New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

> Not in Manhattan. Ever driven in Manhattan? It’s not the most difficult
> place in the world to drive, but there are lots of cars and lots of
> interesting “things” going on all the time. A guy on a 36" wheel riding
> against traffic while talking on a phone, that would just be another
moving
> obstacle on a busy NY street.

This much is obvious! I was referring to the time during and after David’s
fall. Having a heavy 36" wheel unexpectedly bouncing across the road
in front of me would certainly give me pause for thought, especially if I
was in busy traffic.

Arnold the Aardvark
Co-founder, AAFOSOW.

Re: Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

drop it dude,you you suck.you already dinagraded us as complementing American’s or some crap.

quit trying to justify your opinion on d,stonez ride though town.you dont need to.

go score some more lucky goels off of r,daves stick

:astonished:

How about NUTS?

Navigator
Unicycle
Terrain
Situation

You could write it as all lower case, but with an uppercase letter representing the factor which you consider had the greatest contribution, e.g. nuTs if there was a huge pot-hole that made you fall off, or nUts if your tyre blew. Just a thought…

Have fun!

Graeme;)

Re: Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Blood alcohol level is just that, a measurement of how much alcohol is in your blood. It does not measure how drunk you are, it is only used as a legal figure to prosecute a person on a measurable quantity (though plans to introduce “drunkenness tests” in the UK have been talked about). A person could be considered drunk at well below the legal limit, I know that if I was near the legal limit then I would be most definitely drunk as I drink very little normally. It is also worth remembering that the UK (where these tests were performed) currently has a higher blood alcohol limit than many other countries - 80mg/100ml as opposed to 50mg/100ml, so what might get you off with a warning in the UK may loose you your license elsewhere.

Anyway, this thread has got way off unicycling and I’ve started to get on one of my favourite rant topics, so I’ll go no further!

Have fun!

Graeme

Graeme wrote:
> How about NUTS?
Now here is an appropriate acronym.

Christopher wrote:
> I’m stradling the fence between …
Rather than straddling, that elegantly worded essay of yours was a perfect balancing act. I wish I had the skills to express myself as well as you did.

John Foss wrote:
> Which of those is supposed to be the small problem? :slight_smile:
You have a point there, John. :slight_smile:
The issue I meant to raise was that accidents tend to result from a chain of errors, no matter how small/big/stupid/ (add your favorite adjective).

Ride safely,
Fred

Re: Re: Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Ahhhhh, ha , ha, ahhhh ha hahahahahha… ah, ok, I’m fi… fi… fi… ahhhh ahhhhh hhha hha hahh hahhhh. LOL ROFL.

Christopher

RE: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

> In a country as litigious as David’s, do you
> think a driver could make a successful defence
> out of this concatenation of circumstances after
> causing an accident? Doubtful.

On the contrary. In our country, the basic rule is this:

Anybody can sue anybody for nearly anything… and win.

The examples are endless. When I used to work in schools, I heard many
ridiculous examples. How about this: Two boys trespass on school grounds at
night, and climb on top of the school. Then they make their way onto the top
of the gym. Then one of the geniuses manages to fall through a skylight to
the gym floor, and die. The school was sued, and had to pay a settlement.
Why? Because it was too easy to climb on top of the building? I don’t know.
At some point we need to draw the line.

Sorry, I’m on a soap box again…

JF

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

“John Foss” <john_foss@asinet.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1019058331.21498.rsu@unicycling.org
> Anybody can sue anybody for nearly anything… and win.
>
> The examples are endless. When I used to work in schools, I heard many
> ridiculous examples. How about this: Two boys trespass on school grounds
at
> night, and climb on top of the school. Then they make their way onto the
top
> of the gym. Then one of the geniuses manages to fall through a skylight to
> the gym floor, and die. The school was sued, and had to pay a settlement.
> Why? Because it was too easy to climb on top of the building? I don’t
know.
> At some point we need to draw the line.
>
> Sorry, I’m on a soap box again…

I was told all about this the other day,

It’s because you can have jury trial for personal injury cases in the US.
Convincing a jury that the big nasty company / nasty school board / nasty
mcdonalds should have been more careful is much easier than convincing a
judge.

