How risk averse are you? Personally I don't think that I am really all that risk of adverse. I tend to participate in a lot of activities recreationally that some (mainly family) would find questionable. Some of the more frequent that come to mind off my personal list that I've heard concern about from family or friends:
- Hiking and/or camping alone in remote places.
- Running most mornings well before sunrise.
- Driving on one-lane and/or remote roads.
- Travel to cities domestically with high instances of crime on the Uniform Crime Report or have State Department travel advisories.
When I was younger I was much more into things like riding ATVs and participating in OHV activities than I am now. The topic of travel to Detroit in particular for urban exploration came up in the Illinois is Flat 2.0 thread on page 20 and 21:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30421.msg2744207;boardseen#new
To an extent, I tend to find a lot of experiences with a degree of risk to be far more thrilling than those without. I think this is mostly evident when I go hiking on some sort of really difficult trail or even when I drive a thrilling roadway.
Most people don't know how to handle large numbers, or they're too lazy to bother even looking at the numbers. Therefore, most people think a lot of safe things are actually risky.
I've traveled to many developing countries by myself. I climb the highest mountains in the continental US. I hold my six month old without him wearing a diaper. I'd like to think I'm pretty risk averse.
I enjoy traveling, so I'm definitely not one to avoid going somewhere out of fear, but at the same time, I've never been interested in activities like roller coasters, zip lining, etc., so I suppose it depends what level of risk we're talking about.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 12:53:43 PM
- Hiking and/or camping alone in remote places.
- Running most mornings well before sunrise.
- Driving on one-lane and/or remote roads.
- Travel to cities domestically with high instances of crime on the Uniform Crime Report or have State Department travel advisories.
I don't think any of those things are risky, questionable, or out of the ordinary at face value.
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 01:03:28 PM
Most people don't know how to handle large numbers, or they're too lazy to bother even looking at the numbers. Therefore, most people think a lot of safe things are actually risky.
And they think that a lot of risky things are actually safe. It usually boils down to familiarity.
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 01:14:15 PM
I enjoy traveling, so I'm definitely not one to avoid going somewhere out of fear, but at the same time, I've never been interested in activities like roller coasters, zip lining, etc., so I suppose it depends what level of risk we're talking about.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 12:53:43 PM
- Hiking and/or camping alone in remote places.
- Running most mornings well before sunrise.
- Driving on one-lane and/or remote roads.
- Travel to cities domestically with high instances of crime on the Uniform Crime Report or have State Department travel advisories.
I don't think any of those things are risky, questionable, or out of the ordinary at face value.
Right, but a lot of people have a perception that they do. In particular when I worked on the road 100-150 nights a year many family members voiced concerns that I was doing something inherently unsafe because I was alone.
Also, somehow there is a perception that running in the dark is more risky than the daytime. I've never been hit by a car at 5-6 AM but I've been hit twice during the 2-3 PM hour.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 07, 2022, 01:31:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 01:03:28 PM
Most people don't know how to handle large numbers, or they're too lazy to bother even looking at the numbers. Therefore, most people think a lot of safe things are actually risky.
And they think that a lot of risky things are actually safe. It usually boils down to familiarity.
Familiarity is something I personally generally find mundane and boring. Speaking for myself I'm comfortable with trying unfamiliar things, I don't think that's true for a lot of people.
When it comes to potential harm in nature (falling, encountering poisonous snakes, bears, etc) I'm extremely risk averse.
When it comes to potential harm from other people (riding the Green Line to Oak Park at 1am) I'm much less risk averse. We got a great deal on our house because we were willing to live within two blocks of the state line, which is viewed by people in other parts of town as high risk but really isn't.
People assign different weights to the possibilities of gain and loss associated with each activity. For example, I'm not bothered by backcountry camping (which I've done in Denali National Park) or urban exploration in high-crime areas (East St. Louis in my case), but I tend to steer clear of high-impact exercise because I assign a higher value to avoiding the need for surgical repair of joints than most people. That, in turn, is informed by my vicarious experience of friends of my parents' generation who have undergone unsuccessful knee replacements and other medical interventions that led to cascades of additional care rather than clear cures.
This also dovetails with identity. A person who prides himself or herself on good impulse control and not doing things without first thinking them through may come off as risk-averse at first glance, when in fact he or she has very high risk tolerance in certain contexts.
WARNING: I dug this out from the annals of the Coronavirus thread (may it rest in peace), back toward the beginning of lockdowns. I think we all understand that some of our thoughts and opinions have changed a little, or a lot, over the last two years. I do
NOT want this to become another Coronavirus thread, and I don't suppose anyone else does either.
OK, now that I've gotten that out of the way... I think this post pretty well summarizes my take on risk.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2020, 10:51:33 AM
Perhaps, then, there is a fundamental difference between the way you and I live our lives.
Staying safe is not the goal of my life. Heck, staying alive isn't even the goal of my life. I fully expect to die at some point in my life. That doesn't mean I live recklessly, but it does mean that "is it safe?" isn't the guiding question that controls my decisions.
In 2008, my wife and I decided to take steps towards doing mission work in Mexico. A couple of months later, escalating cartel violence started making US headlines, and everybody we knew told is it wasn't safe to go to Mexico. The first year we went (March 2009), my wife's own mother called her "stupid" for taking our one-year-old son to Mexico. Her grandparents told us that, with any future trips, we shouldn't even tell them we were going until we got back to the USA. Even today, the US Department of State says of the state we travel to: "Reconsider Travel ... due to crime. Violent crime and unpredictable gang activity are common..." For the first several years, I did research about the safety of travel there. I obtained detailed data from the Mexican attorney-general's office, downloaded Harvard mathematician-published research papers, looked through FBI crime statistics, made charts and graphs based on my findings, etc. But all of that was really for the sake of others traveling with us. It wasn't for our own sake. We had a call on our lives to serve in Mexico, and it's our belief that one is supposed to follow his or her calling whether it's safe or not. (I'm trying to avoid overtly religious language.) Our best friends recently moved to the town we serve in, with our full encouragement and support. "Is it safe?" is a question that factors into their decisions and ours, but it is far from the most important factor.
When we do go to Mexico, we often do roof demolition. We destroy the very surface we stand on, sometimes swinging mattocks while balancing on the edge of the wall because there's nowhere else to stand. Is it safe? Maybe, maybe not. After the work is done, we take the children down the street to the swimming hole. The water isn't treated, people dump all sorts of stuff into the canal that flows through it, my friend has even seen a turd floating by. Is it safe? Maybe, maybe not. But we decide to do these things anyway, because they are acts of ministry to the children there.
2 million drivers in the USA suffer permanent injury or disability because of car accidents in any given year. I personally see or hear car crashes every year, and major wrecks on the highway frequently affect my commute. But this does not keep me from driving a car. Is driving safe? Maybe, maybe not.
More than half a million Americans die from heart disease every year. I have borderline cholesterol, and heart attacks run in the family. But these things do not define how I choose what to eat. I buy high-oleic sunflower oil for cooking applications I used to use lard for, for example, but I'm not about to switch to a raw diet. Could I be healthier if I became religious about my diet? Certainly. But extending my life as long as possible isn't my goal.
If I drop food on the floor, I pick it up and eat it. Might I get sick from that? I suppose so.
Back when I didn't have a car, I used to hitchhike. One week-end, I took Greyhound from Chicago to Menominee (MI), then hitchhiked for two days across and down through Michigan and back to Chicago. Just for fun, because I wanted to see Michigan. Was it safe? Well, who knows? because there are almost no statistics on the safety of hitchhiking.
"Safety" is an illusion anyway. What will you be looking for? 100% safety? It doesn't exist. There are always canaries, if you look hard enough. When the government does tell us it's "safe", what will that mean anyway? No risk of infection? That we can go to the store with zero risk of catching any illness? That's an impossibility. We live our lives with a combination of myriad factors, each of which lies somewhere along a continuum of risk. Focusing on that continuum will leave a person paralyzed, because it's impossible to eliminate all the risk factors.
I would consider myself to be very risk-averse, but that extends more to life decisions than recreational activities.
I'd never give up the security of a safe job with an established employer to join a startup. (My wife had a co-worker who did that years ago and the startup failed. She tried to talk my wife into joining her, but she wisely declined.)
Until I acquired what are known as "reversion rights," I would never have considered taking a non-merit (politically appointed) position in state government. Now, if I take a political appointment, I'm guaranteed to be able to go back to a job similar in pay and duties to the one I'd give up to take the appointment if I get dismissed from the non-merit position.
