On Aug 25, 5:51*pm, -hh wrote:

If you want to take it to a high end system, add another $2-$3K to
move up from a pexiglass housing to metal casting, as well as another
$3K-$5K to go to a Pro camera body (1Ds Mark III)...and bump the
strobes up to the digital replacement model of what I have now
(DS-200)...and add a few more lenses and matching port extensions.
Very easy to crack $14K for just the UW camera.

Not sure the pro camera bodies are worth it. Plenty of u/w "pros" are
using "semi-pro". Speaking of which, I picked up an extra D200 body,
brand new, for under $1,000 from B&H. That's the problem with digital
camera housings, once your camera becomes obsolete and it floods,
prepare to buy a new housing or find what you can on eBay. This will
be an insurance policy to extend the life of my expensive housing,
plus serve as a land camera since I can leave the strap on full-time.

So now, packing my camera for Bonaire next week, I'm bringing 2 camera
bodies, 4 lenses, 4 camera batteries, camera battery charger, various
filters and diopters, 3 strobes, 4 strobe battery packs, 3 strobe
battery chargers, 2 sync cords, focus light, assorted arms and clamps,
camera housing, extended viewfinder, two ports, various extension
rings and focus gears, all packed in a nice indestructable case that
comes out to just over 65 lbs full. Oh, and the laptop, memory cards,
and memory card reader, can't forget those. The cameras and lenses
and laptop obviously have to go in carry-on, along with the regs and
computers, and now the airlines have cut luggage limits to 50 lbs, one
bag per passenger.

Which reminds me, time to renew my insurance on all that since I dare
not lock any of it for TSA, and Bonaire isn't exactly the most crime-
free destination.

10 Cyclists Struck by a Taxi on the Causeway to Miami Beach

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=457751


"A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak."

And why should we protect the monkey, not the lion? Because then the
lion will eat the monkey, stupid. And that keeps the other monkeys
terrorized, which is not what we want. We want them to come out,
right?

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe)
mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more
rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is
always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even
completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way
traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate
cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two
cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).

A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak.

The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that
they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not
bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it
can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly."

Posted by PCC | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._hierarchy.php

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
wrote:

10 Cyclists Struck by a Taxi on the Causeway to Miami Beach

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=457751


"A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak."

And why should we protect the monkey, not the lion? Because then the
lion will eat the monkey, stupid. And that keeps the other monkeys
terrorized, which is not what we want. We want them to come out,
right?

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe)
mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more
rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is
always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even
completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way
traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate
cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two
cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).

A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak.

The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that
they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not
bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it
can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly."

Posted by PCC | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._hierarchy.php
As are the laws here, hit a bycyclest here and you are in trouble.
What happened to the cab driver ?

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

Smart except for being completely wrong. The purpose of the police power is
to investigate, apprehend and bring criminals to the judicial portion of the
American system.