Although no win no fee means a lot of people may try and take out personal
injury cases, in the UK you have to have done something somewhat less stupid
absolutely stupid to have a chance of succeeding because you have to
convince a judge that for example you should have been warned that coffee is
hot.

Which is why people saying that the UK is becoming as bad as the US as far
as personal injury claims go is probably talking absolute bollocks.

Joe (who is not at all in favour of jury trial for civil cases)

RE: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

> )http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1885000/1885775.stm
>
> That study doesn’t show that it’s particularly dangerous. It shows
> that people’s reaction times are slower than when they’re not using a
> cell phone, which is not surprising.

An interesting study. Note they mainly measured stopping distance, and did
not compare real-world accidents, which would be the best indicator. The
problem in real-world accidents is a lack of record of use of cell phone and
other distracting activities. As far as stopping, it works as a general
indicator of attentiveness, but as I tried to impart to my driving students,
stopping is rarely the solution to a dangerous traffic situation (especially
in NY), as it can end up in moving the accident to the back end of your car.

> It also shows that reaction times are slower than someone who’s had
> one drink, which is not particularly meaningful–

One drink is generally what you’re allowed before passing the legal blood
alcohol limit in most of the United States. They wanted to compare people at
or around that level with cell phone users, as well as people with higher
blood alcohol.

> the participants in the (simulated) study were not drunk
> by any reasonable definition of the term. (They weren’t even over the
> blood-alcohol limit).

I think blood alcohol limits are reasonable definitions of “being drunk”
where driving is concerned. So they wanted people who were “threshold drunk”
for that part of the study.

> The fact that this study (and a widely quoted (U.S.) National Safety
> Council study) doesn’t test cell phone conversation against in-person
> conversation–which is the obvious analogy–is beyond odd.

This study mentions in-car conversations, implying that it’s easier to
ignore a speaker who is present, than to stop listening over the phone.
Especially one held in one of your hands. In-car conversation, though it can
be a known distraction, is not cited as a factor in nearly as many accidents
as cell phone use. Plus a conversation in the car doens’t involve dialing,
looking up a number, and keeping one hand off the steering wheel during the
whole duration of said conversation.

> Scientifically dishonest, I’d say.

All studies of this nature have a certain amount of one-sidedness to them.
Always consider who is presenting the data, and what their motivations are.
Most scientific studies like this can be used as evidence for both sides of
a debate. Every test will cover some situations, but not others.

> Consumer Product Safety Commission’s agenda, which does things like
> release warnings to parents not to buy Razor scooters because kids
> have injuries using scooters–when CPSC hasn’t done any analysis of
> using scooters as a form of transportation, compared to driving,
> bikes, or for that matter unicycles.

The safety warnings on scooters are not transportation related, they are
injury related. Razor scooters are not primarily used for transportation.
Even if they were, there are other modes of transportation available for
kids, with far lower incidence of injury. I think even bicycles score lower,
though accident rates of kids and bikes are well known.

> (Let’s hope the CPSC never starts paying attention to
> unicycles–I’m sure they’d have a conniption).

It would be interesting. Just hope they don’t find out about riders like
David Stone… :slight_smile:

> I’ll just say that it’s obvious that cell phone use is
> distracting, and you shouldn’t do dangerous things while
> you’re distracted, but using a cell phone while unicycling
> is clearly a lot safer than a lot of other things we
> do on unicycles.

Like juggling torches!

Stay on top,
John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
jfoss@unicycling.com

“I am never riding the wrong way on a busy street again, esp. when on the
phone.” - David Stone, on survival

David-

Thanks again for the post. I am unable to determine which is more entertaining, the comical description of your silly mishap or the maniacal controversy that it has spawned. Keep up the good work. If you don’t have another accident like this one soon, please make one up. The last few days have been thoroughly enjoyable.