Even now I'm eligible for what's known as "resign/reinstate," which means I can resign my job today and be rehired tomorrow into the same job, but at an increased salary. However, that starts a probationary period, the same as if I was a brand-new hire, and with the political climate in Kentucky being what it is, there's no way I would risk that.
I'm not a risk taker. I'll settle for the bird in my hand over what's out there in the bush anytime.
Much earlier in my career I found advancement was much easier if I was willing to move or switch jobs every three-four years. A lot of that was calculated risk but realistically it was abated largely by then shitty benefits packages and a lack of pensions. About a decade ago I ended up taking a government job in my field. Aside from moving around by choice there hasn't been much reason to rock the boat now that I'm lining up for a 20 year pension. I do want to transfer overseas at year 17-18 so there is some sort of guarantee on where I return to State side.
All the same, even early in my career I got into moderate-high risk investing. Really the hardest thing about that is just having to the nerve to keep my money invested when a recession hit. That was particularly dramatic during early game COVID but it paid off well during the inevitable economic rebound.
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 02:25:06 PM
WARNING: I dug this out from the annals of the Coronavirus thread (may it rest in peace), back toward the beginning of lockdowns. I think we all understand that some of our thoughts and opinions have changed a little, or a lot, over the last two years. I do NOT want this to become another Coronavirus thread, and I don't suppose anyone else does either.
I don't want this to become a covid thread either - it's shaping up to be plenty interesting without that.
However, speaking of risk-aversion... I will note that I had covid recently, and when I did, I considered starting a thread titled "is the covid-19 pandemic 'over'?" or something similar. I thought it would be an interesting topic and hopefully one that everyone's nerves are much calmer about 2.5 years later, but I still had hesitations about it, which is why I haven't done it yet.
Yeah, let's not.
Depends.
I wasn't ready to jump to conclusions about COVID, but a lot of people were when the news from Wuhan was breaking. Either way, if the disease was as bad as that early suggestion of a 4% mortality I still wouldn't be okay hunkering down in my home for an indefinite period of time. I rather meet my end on some trail or mountain road than the safety of my home.
I think the way I would sum up COVID is that the unknown scares easily but the known does not.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 03:49:33 PM
I wasn't ready to jump to conclusions about COVID, but a lot of people were when the news from Wuhan was breaking. Either way, if the disease was as bad as that early suggestion of a 4% mortality I still wouldn't be okay hunkering down in my home for an indefinite period of time. I rather meet my end on some trail or mountain road than the safety of my home.
I think the way I would sum up COVID is that the unknown scares easily but the known does not.
I thought we didn't want to turn this into a COVID thread. This is how you turn it into a COVID thread.
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 03:46:06 PM
Yeah, let's not.
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 03:47:31 PM
Depends.
I was thinking of it more as an opportunity to share experiences with covid, since what, probably 50%? of the population has had covid at this point, and it seems to be continually getting less severe over time. I've been sick much worse with other cold/flu in the past.
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 03:56:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 03:46:06 PM
Yeah, let's not.
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 03:47:31 PM
Depends.
I was thinking of it more as an opportunity to share experiences with covid, since what, probably 50%? of the population has had covid at this point, and it seems to be continually getting less severe over time. I've been sick much worse with other cold/flu in the past.
Fine, COVID thread.
Fun what vaccines and masks can do.
Only 85 million cases in the U.S., so nowhere close to 50%.
And yet over a million have died from it.
Here's an interesting example of how people fail to handle large numbers:
I know someone at church who used to be in charge of QC for a company that made a/c units. Professionally, he was used to interpreting numbers in context–say, was an issue that had arisen with their customers a total of 126 times nationwide one that needed to be addressed, or was 126 a small enough number to be acceptable? Should all potentially affected customers be sent a notice, or would that cause more harm than good? Et cetera?
Anyway, at a church missions committee meeting, I was explaining to him where in Mexico we do mission work in, where we drive across the border, and such. In response to my description of the driving route, he then said something like "based on what's happening in the area, I assume"–as in cartel violence. He then mentioned a former work associate who lives in Monterrey, who refuses to drive out of town because of the violence.
This is someone who obviously knows how to handle large numbers. But he apparently isn't in this case.
Let's take for an example the highway between Monterrey and Nuevo Laredo. 5½ million vehicles drive that highway every year. Even if there were a cartel incident on that highway every six months, that would still mean the chance of the victim being you is just under 1 in 3 million–approximately the same as being struck by lightning in the USA during a given year.
Or take for another example, the intersection of Kellogg and Rock Road here in Wichita. That intersection sees about 50 car crashes every year–call it one wreck per week. And yet I'm fairly certain this man doesn't avoid that intersection when he's on my side of town.
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 03:56:25 PM
probably 50%? of the population has had covid at this point
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 04:00:13 PM
Only 85 million cases in the U.S., so nowhere close to 50%.
Recorded cases, OK. But that's not the same thing.
Antibodies have been detected in more than 60% of Americans, including 75% of children.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm?s_cid=mm7117e3_w
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 03:56:25 PM
probably 50%? of the population has had covid at this point
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 04:00:13 PM
Only 85 million cases in the U.S., so nowhere close to 50%.
Recorded cases, OK. But that's not the same thing.
Antibodies have been detected in more than 60% of Americans, including 75% of children.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm?s_cid=mm7117e3_w
That's an overstatement of the paper's method. They derived those percentages from samples, rather than direct detection.
The single paper is also more up front with their methods' limitations.
Also look at the conclusion:
"These findings illustrate a high infection rate for the Omicron variant, especially among children. Seropositivity for anti-N antibodies should not be interpreted as protection from future infection. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for preventing complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection, including hospitalization among children and adults. COVID-19 vaccination following infection provides additional protection against severe disease and hospitalization. Staying up to date with vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection."
I thoroughly check hotel rooms for bedbugs before I settle in. I did this with the last hotel I was in and got them anyway...I found out when I saw one sucking blood from my partner's face while he was sleeping. That only made me a little bit nauseous. I can't always win I guess.
Luckily they didn't spread to my house because of the precautions I took, but I need to get my car treated. I'm getting that done by the skin of my teeth because right after that I have a pre-hiring appointment I need to go to.
Here's something I do that *wasn't* risk-averse:
I used to give homeless tweekers in Asheville free food when I was feeling particularly depressed. I stopped after a night when one spilled a milkshake and chili all over the inside of my car. In that same night, another came up to me with a massive knife in his hand, but he literally wanted to fist bump me. I obliged him, then he just walked off. I had another one come up to me clearly methed out like hell, desperately asking me for candy. I gave her two icebreakers and she just ran away. Tweekers are a strange breed. That night was too weird for me, so that spelt the end of my charitable giving.
Quote from: index on June 07, 2022, 04:08:19 PM
... bedbugs ... I did this with the last hotel I was in and got them anyway...I found out when I saw one sucking blood from my partner's face while he was sleeping.
Oh, gosh...
Quote from: index on June 07, 2022, 04:08:19 PM
I used to give homeless tweekers in Asheville free food when I was feeling particularly depressed. I stopped after a night when one spilled a milkshake and chili all over the inside of my car. In that same night, another came up to me with a massive knife in his hand, but he literally wanted to fist bump me. I obliged him, then he just walked off. I had another one come up to me clearly methed out like hell, desperately asking me for candy. I gave her two icebreakers and she just ran away. Tweekers are a strange breed. That night was too weird for me, so that spelt the end of my charitable giving.
I usually grab the food and then drive back over to hand it to them instead.
Also, does anyone else get tweaker and twerker mixed up sometimes?
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 04:06:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 03:56:25 PM
probably 50%? of the population has had covid at this point
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 04:00:13 PM
Only 85 million cases in the U.S., so nowhere close to 50%.
Recorded cases, OK. But that's not the same thing.
Antibodies have been detected in more than 60% of Americans, including 75% of children.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm?s_cid=mm7117e3_w
That's an overstatement of the paper's method. They derived those percentages from samples, rather than direct detection.
The single paper is also more up front with their methods' limitations.
Also look at the conclusion:
"These findings illustrate a high infection rate for the Omicron variant, especially among children. Seropositivity for anti-N antibodies should not be interpreted as protection from future infection. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for preventing complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection, including hospitalization among children and adults. COVID-19 vaccination following infection provides additional protection against severe disease and hospitalization. Staying up to date with vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection."
