that's my prerogative.
Actually it's more like $300 to $1300, depending on which hardware you bought to run it on.
Incorrect: it will install just fine on the free 2008 Macbook I was given.
It will show you every last *reported* injured biker. That's a very big and important distinction. Equally important is how many of those injuries were on public roads. Whether or not some kid on an off-road course injured himself is of little importance.
Depends on how "off-road" is defined; I agree a cyclist crashing into a tree on a backwoods trail shouldn't be included in the figures, but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk? Technically 'off-road,' but still occurred in an urban setting next to the road, so it should be counted, just like if a car were to do the same thing.
Also, I don't see any reference to a percentage by volume - of course more people will be injured by cars, because there are significantly more cars on the road than bikes.
> Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.
You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.
It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.
The fact that it's a free upgrade kind of implies you already have the hardware.
As for "expensive hardware," I have an '08 Macbook that meets the minimum specs for Mavericks (except that I never upgraded to Snow Leopard) - cost me about an hour of labor for a buddy who owns a pawn shop.
Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.
All well and good, but of all the things I could be called, Apple Fanboy definitely isn't one of them.
...but Apple users had to pay a bundle for the OS that they're upgrading to Maverick from, remember.
Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.
I guess "a bundle" has extremely varying values.
This is a clever ruse on Linus' part. The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.
You said it's a free upgrade, which implies that one has to already have purchased a copy of Windows 8 to get the software.
I don't have to buy shit to get the a Linux distro, nor for updates. Kinda not even close to the same thing.
Even if he doesn't want to talk about it, at least publicly, I know he's scared shitless.
Yea, somehow I doubt that.
I wonder if I would get a simple fine if I systematically hacked into thousands of people's computers to watch "intimate moments."
Go for it, and cite this settlement as precedent.
Equal protection under the law, right?
In your state can I buy a nuclear weapon for personal protection? Why not?
Why is it that anti-Second Amendment anarchists always go straight to the ad hominems and reductio ad absurdums?
Seriously. Come up with some better arguments. Like, maybe ones that aren't complete nonsense.
But to answer your question, no. You can't buy a Lear jet, either, but I won't use that as an example, because I understand that it's completely batshit insane to bring such a reference into a conversation about car buying laws.
And if you buy a car and radically modify the engine and drivetrain, your warranty goes away.
Only on the parts you modify, and possibly related systems. For example, if you put a cold-air intake on your engine, the warranty still covers your driveshaft, wheels, cooling system, electronics, etc., but maybe not your exhaust.
So, nothing like it is with consumer electronics.
You don't own the software, you license it.
Which is not made clear to the consumer until after they've purchased the item and opened the packaging, thus devaluing the product.
Face it, the way hardware w/ software purchases are treated is blatantly scammy. Why would you defend a practice that hurts you?
That's something I don't think I'll ever understand about humans - our willingness to act against our own best interests.
Not saying the way it's currently set up is right, but on that same note, lobbying for a special exception to the rules just for you and no one else isn't right either.
Point being, the idea that Musk is championing social change for the greater good is pure bullshit. He just wants to sell more cars.
If you answered "yes" to either of these questions, then you can assume that yes, the NSA is monitoring you.
Along with the Chinese, Russians, French, British, Canadians, ...., and just about everyone else in the local neighborhood.
To paraphrase the not-so-great Herbert Morrison, "Oh, the hyperbole!"
The little old lady down the street is not monitoring my, nor anyone else's, communications.
As for the Russians, Chinese, et. al... well, first off, there's zero evidence been offered that would show any of those nations you named have the equipment or capabilities that we know the NSA to have. Secondly, As I reside in America, even if they did I'm not really all that worried about some Chinese party insider getting ahold of my email, seeing that I'm not a fan of their policies, and deciding to use that information against me. My own government, on the other hand, can and has in the past used stuff said online to hunt down and persecute me, Jofi Joseph style.
- Do you use electronics to communicate?
- Do you live on Earth?
If you answered "yes" to either of these questions, then you can assume that yes, the NSA is monitoring you.