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Danny Colyer <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:

> Personally I won’t drive with my mobile turned on. I don’t have a problem
> cycling or unicycling with it on hands free though.

And when riding on some twisty singletrack in Dorset, you don’t have
a problem with answering the phone (hands-free) mid-trail and
making everyone wonder who on earth you are talking to. Everyone?
Well, it made me start anyway and the fact you were explaining
how to fix a puncture only made the whole thing rather bizarre.

Paul

Paul Selwood
paul@vimes.u-net.com http://www.vimes.u-net.com

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Tom Holub wrote:
> the participants in the (simulated) study were not drunk
> by any reasonable definition of the term. (They weren’t even over the
> blood-alcohol limit).

I quote from the report:
“This study demonstrates beyond doubt that using a mobile phone when driving
significantly impairs the driver’s attention to potentially hazardous
situations, more so than having a blood alcohol level at the UK legal limit
(80mg/100ml).”

I couldn’t find anywhere in the report where the blood alcohol level used
was specified, but it is implied in several places that a level of
80mg/100ml was used.

> The fact that this study (and a widely quoted (U.S.) National Safety
> Council study) doesn’t test cell phone conversation against in-person
> conversation–which is the obvious analogy–is beyond odd.
> Scientifically dishonest, I’d say.

I suspect a test of the effects of conversing with a passenger was of no
interest to the insurance company that funded the study (they probably
investigated that years ago anyway). But you’re right, it would certainly
be an interesting comparison. Frankly, I’d be amazed if the effect of
normal conversation with a passenger was anything like that of talking on a
mobile. Dealing with screaming kids in the back of the car might be a
different matter…

> I don’t know why I’m arguing this, I don’t even drive. I’ll just say
> that it’s obvious that cell phone use is distracting, and you shouldn’t
> do dangerous things while you’re distracted, but using a cell phone
> while unicycling is clearly a lot safer than a lot of other things we
> do on unicycles.

Agreed.


Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
The joys of parenthood - www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/jenny/scream.html
“Sleep - what’s that?” “Pardon?”
B4/5v c(+) rv d m(+) w++ q+ k e+ t+ (s) g+ f - http://www.lpbk.net/jc/

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Paul Selwood wrote:
> the fact you were explaining
> how to fix a puncture only made the whole thing rather bizarre.

I lost a certain amount of my already limited faith in human nature that
day.

Catherine had gone cycling on her own for the first time in about 5 years.
She had a puncture and wasn’t equipped to fix it (as it later turned out she
wouldn’t have had the physical strength to remove the tyre or get it back on
anyway).

Since she was on the cyclepath, I told her just to start pushing the bike
home and someone would stop to help. I always get at least one offer of
help when fixing a puncture on the cyclepath, and I usually offer to help
anyone who seems to have a problem.

Nobody stopped. I guess the difference is that she was out on a Saturday
afternoon, when most people on the cyclepath are fairweather cyclists who
wouldn’t know how to fix a puncture anyway. I’m usually out during rush
hour, when most of us are experienced cycle commuters with the equipment and
knowhow to deal with such minor emergencies.


Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
The joys of parenthood - www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/jenny/scream.html
“Sleep - what’s that?” “Pardon?”
B4/5v c(+) rv d m(+) w++ q+ k e+ t+ (s) g+ f - http://www.lpbk.net/jc/

It’s good of David Stone to share his experiences with us. His incident has acted as the catalyst for one of the largest uni male bonding threads I’ve seen for a long time.

While certain tempers flare and we go off-topic once in a while, reading the thread I realize why I come back to the newsgroup on a regular basis: We share a fellowship.

I’m sure David didn’t think his incident was THAT bad when he started. We’ve all started things that we’ve done before, which turn for the worst at the last minute. In hindsight it sounds really irresponsible and we shake our heads in regret, but at the time we really didn’t think anything of it. Only after others point it out that we realize something’s not right.