Still, all of that makes me
more certain 50% of the population has had it at some point since early 2020. Given my symptoms, I'm certain many people have had it and not known it, especially in the past ~year as infections have become milder. (FWIW, I have had the vaccine and first booster, and I certainly wouldn't have thought it was covid if I hadn't taken a test, and the only reason I took a test then was because of a known exposure.) Also, it started with a sore throat, so if you've had a sore throat in the past ~year that wasn't strep, chances are very high that it was covid. And even then, my understanding is it wouldn't be recorded unless you self-report... which I doubt many people do anymore.
Plenty of people have known they had it but never got tested. I know multiple such people.
As the instigator of this discussion, I feel I should weigh in. It starts with reply #488 of the Illinois Road Videos thread.
I don't consider myself a particularly risk-averse person. For example, I'm an avid skier, and I'm pretty good at it. I'm not afraid of even the most intimidating trails at Rocky Mountain ski resorts (trails designated double black or extreme terrain, of which I have done many). Most people would stare down in horror at such trails. I wear a helmet because I'm not an idiot.
That said, backcountry skiing is a no for me (as it is for everyone except the minuscule number of people who are both daredevils and excellent skiers). I won't put myself in any situation where I feel that I could feasibly get lost and not be found.
During Covid, I never lost sleep out of concern for my health or the health of those close to me, because trends showed that we (at our ages and fitness) were overwhelmingly unlikely to suffer major complications or death from the virus. I stopped wearing a mask as soon as I was allowed to.
When it comes to the original discussion about bad neighborhoods, it's a question of risk/reward more than it is a question of sheer probability.
Every time you get in a car, you are subjecting yourself to the leading cause of accidental death, and the leading cause of death period for people between ages 5 and 29. But dozens of millions of Americans (including me) still do it every day, multiple times, because the reward outweighs the risk.
What's the reward for hanging around in bad neighborhoods? Unless you have a specific task to do (which I don't), basically nothing. Even if the risk is small, it's not worth it.
If I'm traveling and have to stop in a sketchy area, I stop. But I would rather stop in a safer neighborhood than a less safe one if possible.
Quote
Also, does anyone else get tweaker and twerker mixed up sometimes?
Nobody really uses the term "twerk" anymore, so no.
Quote from: Takumi on June 07, 2022, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 04:14:49 PM
Also, does anyone else get tweaker and twerker mixed up sometimes?
Nobody really uses the term "twerk" anymore, so no.
And here I thought no one uses the term "tweaker" anymore. Shows what I know.
I've never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I've only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don't know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
I dunno, I'm probably kind of average-to-meh on the risk aversion scale, but I feel like I take enough little risks and push my luck enough times that I don't feel unfulfilled. As I get older, I don't take as many physical risks but also have to acknowledge that I've had a lot of risky (as well as dangerous and illegal) fun in the past, and it's long since time to move on from those attitudes.
The big fallacy comes from the masses thinking that because one doesn't take the same risks as another individual, that they are somehow not living a complete life or surpassing the same artificial thresholds. It could be they're more adept at handling their individual goals or living this silly game by another interpretation of the rule book.
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 07, 2022, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 04:14:49 PM
Also, does anyone else get tweaker and twerker mixed up sometimes?
Nobody really uses the term "twerk" anymore, so no.
And here I thought no one uses the term "tweaker" anymore. Shows what I know.
It is often used in casinos to generally refer to any unsavory person that engages in tweaker-like behavior (collecting abandoned slot tickets with values less than $1, repeatedly presenting $1 worth of coins at the cash cage for $1 bills, petty theft, etc.)
Quote from: formulanone on June 07, 2022, 05:29:45 PM
The big fallacy comes from the masses thinking that because one doesn't take the same risks as another individual, that they are somehow not living a complete life or surpassing the same artificial thresholds. It could be they're more adept at handling their individual goals or living this silly game by another interpretation of the rule book.
Yep. Assuming others should take the same risks as one does leads to things like individuals risking other people's lives -- other people that would rather their lives not be risked.
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 03:47:31 PM
Depends.
Yes, they certainly do mitigate some risks.
Quote from: GaryV on June 07, 2022, 07:01:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 03:47:31 PM
Depends.
Yes, they certainly do mitigate some risks.
I was wondering when someone was going to hit that softball
I think I'm in the middle of the road when it comes to risk aversion (probably somewhere close to formulanone on the grand scheme of things). I really like doing exciting new things, and some things people find intimidating (COVID-19, roller coasters, public speaking) I'm fine with, but I am very conservative and measured with other things (I feel uncomfortable speeding, I don't really like pushing my luck, etc.). I suspect this dichotomy is because of my personality (enneagram 5 wing 4).
On the topic of COVID, I had Omicron in late January when it was really bad down here. It felt like the flu for about two days but really wasn't that bad otherwise.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2022, 05:33:00 PMIt is often used in casinos to generally refer to any unsavory person that engages in tweaker-like behavior (collecting abandoned slot tickets with values less than $1, repeatedly presenting $1 worth of coins at the cash cage for $1 bills, petty theft, etc.)
How is this a worthwhile endeavor for the tweaker?
For me, it's very situational. Let's take... choosing something or somewhere to eat.
By myself, I'll often try something new. If it's disappointing, oh well. Little or no regret.
If I'm picking for others, I'm a lot more risk averse. This is one of those things where some people like to give you responsibility over things you don't really control. If anything about that meal is unsatisfactory in any way, they complain to the person that made the choice.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 07, 2022, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2022, 05:33:00 PM
It is often used in casinos to generally refer to any unsavory person that engages in tweaker-like behavior (collecting abandoned slot tickets with values less than $1, repeatedly presenting $1 worth of coins at the cash cage for $1 bills, petty theft, etc.)
How is this a worthwhile endeavor for the tweaker?
Meanwhile, twerkers do the opposite: they take all the 1s they've earned and cash them in for quarters.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 07, 2022, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2022, 05:33:00 PMIt is often used in casinos to generally refer to any unsavory person that engages in tweaker-like behavior (collecting abandoned slot tickets with values less than $1, repeatedly presenting $1 worth of coins at the cash cage for $1 bills, petty theft, etc.)
How is this a worthwhile endeavor for the tweaker?
Modern slot machines accept paper money but not coins. So the cycle is to search the casino floor picking up loose change and abandoned slot tickets until you reach $1, go bother a cashier to get a $1 bill, put it in a machine, lose it, then go back to scrounging for change for the next dollar.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 07, 2022, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2022, 05:33:00 PMIt is often used in casinos to generally refer to any unsavory person that engages in tweaker-like behavior (collecting abandoned slot tickets with values less than $1, repeatedly presenting $1 worth of coins at the cash cage for $1 bills, petty theft, etc.)
How is this a worthwhile endeavor for the tweaker?
Modern slot machines accept paper money but not coins. So the cycle is to search the casino floor picking up loose change and abandoned slot tickets until you reach $1, go bother a cashier to get a $1 bill, put it in a machine, lose it, then go back to scrounging for change for the next dollar.
But that next dollar will be a winner.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 06:46:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 07, 2022, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2022, 05:33:00 PMIt is often used in casinos to generally refer to any unsavory person that engages in tweaker-like behavior (collecting abandoned slot tickets with values less than $1, repeatedly presenting $1 worth of coins at the cash cage for $1 bills, petty theft, etc.)
How is this a worthwhile endeavor for the tweaker?
Modern slot machines accept paper money but not coins. So the cycle is to search the casino floor picking up loose change and abandoned slot tickets until you reach $1, go bother a cashier to get a $1 bill, put it in a machine, lose it, then go back to scrounging for change for the next dollar.
But that next dollar will be a winner.
Yeah, with that $1, they might well win...$2!!
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
^This. Isn't printing paper easier than minting coins?
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
Talk to the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and let them know how you feel about that.
We can't even get rid of the one cent piece without people losing their mind.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
Japan can do no wrong ever in the eyes of some.
Quote from: thspfc on June 08, 2022, 08:16:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
Japan can do no wrong ever in the eyes of some.
Or Switzerland. Or Canada. Or some random country that is different from everyone else.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 08, 2022, 08:16:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
Japan can do no wrong ever in the eyes of some.
Or Switzerland. Or Canada. Or some random country that is different from everyone else.