Wouldn't know about that: when I was a kid, we had all of one TV, and didn't even have a Nintendo until the mid-90's.
My favorite theory is the one with the German saboteur.
Bit more romantic than "big fucking balloon randomly bursts into flames," don'tcha think?
He's got a massive ego, there's no denying it, but your rebuttal is quite terrible. The whole fiasco surrounding Top Gear was bad, but the Top Gear guys have their fair share of the blame: they did do this so that the car would end up behaving as they wanted it to behave (ie. badly), not as it actually did. It may be comedy, but it's still misrepresentation, and we are all fully aware that electric cars (or basically anything but a fuel car) is going to have to fight an uphill battle for adoption, so why make it harder for no good reason beyond your own obstinate vision of a car being noisy, gas guzzling machines?
Malarkey - I've actually seen the episode, and not only do they not put the car through anything more rigorous than other cars tested, Jeremy Clarkson (you know, the guy who would rather have his testicles eaten by a million angry bees than compliment an electric car) actually praised both the car and the company at the end of the show.
Not to mention, a wheel really did lock up at speed and almost kill the Stig, which Tesla readily admits did happen.
Likewise, I don't recall him making excuses for the car's performance, either the Roadster or the S. There's been a lot of talk about both models and sometimes expectations went a bit overboard.
So, he did but didn't overspeak the features of the vehicle then renege? Not really 100% what you're trying to say here.
Lastly but most importantly, his wrestling with car sales rules in many states is undeniably good.
In reference to the Texas fiasco, no - it would be undeniably good if he was trying to get the law changed because it's wrong, but that's not the case - he was trying to get a special exception made for his company, and fuck everyone else.
Just like one would expect from a self-serving capitalist.
So... basically what you're saying is, the people our government puts in charge of the most deadly, destructive arsenal ever known are, essentially, the worst of the worst and laziest of laziest?
I wish I hadn't found that out.
So what exactly would you suggest they put on the box to explain all of this information?
How about instead of using the word "buy" they instead use the more accurate "rent" or "lease?" Perhaps state this little factoid clearly, somewhere that the consumer will definitely see it, instead of burying the info somewhere inside a 250 page EULA?
Personally, I don't buy the whole "morality is hard" concept; being honest and up-front about things pretty damn easy in my experience.
Hydrogen fires are some of the safest to be around
Agreed. The worst thing I've ever seen hydrogen do was pop a lead acid battery. Which was kinda neat, until I noticed that the acid was eating through my clothing...
Well it sure as hell ain't a ferret!
He may well be a douch,
Oh, he is.
but he's not the only one out there,
No, but the fact there are other douche-bags on the planet is no excuse for being one.
and he is doing something that will push us in the right direction.
According to you. Me, I fail to see the merit in the concept of having everyone drive around in what is, essentially, a big-ass pile of heavily polluting blood minerals that won't get you to your destination without taking a minimum hour break every couple hundred miles.
Not to mention, even if electric cars are "the right direction," Elon Musk doesn't give half a fuck about that - he's a capitalist, therefore he's in it for the money. If altruistic progress was his goal he'd be selling Teslas at a loss just to get them in the hands of the people who would benefit the most.
Also, it takes considerable effort to get hydrogen gas from dihydrogen monoxide. Perhaps he knows this already?
Uh, that was a dig, not a comparison or question of science. I figured it was obvious.
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The cause of the Hindenberg incident has never actually been determined. Maybe do a little research yourself before launching the ad hominems, eh?
Thanks for playing.
What? The fact no one is sure what sparked the fire doesn't invalidate his point that hydrogen can explode/burn.
True; also true is that many people would cite a major disaster like the Hindenburg* in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cells purely as a scare tactic. And, you know - you shouldn't criticize someone else's lack of knowledge when yours is found wanting as well.
* All for you, ericloewe!
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The cause of the Hindenberg incident has never actually been determined. Maybe do a little research yourself before launching the ad hominems, eh?
Thanks for playing.