Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:LmSTf.1281$Qm2.1278@trndny03...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
egroups.com...


John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools?

Yeah...that'll work. Elderly voters in my school district tried it.
They'd come to town & school board meetings and complain about school
taxes, and how they didn't think it was fair to them to pay for
extracurricular activities. In the same breath, they'd bitch about how
"kids just hang around in gangs, all aimless & stuff, with nothin' to do,
and then they get in trouble. Something's gotta be done!"

As someone who doesn't have or want kids, I see it from a different
perspective. While I'm willing to contribute to the common good, why
should I have to do so at the same rate as someone who thinks it's cool to
pop out 4 or 5 kids? For that matter, why should anyone get a tax
DEDUCTION for having kids? Those who consume the most in services should
pay the most in taxes. If you don't force people to pay their own way,
they don't learn personal responsibility and they don't think about the
consequences of their (reproductive) actions. The welfare system taught us
that, in spades.


I'm OK with adjusting school taxes as you described. But, I'd qualify the
change as follows. Anyone who voted that way should have to wear one of
those electric training collars that some hunters use to teach Poopy to
retrieve dead ducks. If you complained about young stupid retail employees
who can't make change, you'd get shocked. Not sure how to monitor the
behavior, but I'm sure something could be figured out.

It's been shown over and over again that the problem with public schools
is not a lack of money. Besides, if you tax people without kids less and
people with kids more, there should be no decrease in revenue.

The government gives people with hybrid vehicles a tax break. Why
shouldn't someone who uses a bicycle instead get an even larger one? Not
only do they use zero fossil fuel and create dramatically lower emissions,
but the environmental cost of building, maintaining and disposing of their
vehicle is several orders of magnitude lower. People who don't own cars at
all should get an even bigger break. As much as I like cars, need a car
and actually enjoy driving, it's pretty obvious that our priorities are
majorly screwed up.

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it safe
to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual driving &
vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old lady here hit
two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were
garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't many places I feel
safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.

That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data. Gut reactions
are almost always wrong. Look at how many people get all worked up over
West Nile Virus, when only a handful of people die from it each year. In
contrast, the flu kills around 40,000 people every year. I'm an avid
kayaker and when I discuss it with people many express concern about it
being dangerous. The average number of deaths in all forms of kayaking
in the US is 12 per year. Millions of people are afraid of flying, which
is the safest mode of transport in existence. When it comes to risk, the
perception of the average person isn't even close to the reality.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things we
do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.

About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to spew:
Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things we
do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to spew:
Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?


Are you guys talking about bicycles or motorcycles or both?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

How risky is paddling the waterways and being exposed later this year
when the wild birds fly south, to the bird flu? HYY

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...




I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.


Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

Of course, but if you're one of those already exposed, which group would
you rather belong to? As an avid cyclist and a driver, I can honestly
say I've had far more close brushes with disaster in my car than on my
bike. At least riding a bike has heath benefits that allow one to enjoy
their life more and live longer. That far outweighs any risk of injury
or death.

Like I said, believe whatever you want.