I am fine with country comparisons when the results matter (e.g., healthcare, where other countries with public healthcare systems kick our butts on healthcare outcomes). But, it's hard to see the greater benefit of using coinage for dollars. We've tried that for decades without Americans liking them.
I suppose coins are harder to counterfeit, but what other advantages are there?
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 08:44:10 AM
I suppose coins are harder to counterfeit, but what other advantages are there?
Coins last longer and don't have to be replaced nearly as often.
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 08:44:10 AM
I suppose coins are harder to counterfeit, but what other advantages are there?
Coins last longer and don't have to be replaced nearly as often.
Life expectancy of a circulating bill = 6.6 years
Printing costs for a dollar bill = 7.5 cents
Life expectancy of a circulating coin = 30 years
I'm having trouble finding an official source for the cost to mint a dollar coin, but half-dollar coins cost 11.7 cents to mint.
Over the course of a coin's life expectancy, there would need to be 4.5 dollar bills printed, at a total cost of about 34 cents. Even if it costs substantially more to mint a dollar coin than a half-dollar coin, it would still be much cheaper to switch to coins.
Half-dollar coins seem rarer than dollar coins. The last ones I've seen were minted in the 1970s.
Quote from: Big John on June 08, 2022, 12:02:35 PM
Half-dollar coins seem rarer than dollar coins. The last ones I've seen were minted in the 1970s.
I was just using them as a proxy for dollar coins, because I couldn't find an authoritative source for the production costs for dollar coins.
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Even at slow speeds. My best friend rode his motorcycle, by himself, more than 1060 miles from Parras (Coahuila) to Whitewater (KS) without a problem. But, while he was doing a technical ride off-pavement east of Wichita with some guys from church a while later, he couldn't keep the bike up on one turn and his knee ended up underneath it. Blood everywhere, and more than an hour's drive to the hospital.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
What about cycling in the mountains, where bicycle speeds can easily reach 45 mph or more on downhills?
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
What about cycling in the mountains, where bicycle speeds can easily reach 45 mph or more on downhills?
I've owned numerous motorized dirt bikes over the years and crashed them dozens of times, likewise I've owned numerous trail bikes. I've found the difference between crashing on a dirt bike and a trail bike to be largely to be a wash. I did barrel roll an ATV once which netted me a conclusion plus broken left ankle.
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2022, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
Talk to the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and let them know how you feel about that.
We can't even get rid of the one cent piece without people losing their mind.
Methinks with the current level of inflation, it's time to revisit the notion of the penny.
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2022, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
Talk to the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and let them know how you feel about that.
We can't even get rid of the one cent piece without people losing their mind.
The Sacajawea dollar in 2000 was intended as the first step in a transition to eliminating the $1 bill.
That plan was blocked by the senator from Massachusetts, where the company that makes the currency paper is located. Now it is illegal for the BEP to change the $1 bill in any way (which is also why its design doesn't match any of the other bills).
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 08, 2022, 03:45:04 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2022, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
Talk to the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and let them know how you feel about that.
We can't even get rid of the one cent piece without people losing their mind.
Methinks with the current level of inflation, it's time to revisit the notion of the penny.
Just shove about $1 billion worth of pork Illinois' way and that should do it.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 08, 2022, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 08, 2022, 03:45:04 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2022, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
Talk to the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and let them know how you feel about that.
We can't even get rid of the one cent piece without people losing their mind.
Methinks with the current level of inflation, it's time to revisit the notion of the penny.
Just shove about $1 billion worth of pork Illinois' way and that should do it.
I seem to recall hearing that Arizona is also culpable in keeping the penny around–lots of zinc mining goes on there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 04:32:46 PM
The Sacajawea dollar in 2000 was intended as the first step in a transition to eliminating the $1 bill.
That plan was blocked by the senator from Massachusetts, where the company that makes the currency paper is located. Now it is illegal for the BEP to change the $1 bill in any way (which is also why its design doesn't match any of the other bills).
But could they cut production down to, say, 1000 bills a year and then mint gazillions of dollar coins?
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 05:06:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 04:32:46 PM
The Sacajawea dollar in 2000 was intended as the first step in a transition to eliminating the $1 bill.
That plan was blocked by the senator from Massachusetts, where the company that makes the currency paper is located. Now it is illegal for the BEP to change the $1 bill in any way (which is also why its design doesn't match any of the other bills).
But could they cut production down to, say, 1000 bills a year and then mint gazillions of dollar coins?
They would probably object to that if that was the only thing, but if they switched from making a whole bunch of $1 bills to making a whole bunch of $2 bills (with $1 coins by the Mint), they would probably be fine with it.
In case anyone is wondering, the production cost is the same for $1 bills as for $2 bills. In fact, they're listed together.
So many sub-subjects in this thread...
Three things I have not had:
- A covid shot
- A covid test
- Covid
I know there are some who would say that not taking the shot was a risky decision, but I will be honest and say I still don't trust the vaccine to be free of long-term effects, especially with so many cases of myocardia (sp?) and something being referred to as SADS (sudden adult death syndrome, similar to SIDS but happening to adults) in vaccinated individuals. Given what we don't know about the long-term effects of the shot (and now, it would appear, emerging medium-term effects) coupled with my own habits and behaviors, and the actual case rates, I determined that the best decision for me was to not get the shot. There was a very small likelihood that I would catch the virus, and an even smaller likelihood that I would die from it, versus the unknowns about the shot. I would venture to say that taking the shot was riskier than not taking it, especially since the shot has proven to be so ineffective at preventing people from getting the virus.
I'm living in the house that my family built when I was in high school. Over the years, and especially after I moved out of the house in the early 1990s and even after my wife and I started living here in 2011, my old bedroom has become a catch-all for junk. You could barely get the door open, stuff had just been thrown in there. Over the last few days, my wife has decided to clean out that room and turn it into a man cave for me. After bags and boxes and assorted loose items were peeled away, on the floor were two extremely heavy boxes of pennies that had been saved in the 1980s and early '90s and meticulously rolled into 50-cent rolls. She counted them and there were 379 rolls. I had started another jar sometime in my younger days, so I found an empty roller and rolled up another 50 pennies to come up with an even 380 rolls, or $190. Those pennies are going to the bank later this week to be deposited into my account to fund the acquisition of a new turntable to go with the receiver, cassette deck, and speakers that were also unearthed.
My dad had gobs more pennies saved in jars that were never counted and rolled, so he could easily have accumulated more than $200 worth over the years.
I know it's been discussed before, but as long as prices can end up in figures not divisible by five, I do not favor the abolition of the one-cent coin. if I buy something that costs $3.86, then I don't want to give the store any more than the cost. Why should I pay $3.90 and let them keep the profit?
The riskiest behavior I can think of is riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's amazing to me that the same federal government that requires states to pass seat belt laws allows states like Kentucky to repeal helmet laws.
And bicycling can be dangerous too (and not in the way the anti-car crowd claims.) Some of you may be familiar with David Edgren. He was active back in the day on MTR and, as it turns out, actually went to college at UK so he has a Kentucky connection. He's done a number of long-distance bike rides, including the entire Mississippi River Trail a few years ago. He and a friend planned a coast-to-coast ride a few years ago, but a few days into it, he suffered a life-changing accident. He was biking on a rough rural road somewhere out west, went tumbling over the handlebars, and broke his neck upon impact. He's lucky to have survived; when he didn't show up at camp that night his riding partner came looking for him and found him lying helpless unable to move. He's now a tetraplegic. (Another term for quadriplegic, I have since discovered.)
Places that round to the nearest five cents round whichever way is closer. $3.86 would round down to $3.85, not up to $3.90.
And the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have no ill effects, contrary to what you claim.
(The thread lock risk stuff is supposed to go in the Crash_It thread, though, not this one.)
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PMThree things I have not had:
- A covid shot
- A covid test
- Covid
If you haven't had a COVID test, then you don't know that you've never had COVID, do you?
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 05:54:37 PMAnd the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have no ill effects, contrary to what you claim.
They also don't prevent you from getting COVID, they just make it far less likely that you'll end up in the hospital.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PM
I know it's been discussed before, but as long as prices can end up in figures not divisible by five, I do not favor the abolition of the one-cent coin. if I buy something that costs $3.86, then I don't want to give the store any more than the cost. Why should I pay $3.90 and let them keep the profit?