We’ve all done stuff that others would think of as irresponsible. Like riding MUni in the mountains on a giraffe. Like trying to land a 5’ drop with loose spokes. Like riding down a Mexican volcano, and falling hard enough to crack your helmet. Like wearing down your tire so far to the threads as to blow out your tube. Like hopping on cars. Like riding a uni on a tightrope. Like riding a uni across Europe. Like taunting police into giving you a ticket. Like riding a uni down a sand dune. Like crank grinding on a uni. Like riding down stairs backwards. Like riding through Tiananmen Square in China on a uni. Like posing for a photo on a uni with Chairman Mao’s portrait as your backdrop.

All these things are very irresponsible to someone but on this newsgroup they are interesting and are often even applauded and encouraged. Was David’s thing that bad?

If you think David’s thing was risky you should compare what could have happened to the guy who posed with his uni and Chairman Mao. The Chinese police’s negotiation tactics for those who insult the founder of the PRC and desecrate the birthplace of the country are to be admired for their thoroughness.

  1. beat the sh** out of foreigner
  2. throw trash into jail, detain for 48 hrs
  3. call foreign embassy to say trash needs to be removed
  4. politically expel trash
  5. ask trash to sign a statement stating they committed a major offence and will never return to China
  6. fine trash for infraction
  7. have trash pay for ticket out of country
  8. escort trash to airport via paddy wagon in handcuffs and onto plane. Ensure plane takes off

In retrospect David’s thing wasn’t all that bad, was it? And after all, it was in NYC, right? If David can make it there, he can make it anywhere?

If you want to mitigate all risk become a librarian. For the rest of us, ride on!

Don_TaiATyahooDOTcoDOTuk, Toronto, Canada

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

> If you want to mitigate all risk become a librarian. For the rest of us,
ride on!

Paper cuts could kill you in a blink, man. Falling books and/or bookcases,
serial killers stalking through the shelves, going blind ("It’s from
reading, honest! Not… well, you know), evil books of magic, moldy
poisonous dust, head librarians, insane patrons, incurring the wrath of
cyberdemons by not spellchecking on usenet…

In comparison, yiking backwards down an active volcano seems downright safe,
neh?

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:31:23 -0700, John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com>
wrote:

>This study mentions in-car conversations, implying that it’s easier to
>ignore a speaker who is present, than to stop listening over the phone.

A contributing factor that I haven’t heard being argued yet, may be
that a speaker who is present in the car is likely to notice a
demanding traffic situation (such as a truck on fire). Therefore it is
natural that the conversation stops so that full attention can be paid
to driving activity. Conversely, the person on the other end of a
phone conversation will ask “Hey did you hear me” or the like, or will
just babel on.

Klaas Bil

“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“fish, Timothy McVeigh, 312”

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

Thanks, John. I guess that confirms what I think of the
US legal system. We have occasional examples of
such legal lunacy over here, too, though.

Arnold the Aardvark

Re: Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

and

No slight intended, Klass- I just couldn’t bring myself to a civil responce in that-thread-that-is-not-to-be-named. I’d be much pleased by the company. I’ll put my hands out for an Alley-Oop, but be warned: there’s a wild Aardvark up here- and the fence is picket. :slight_smile:

Christopher

Re: New Low on Cokey: Near-death experience

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:22:41 -0500, rhysling
<rhysling.3dwwa@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:

>No slight intended, Klass- I just couldn’t bring myself to a civil
>responce in that-thread-that-is-not-to-be-named. I’d be much pleased
>by the company. I’ll put my hands out for an Alley-Oop, but be warned:
>there’s a wild Aardvark up here- and the fence is picket. :slight_smile:

Thanks, here I am (ouch). On the Aardvark warning: you said the fence
was BETWEEN Fred and the Aardvark, and I never believe he makes it up
the fence.

Klaas Bil

“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“SLI, Razor, BLACKER”

Right your are, Klaas. Sorry, Arnold- punt Heh- didn’t know Aardvarks could fly!

Christopher