🚀 go-pugleaf

Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> 
> Joseph Lovell  <subdjoe@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> The notion introduced that bicycles have any real expense to the state
> >> of CA is far more ludicrous than Perata's latest attack on gun rights.
> >> Motor vehicles dominate the scene.
> 
> >US govt. figures show over 400k bicycle injuries/deaths per year.  If we
> >assume that about 15% of those are in CA (since CA has about 15% of the
> >population) then we have over 60k deaths/injuries by bicycles in CA
> >every year.  Are you saying that all of those are covered by insurance
> >and place no financial burden on ERs and trauma centers?  How many of
> 
> Cite your agency please, when giving 'gov statistics.' 

NIH.

 I learned long ago
> that both sides of the gun wars tend towards outlandish use of numbers.
> Your lumping together 1000 deaths with a claimed 399k accidents is on par
> with the use adult age victims in child shooting death numbers.
>
Exactly the same as antis lumping suicides, murders, and accidents all
together, with wording to make it sound as if they were all 6 year olds.

 
> Or like you even talking about cycling accidents at all.  What exactly is
> your point?  You don't need to make misleading statements to talk about
> the problems with Perata's legislation.  Don't fight bullshit with more
> of the same.
> 
Just showing how outrageous it is to blame an inanimate object for
deaths or injuries.  And pointing out that Mr. Perata has better targets
for his tax if he truely is concerned for the red ink on the hospital
ledgers.  And, I'm not being any more misleading than VPC, MMM and Brady
Campaign.  We might as well use the same emotional tactics. 


> I'm telling you that cyclists have the same sorts of insurance issues
> as any other class of accident victims, nontheless their numbers are
> significantly smaller.
> 
Are you talking about the serious adult cyclists, or kids playing on
their bikes?  
And if the NIH numbers are right there are over 400k cases a year, which
would mean that CA has over 60k cases a year. that seems fairly
significant to me.  


> >those injured suffer head/spine injuries that take months of
> >hospitalization for recovery?  How many of those injured are children
> >who will require round the clock care for the rest of their lives
> >because of brain stem injuries?
> 
> You tell us - it's your fantasy.
>
Last year in Sonoma County there were at least 3 that made the
newspaper, 3 monts or more in the hospital. Several kids killed while
riding bikes.  At least one adult that went over the edge on Hwy. 1
between Bodega Bay and Jenner.  
My point again is that Mr. Perata has many other targets for his fund
raising plans.


 
> And as I alluded to previously, if you want to attempt to put a price
> on cycling to society, you have to evaluate the benefits of healthier
> citizens as well.
> 
As with anything really.  

> Just as when one attempts to measure the cost of gun related violence on
> society one must also at least pretend to consider the social benefits
> of citizens that can defend themselves, as well as of the crimes not
> committed by criminals afraid of getting shot.
>
True.
 
> To be totally clear for you, since you might be a participant of
> t.p.g, I'm not a fan of Perata.  But nor am I a fan of gun nuts who
> make uneducated claims in an attempt to 'help' our cause with the
> same quality of facts prepared by HCI.

I, and many others, have started using the same reasoning and/or
emotionalism as HCI et al. to point out the lack of thought in their
positions.  Their basic premise seems to be that a potentially dangerous
inanimate object causes people to act in certain ways that are a net
cost to society.  If we apply that premise to all potentially dangerous
objects (cars, bikes, swimming pools, etc.), we get a "Are you crazy?"
reaction.  If it is reasonable for one potentially dangerous inanimate
object, then it is reasonable for all potentially dangerous inanimate
objects.  If it is unreasonable for one potentially dangerous inanimate
object, then it is unreasonable for all such objects.  
Unless of course, the animistic shamans are right and inaminate objects
DO have life and the power to influence the actions of people.

Joseph

> Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com