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 05:54:37 PM
Places that round to the nearest five cents round whichever way is closer. $3.86 would round down to $3.85, not up to $3.90.
This. You would pay $3.85, and
you would keep the profit, not the business.
Besides which,
you're already rounding anyway as it is. If you buy a Dr Pepper for $1.50 and the tax rate is 7%, you don't actually pay the store $1.605. No, you pay the store $1.61, and they *gasp* keep the profit!
But, if the person behind you buys a pair of sunglasses for $11.89, she doesn't actually pay the store $12.7223. No, she pays the store $12.72, and
she keeps the profit.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 08, 2022, 06:38:19 PM
If you haven't had a COVID test, then you don't know that you've never had COVID, do you?
In my opinion, this is a matter of semantics. The D in COVID stands for 'disease'. While the technical medical definition of 'disease' may include the asymptomatic carrying of a pathogen, that's not necessarily the way people use the word. For example, Merriam-Webster defines it as 'a condition ... that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms'. Therefore, if HB's bodily functions have not been impaired, and if he hasn't had any signs and symptoms, then it's perfectly reasonable for him to say he hasn't had a disease. If he hasn't had a COVID test, then he doesn't know if he's had the
SARS-CoV-2 virus, but I've been uncomfortable with the conflation of those two terms this whole time.
It's similar to how I tell people I got sick from both the second shot and the booster. Some people correct me by saying I didn't actually get sick–I just had symptoms. Well, to my way of thinking, if a foreign substance was introduced into my body and I suffered ill effects as a direct result of that, then yes, it made me sick.
Or, if someone says they've never had influenza, nobody contradicts them by saying they can't know for sure because 1 in 3 people infected with the influenza virus are asymptomatic. Or, when I say I've had influenza twice in my life, nobody corrects me by saying I might have had it more times than that.
It's just a matter of how we use words.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PM
I know there are some who would say that not taking the shot was a risky decision, but I will be honest and say I still don't trust the vaccine to be free of long-term effects, especially with so many cases of myocardia (sp?) and something being referred to as SADS (sudden adult death syndrome, similar to SIDS but happening to adults) in vaccinated individuals. Given what we don't know about the long-term effects of the shot (and now, it would appear, emerging medium-term effects) coupled with my own habits and behaviors, and the actual case rates, I determined that the best decision for me was to not get the shot. There was a very small likelihood that I would catch the virus, and an even smaller likelihood that I would die from it, versus the unknowns about the shot. I would venture to say that taking the shot was riskier than not taking it, especially since the shot has proven to be so ineffective at preventing people from getting the virus.
I don't want to debate whether people should or should not have gotten vaccinated. That horse is well beaten by now, and I have zero desire to reopen the subject.
But it sounds to me like you were actually making what you considered to be the safer choice. People can tell you it wasn't actually the safer choice, but that isn't my point. The point is that–even if you were erroneous in believing you made the safer choice–safety was still your motivation (at least, if you're being honest with yourself and with us about your motivation).
In contrast, I know plenty of unvaccinated people for whom safety was
not their motivation. I know plenty of people who simply considered the risk of remaining unvaccinated to be small enough: that is, even without thinking the vaccine was riskier than the virus itself, they still chose not to get vaccinated–which means they actually made what they considered to be the riskier choice.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 08, 2022, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PMThree things I have not had:
- A covid shot
- A covid test
- Covid
If you haven't had a COVID test, then you don't know that you've never had COVID, do you?
The one test I had was last year when I was when my wife brought me to a testing center because I was having flu symptoms. Turns out I really did have the flu which I found amusing considering it was the middle of the summer.
Considering she has had one confirmed case of COVID and has numerous instances of COVID symptoms odds are that I've had it to. I don't recall really ever having the main symptoms of COVID, at least since it has been a pandemic. I am about to go on a trip to Mexico for a week which will require a COVID test to get back on the return plane trip. I do wonder in the back of my head if I will flag as asymptomatic but yet still positive.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:09:37 PMTurns out I really did have the flu which I found amusing considering it was the middle of the summer.
Oh, I got the stuffing kicked out of me by a summer cold about a year ago, so I believe it. Turns out the one thing the COVIDiots were right about was the fact that masks were weakening our immune systems.
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:07:55 PMIn my opinion, this is a matter of semantics. The D in COVID stands for 'disease'. While the technical medical definition of 'disease' may include the asymptomatic carrying of a pathogen, that's not necessarily the way people use the word. For example, Merriam-Webster defines it as 'a condition ... that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms'. Therefore, if HB's bodily functions have not been impaired, and if he hasn't had any signs and symptoms, then it's perfectly reasonable for him to say he hasn't had a disease. If he hasn't had a COVID test, then he doesn't know if he's had the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but I've been uncomfortable with the conflation of those two terms this whole time.
I've taken a number of COVID tests (all negative) and have never had symptoms of COVID, and I still wouldn't say "oh, I never got COVID."
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:07:55 PMIt's similar to how I tell people I got sick from both the second shot and the booster. Some people correct me by saying I didn't actually get sick–I just had symptoms. Well, to my way of thinking, if a foreign substance was introduced into my body and I suffered ill effects as a direct result of that, then yes, it made me sick.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're both wrong - you had side effects from the vaccination. If I get a flu shot and my arm is sore, that's a side effect of the shot; it's not a medical diagnosis of...sore arm.
Interesting.
I had heard that some clinics, if a person came in with flu-like symptoms, were testing for COVID but then, if the test was negative, sending him or her home without actually testing for the flu. This was purported to be one reason flu cases were supposedly way down last year.
Any truth to that?
^^^
To be clear I was never explicitly tested for the flu, only COVID. In theory it could have been something else.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 08, 2022, 07:13:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:09:37 PMTurns out I really did have the flu which I found amusing considering it was the middle of the summer.
Oh, I got the stuffing kicked out of me by a summer cold about a year ago, so I believe it. Turns out the one thing the COVIDiots were right about was the fact that masks were weakening our immune systems.
Kind of my thought on it is that all these diseases are inevitable eventually if someone interacts with other people in any regular capacity. In my case I only ever had a single work from home day since the beginning of the domestic run of COVID-19. There was no way I could walk by dozens of people every day in an enclosed structure and avoid exposure to disease, masks or not. That being the case, was there a point in worrying one or another about an outcome that I really couldn't alter?
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 08, 2022, 07:17:17 PM
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're both wrong - you had side effects from the vaccination. If I get a flu shot and my arm is sore, that's a side effect of the shot; it's not a medical diagnosis of...sore arm.
I totally get it. I'm just saying that most people use the word "sick" to mean there's something physically affecting their body. My side-effects from the COVID booster shot were actually worse than my symptoms the first time I had the flu (for which I was indeed tested), so it seems strange to me to say I was sick from influenza but not sick from the COVID booster. I understand why you would say that, but it's not the way I use the word "sick".
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:19:06 PM
Interesting.
I had heard that some clinics, if a person came in with flu-like symptoms, were testing for COVID but then, if the test was negative, sending him or her home without actually testing for the flu. This was purported to be one reason flu cases were supposedly way down last year.
Any truth to that?
What I heard is that flu cases were down because the same measures that lessened the spread of COVID also lessened the spread of the flu.
At the end of 2018, I went to urgent care with flu-like symptoms and they said that they saved their flu tests for higher-risk patients, so they just gave me a prescription for Tamiflu and sent me on my way.
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 08, 2022, 07:17:17 PM
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're both wrong - you had side effects from the vaccination. If I get a flu shot and my arm is sore, that's a side effect of the shot; it's not a medical diagnosis of...sore arm.
I totally get it. I'm just saying that most people use the word "sick" to mean there's something physically affecting their body. My side-effects from the COVID booster shot were actually worse than my symptoms the first time I had the flu (for which I was indeed tested), so it seems strange to me to say I was sick from influenza but not sick from the COVID booster. I understand why you would say that, but it's not the way I use the word "sick".
I'm fairly used to getting regular vaccinations given I'm around DOD facilities. To that end, I thought it was odd that so many people were surprised that they might feel sickly or sore or receiving a vaccine. I don't know, none of those complaints really seemed all that newsworthy to me.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PM
...the shot has proven to be so ineffective at preventing people from getting the virus.
Yes, but it reduces if not eliminates the chance that you'll become very sick when you do get it. I had heard that many times, but now after having had it along with several family members and close contacts, I have first-hand evidence that it's true.
And I did say
when instead of
if intentionally - if you haven't had covid already (which you may have, if you've had any cold/flu symptoms and not been tested), it will happen eventually. Trying to go through life without getting covid will soon be like trying to go through life without getting the flu, to the extent that it's not that way already. Basically, it's going to be next to impossible to avoid. And age is another risk factor, which I also have first-hand evidence of (it's worse the older you are) so make of that what you will.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:24:01 PM
I'm fairly used to getting regular vaccinations given I'm around DOD facilities. To that end, I thought it was odd that so many people were surprised that they might feel sickly or sore or receiving a vaccine. I don't know, none of those complaints really seemed all that newsworthy to me.
It was less newsworthy, more of a talking point for those of us who had gotten "stuck". Especially because so many of us were getting the shots right around the same time. It was a shared experience we could talk about.
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 05:06:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 04:32:46 PM
The Sacajawea dollar in 2000 was intended as the first step in a transition to eliminating the $1 bill.
That plan was blocked by the senator from Massachusetts, where the company that makes the currency paper is located. Now it is illegal for the BEP to change the $1 bill in any way (which is also why its design doesn't match any of the other bills).
But could they cut production down to, say, 1000 bills a year and then mint gazillions of dollar coins?
They would probably object to that if that was the only thing, but if they switched from making a whole bunch of $1 bills to making a whole bunch of $2 bills (with $1 coins by the Mint), they would probably be fine with it.
I would totally be fine with that too. I prefer dollar coins and two-dollar bills. It drives me nuts when my wife is getting ready for a vendor event and sends me to the bank to break large bills into smaller ones, because I come back with as many two-dollar bills and dollar coins as the tellers had in their drawers.
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PM
I know there are some who would say that not taking the shot was a risky decision, but I will be honest and say I still don't trust the vaccine to be free of long-term effects ... I would venture to say that taking the shot was riskier than not taking it, especially since the shot has proven to be so ineffective at preventing people from getting the virus.
...
But it sounds to me like you were actually making what you considered to be the safer choice. People can tell you it wasn't actually the safer choice, but that isn't my point. The point is that–even if you were erroneous in believing you made the safer choice–safety was still your motivation (at least, if you're being honest with yourself and with us about your motivation).
In contrast, I know plenty of unvaccinated people for whom safety was not their motivation. I know plenty of people who simply considered the risk of remaining unvaccinated to be small enough: that is, even without thinking the vaccine was riskier than the virus itself, they still chose not to get vaccinated–which means they actually made what they considered to be the riskier choice.
I could be wrong, but I suspect "safety" was brought up much more out of contrarianism than conviction.
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2022, 05:44:49 PM
I know it's been discussed before, but as long as prices can end up in figures not divisible by five, I do not favor the abolition of the one-cent coin. if I buy something that costs $3.86, then I don't want to give the store any more than the cost. Why should I pay $3.90 and let them keep the profit?
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 05:54:37 PM
Places that round to the nearest five cents round whichever way is closer. $3.86 would round down to $3.85, not up to $3.90.
This. You would pay $3.85, and you would keep the profit, not the business.
Besides which, you're already rounding anyway as it is. If you buy a Dr Pepper for $1.50 and the tax rate is 7%, you don't actually pay the store $1.605. No, you pay the store $1.61, and they *gasp* keep the profit!
But, if the person behind you buys a pair of sunglasses for $11.89, she doesn't actually pay the store $12.7223. No, she pays the store $12.72, and she keeps the profit.
Maybe we should bring the half-cent back for H.B.'s benefit.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/1851_half_cent_rev.jpg)
Fun fact, when it was eliminated in 1857, it was worth about 15¢ in today's money.
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 05:19:20 PM
In case anyone is wondering, the production cost is the same for $1 bills as for $2 bills. In fact, they're listed together.
The $2 bill is the most fascinating unit of U.S. currency, because it's extremely common and yet everyone swears up and down that it's rare, so it has some very erratic circulation patterns. A lot of times people will get a $2, think it's rare, hang onto it for decades...and then eventually somehow it gets kicked back into circulation. If you call up a bank ahead of time, you can often talk them into ordering $2s by the strap (100 bills) for you. These are incredibly fun to go through. Sometimes, you get 100 crisp, never-before-circulated bills in sequential serial order. Sometimes you get a hundred bills dated 1976, and that's where the real fun is; you'll find stuff like July 4, 1976 postmarks and birthday messages from 1984 and stuff like that. A few times I've even run across United States Notes from the 1960s with red serial numbers and seals (and a totally different design on the back showing Monticello).
Because of these erratic circulation patterns, it has really erratic print runs, too. Lots of bills printed in Series 1976 (Neff-Simon)...then nothing until Series 1995 (Withrow-Rubin). They skipped 1999 (Withrow-Summers) and 2001 (Marin-O'Neill), but came back back-to-back in 2003 (Marin-Snow) and 2003A (Cabral-Snow), skipped 2006 (Cabral-Paulson), but hit both the Rios series (2009 with Geithner and 2013 with Lew). Skipped 2017 (Carranza-Mnuchin) but hit 2017A (also Carranza-Mnuchin but with different inks, which apparently necessitated a series change for some reason; maybe they needed to redo all the plates or something).
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 08:34:15 PM
I would totally be fine with that too. I prefer dollar coins and two-dollar bills. It drives me nuts when my wife is getting ready for a vendor event and sends me to the bank to break large bills into smaller ones, because I come back with as many two-dollar bills and dollar coins as the tellers had in their drawers.
Why would you tick off her customers with them?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 08:34:15 PM
I would totally be fine with that too. I prefer dollar coins and two-dollar bills. It drives me nuts when my wife is getting ready for a vendor event and sends me to the bank to break large bills into smaller ones, because I come back with as many two-dollar bills and dollar coins as the tellers had in their drawers.
Why would you tick off her customers with them?
If anyone gets ticked off by getting a $2 bill, they deserve to be ticked off, because they are stupid.
I'm fully in favor of getting stopping production of pennies. I wasn't for a long time, but in the past few years that changed. The basic reason is inflation (and I came to that conclusion before the recent bout of inflation started). At one time, I would stop to pick up a penny on the ground. Today, I won't. I treat that piece of money like actual garbage, except that I might stop to pick up garbage if there's a place nearby to put it.
As far as I know, no one is talking about recalling all the pennies and destroying them. They're just considering not making new ones. There would still be an enormous number of them in circulation, and they last for decades. There would not be any shortages in the short term, and the value of pennies keeps going down. Electronic payments could still be conducted in any number of cents even if there are no pennies.
Even if prices are adjusted to be divisible by 5 cents, there would be no reason to change the price of everything. Only the total of all of the items and services, plus the sales tax, would need to be divisible by nickels. You wouldn't risk losing 2 cents on every item, at most you would lose 2.5 cents on an entire transaction. This is just like gas stations still using tenths of cents in their prices. The fact that we don't have a coin for that doesn't mean they can't price it that way and then round the total. (By the way, I'd love for Walmart to give another tenth of a cent off at their gas stations, with prices ending in 32.8 cents instead of 32.9. It would mean almost nothing, but it would show their devotion to keeping prices low.)
I'm also in favor of using dollar coins, and even two dollar coins.
I still stop and pick up pennies when I see them to toss in my change jar. I don't bother taking them out of the house to spend them, though (which is true of all change). They do still add up. I usually cash the change jar in when it hits around $20, and of that, usually between 50¢ and $1 is pennies. A 5% increase in the size of my deposit is nothing to scoff at.
I see way less change on the ground in general than I did when I was a kid.
I will gladly take pennies from all on here that do not want theirs.
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 09:17:58 PM
I could be wrong, but I suspect "safety" was brought up much more out of contrarianism than conviction.
I don't assume that. A lot of people were concerned about unknown long-term side-effects of the vaccines. And that kind of made sense for, say, a few months. Then, after a year and a half of no long-term side-effects showing up, some people just kept thinking they might at some point. That's misguided thinking, but it isn't contrarianism.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 08:34:15 PM
I would totally be fine with that too. I prefer dollar coins and two-dollar bills. It drives me nuts when my wife is getting ready for a vendor event and sends me to the bank to break large bills into smaller ones, because I come back with as many two-dollar bills and dollar coins as the tellers had in their drawers.
Why would you tick off her customers with them?
Her customers weren't ticked off. Every customer I've given a $2 bill to as change has been excited to receive it, sometimes immediately giving it to her child to keep. And most every customer I've given a dollar coin to as change has been at least pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:37:31 PM
I will gladly take pennies from all on here that do not want theirs.
Can I mail them to you COD, or will you be coming by to pick them up?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 09:48:52 PM
Maybe we should bring the half-cent back for H.B.'s benefit.
Fun fact, when it was eliminated in 1857, it was worth about 15¢ in today's money.
I've heard people argue against getting rid of the penny by bringing up Benjamin Franklin's famous line.
Fun fact: When Benjamin Franklin wrote "A penny saved is a penny got" in 1758, a penny had the purchasing power of 43 cents in today's money. So really, if it's Ben Franklin's penny you're concerned about, then you're not actually concerned about anything less valuable than a quarter today.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:37:31 PM
I will gladly take pennies from all on here that do not want theirs.
We're you planning on buying a calzone with them?
I don't use cash much anymore, but on the rare occasion I do, I find that a lot of places already round to the nearest nickel. If I'm owed $1.09 in change, nine times out of ten I'll get a one dollar bill and a dime. I've even seen this from some self checkout machines. The penny can die and nobody would notice.
I'm all for $1 coins replacing bills, too. A dollar right now has the same value as a quarter did in 1979, and nobody was wishing they had 25-cent bills back then...
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:04:02 AMThat's misguided thinking, but it isn't contrarianism.
Considering the author, yes, it's contrarianism.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 09, 2022, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:04:02 AM
That's misguided thinking, but it isn't contrarianism.
Considering the author, yes, it's contrarianism.
Possibly. Which is why I said...
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:07:55 PM
(at least, if you're being honest with yourself and with us about your motivation)
I wouldn't have put that part in there if it hadn't crossed my mind. But, remembering previous conversations on this forum about it in the past, I do think there's a very good likelihood that he was simply operating a misguided understanding of the vaccines' safety–an understanding likely fueled by bias confirmation (community, media, or both).
Quote from: US 89 on June 09, 2022, 10:56:50 AM
I don't use cash much anymore, but on the rare occasion I do, I find that a lot of places already round to the nearest nickel. If I'm owed $1.09 in change, nine times out of ten I'll get a one dollar bill and a dime.
Yep, I've received rounded change (in my favor) several times. Mostly when I don't have some combination of coins that would make easier change.
On one occasion, the coins I had weren't useful for whatever the amount was, so when I paid an even dollar amount and got change back in my favor, I put the coins I had in their tip jar.
I remember being strongly in favor of a commonly-circulated dollar coin after spending a few months in England in 2000, but now I can't remember why. I believe it had something to do with the ease of using them in vending machines and such, but many accept credit cards now, so it's kind of a moot point.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 09, 2022, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:04:02 AM
That's misguided thinking, but it isn't contrarianism.
Considering the author, yes, it's contrarianism.
Possibly. Which is why I said...
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 07:07:55 PM
(at least, if you're being honest with yourself and with us about your motivation)
I wouldn't have put that part in there if it hadn't crossed my mind. But, remembering previous conversations on this forum about it in the past, I do think there's a very good likelihood that he was simply operating a misguided understanding of the vaccines' safety–an understanding likely fueled by bias confirmation (community, media, or both).
Not to continue this rabbit hole, but as you mentioned, many people who didn't get the vaccine thought that might be the riskier choice, but did so regardless. No one would have assumed safety was part of the reasoning for not getting it, that's why bringing up safety seemed like more of a "well actually" counterpoint that wasn't necessarily all that relevant to the argument for getting it or not.
There are plenty of people who did or did not get the vaccine based on their favorite tie-wearing dipshit telling them to get it or not get it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2022, 05:00:39 PM
There are plenty of people who did or did not get the vaccine based on their favorite tie-wearing dipshit telling them to get it or not get it.
I have a former co-worker who flat-out refused to get the vaccine because government figureheads kept telling us to. I think I remember reading that the number of Americans who fall into that category number in the double-digit percentage points. He eventually did get one shot, but only because his wife was a lot more nervous about the disease than he was, and–as he said in his own words–he loves his wife more than he hates the government telling him what to do.
Quote from: US 89 on June 09, 2022, 10:56:50 AM
I'm all for $1 coins replacing bills, too. A dollar right now has the same value as a quarter did in 1979, and nobody was wishing they had 25-cent bills back then...
In 1979, the new SBA dollar coin came out and was deeply criticized for too closely resembling the quarter.
Quote from: Big John on June 09, 2022, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: US 89 on June 09, 2022, 10:56:50 AM
I'm all for $1 coins replacing bills, too. A dollar right now has the same value as a quarter did in 1979, and nobody was wishing they had 25-cent bills back then...
In 1979, the new SBA dollar coin came out and was deeply criticized for too closely resembling the quarter.
...which is ironic, considering people's main complaint about the Eisenhower dollar coin, which it replaced, was that it was too big/heavy. So the SBA was smaller and lighter, and people complained that it was too much like the quarter. Well, yeah, go figure.
I recently had some teenagers give me a SBA dollar thinking it was a quarter. They had no idea what it was until I pointed it out.
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 04:06:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2022, 03:56:25 PM
probably 50%? of the population has had covid at this point
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 04:00:13 PM
Only 85 million cases in the U.S., so nowhere close to 50%.
Recorded cases, OK. But that's not the same thing.
...
That's an overstatement of the paper's method. They derived those percentages from samples, rather than direct detection.
...
Still, all of that makes me more certain 50% of the population has had it at some point since early 2020. Given my symptoms, I'm certain many people have had it and not known it ... And even then, my understanding is it wouldn't be recorded unless you self-report... which I doubt many people do anymore.
An interesting and timely article from FiveThirtyEight on the subject of Covid reporting and forecasting, including the increasing uncertainty surrounding case count: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/partly-cloudy-with-a-75-percent-chance-of-covid-exposure/
I kind of wanted to weigh in on this debate (hopefully without it getting too heated!)
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 05:54:37 PM
And the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have no ill effects, contrary to what you claim.
I'm not sure about that. There are documented correlations between the Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis in men from 16-39 years old from a study done in Israel:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z
I'm not saying that the vaccine caused the myocarditis, but it is interesting to note the correlation.
Also, a study done by the University of California found that the risk of vaccine-caused myocarditis in 12-17 year old boys was higher than their risk of being hospitalized from COVID-19:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1
This study is about a year old, so this was during Delta, but given Omicron's relative mildness, I would guess that the results would be similar if carried out today.
These studies and many anecdotal stories I've seen regarding the issue have convinced me not to get the shot. Also not helping the vaccine's cause is the fact that my family and heritage has had many heart problems over the years and a close family member of mine died from a heart condition right before COVID started, so I don't want anything that could potentially harm my heart. Of course my heart may be perfectly fine, but I still don't want to take a risk on that.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2022, 05:00:39 PM
There are plenty of people who did or did not get the vaccine based on their favorite tie-wearing dipshit telling them to get it or not get it.
That's a very valid point. I know some people who acted like that, but I tried to not let other people influence my decision not to get it. I had plenty of people in my life that got the vaccine and encouraged me to get it, namely my senior pastor, youth pastor, and both sets of grandparents. Don't get me wrong, I am no anti-vaxxer (at least in the pre-2020 meaning of the word!). Vaccines are
generally the most effective and safe form of medicine available to mankind, and it is truly a miracle that we have them (and no, they do not cause autism. That is absolute hogwash).
Even then, I simply waited after vaccines became available to see whether getting the vaccine was, in fact, the safest option for me, and I feel that I have made the smartest and safest choice for me in not getting it. Much like how
hbelkins made his choice based on what he felt was safest for him, I believe that I've tried to make the choices that benefited the most.
I find the idea that a layman individual to be able to ascertain the state of the art of research and be their own doctor -- COVID vaccinations related or not -- to be particularly laughable. "I read a couple of articles that confirmed my desire not to get a vaccine" is what that mentality boils down to and is a method of risk aversion founded upon the shaky ground of selection bias.
Two things I've never had:
I will walk that back a bit by saying that in my memory, I don't recall ever having the flu. I certainly didn't have it as a teenager or as an adult.
I can be well assured that I've never had covid because I have never had any of the classic symptoms. I've had some cold and allergy symptoms since it first emerged on the scene, but no fevers, no loss of taste or smell, or any of that. The only illness I've really had in the past two years was a nasty sinus infection back in February.
And I still pick up pennies off the ground. Money's money.
Fun thing now is that they're linking COVID to psychotic disorders. Going to be a crazy world...
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 09:02:34 PM
Fun thing now is that they're linking COVID to psychotic disorders. Going to be a crazy world...
Wasn't there a similar link with leaded gasoline during the mid-20th century?
There has been a growing anti-vaccine sentiment since long before COVID. There was a 1998 paper published in England liking the MMR vaccine to autism. It's been debunked thousands of times over and even the publisher retracted it. None of that mattered. The fraction of the population that loves to gobble up conspiracy theories had taken it and run with it.
Most of those same people are the ones who bought into the Qanon stuff and later on the stolen election stuff, so they were more than ripe to get on board with any of a number of false narratives about the COVID vaccine.
Just today a Congresswoman from Georgia (I won't name her but you can probably guess which one) complained on Twitter about a tweet from an obvious parody account (the name Dr Lyle P Lysol should have been a dead giveaway even if you didn't read the profile noting that it's tweets were made up information) regarding COVID and miscarriages was tagged by Twitter as false info.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:58:56 PM
I find the idea that a layman individual to be able to ascertain the state of the art of research and be their own doctor -- COVID vaccinations related or not -- to be particularly laughable. "I read a couple of articles that confirmed my desire not to get a vaccine" is what that mentality boils down to and is a method of risk aversion founded upon the shaky ground of selection bias.
If I can't trust myself to think about things and make conclusions off of that about my health, then where do I draw the line on what I can conclude things about? Should every aspect of my life be determined by what the experts say? Or are there certain things that it's okay to think about for one's self?
Just to be clear, it took me almost a year to decide whether I wanted to get vaccinated or not. I wanted to wait to see when some data came in about vaccinations (I guess you could call me a skeptic). By the time I was thinking about getting vaccinated, all the people at risk in my life were vaccinated and the risk of COVID waned off considerably at the time (around when Omicron was starting and scientists had figured out it was mild). Given how the shot had some known side effects for my age group and that everyone vulnerable around me was no longer in much danger due to being vaccinated, I decided that getting it wasn't worth it to me. I don't believe the vaccine makes you infertile or that it makes you "magnetic" or any of that stupid garbage peddled by the radical parts of the GOP. Neither am I scared of needles or vaccines in general. I've just seen enough evidence that the vaccine can cause heart problems to discourage myself from getting it. That's all.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 09:02:34 PM
Fun thing now is that they're linking COVID to psychotic disorders. Going to be a crazy world...
Yup. I believe it.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:58:56 PM
I find the idea that a layman individual to be able to ascertain the state of the art of research and be their own doctor -- COVID vaccinations related or not -- to be particularly laughable. "I read a couple of articles that confirmed my desire not to get a vaccine" is what that mentality boils down to and is a method of risk aversion founded upon the shaky ground of selection bias.
As shaky and ill-founded as it may be, it still boils down to someone making a decision based on what they believe to be safety. Which is what actually prompted HB to bring it up in this thread in the first place, after all.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:27:48 PM
There has been a growing anti-vaccine sentiment since long before COVID.
My wife and I were briefly headed in that direction. We were never hardcore anti-vaxxers, but there was a period of time when we weren't taking our kids in for their shots while we sorted through our conscientious misgivings about getting a vaccine that had been manufactured from cells derived from abortions. As pro-life people, that presented an ethical dilemma–until we got over it. (Well, that's the short story.)
Hey, let's hop on a tangent
away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I happily got all of the COVID shots available, but I've never had a flu shot and don't intend to.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:58:56 PM
I find the idea that a layman individual to be able to ascertain the state of the art of research and be their own doctor -- COVID vaccinations related or not -- to be particularly laughable. "I read a couple of articles that confirmed my desire not to get a vaccine" is what that mentality boils down to and is a method of risk aversion founded upon the shaky ground of selection bias.
As shaky and ill-founded as it may be, it still boils down to someone making a decision based on what they believe to be safety. Which is what actually prompted HB to bring it up in this thread in the first place, after all.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:27:48 PM
There has been a growing anti-vaccine sentiment since long before COVID.
My wife and I were briefly headed in that direction. We were never hardcore anti-vaxxers, but there was a period of time when we weren't taking our kids in for their shots while we sorted through our conscientious misgivings about getting a vaccine that had been manufactured from cells derived from abortions. As pro-life people, that presented an ethical dilemma–until we got over it. (Well, that's the short story.)
Hey, let's hop on a tangent away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I happily got all of the COVID shots available, but I've never had a flu shot and don't intend to.
So, a flu shot is a predictive vaccine rather than a reactive vaccine (which was the COVID vaccine). There are lots of strains of flu, and each year the vaccine folks do their best to predict which strains will become dominant during the upcoming winter, with enough lag time to manufacture millions of doses. Like you would expect, some years they do better than others in their predictions. Some years the flu vaccine is extremely effective and some years it's almost not effective at all. I get it every year because I've never had a bad reaction to it, so a worst case scenario is I'm wasting an hour of my time and having a sore arm for a few hours.
Anecdotally, since I started taking annual flu vaccines I've noticed I get colds less frequently, and I've heard several others say the same thing. I've not seen any clinical evidence of this though, but it seems to work well for me.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Hey, let's hop on a tangent away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I pretty much always get my flu shot whenever it's available. My stance hasn't changed on them at all, ever.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 09, 2022, 10:09:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Hey, let's hop on a tangent away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I pretty much always get my flu shot whenever it's available. My stance hasn't changed on them at all, ever.
Usually I won't seek out a flu shot. If my annual physical lines up with flu season I won't turn a free vaccination down at my doctor.
It probably doesn't motivate me much that I have 750 plus hours of paid sick time sitting around unused. A typical flu is usually good for a 16 payroll hours of time on the couch sleeping.
I've always gotten the flu shot. I actually am pretty sure I've had the flu a couple times in the last few years, but in the form of just a manageable cold thanks to the shot.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 09, 2022, 09:37:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:58:56 PM
I find the idea that a layman individual to be able to ascertain the state of the art of research and be their own doctor -- COVID vaccinations related or not -- to be particularly laughable. "I read a couple of articles that confirmed my desire not to get a vaccine" is what that mentality boils down to and is a method of risk aversion founded upon the shaky ground of selection bias.
If I can't trust myself to think about things and make conclusions off of that about my health, then where do I draw the line on what I can conclude things about? Should every aspect of my life be determined by what the experts say? Or are there certain things that it's okay to think about for one's self?
When you're not the expert, listen to the experts that are reviewing the state of the art of the research and evidence. It's just that simple. You are never going to have the resources to come to proper conclusions yourself given the breadth of research that has been done out there.
The rest of your post is just an attempt to rationalize your own selection bias. To think that experts did not take into account those few papers you mentioned when they made the recommendations for vaccination is simply wrong.
And I'm not saying to take my word for it either. Medical decisions should be made in consultation with one's doctor, who can discern whether existing conditions should keep one from getting vaccinated (my sister-in-law has Guillam-Barre and her doctor recommended to stay away from the vaccination as an example). We aren't doctors or experts. They are.
To think that laymen can amass enough knowledge through a little Google searching to equal the consideration put into the medical community recommending vaccination is simply foolish. To say, "I'm not going to listen to my doctor and figure this out myself" -- doubly so.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2022, 09:00:04 PM
I can be well assured that I've never had covid because I have never had any of the classic symptoms. I've had some cold and allergy symptoms since it first emerged on the scene, but no fevers, no loss of taste or smell, or any of that. The only illness I've really had in the past two years was a nasty sinus infection back in February.
A fever and a loss of taste/smell are no longer the primary symptoms of covid. With the new variants, the symptoms have become largely upper respiratory - stuffy nose, blocked airways, perhaps slight difficulty breathing, and, especially, a sore throat. I wouldn't be shocked if what you had in February was covid, especially if it involved a sore throat.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Hey, let's hop on a tangent away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I happily got all of the COVID shots available, but I've never had a flu shot and don't intend to.
I have been getting the flu shot every year for many years. My main rationale has been that I get on airplanes several times during the winter for vacations, and the last thing I would want would be to spend a couple grand on a trip to Hawaii or someplace and then find myself lying in bed for a few days. I know the flu shot is never close to 100% effective but I just feel like it puts me on the right side of the odds, for zero cost other than the little bit of time required.
I didn't used to wear masks on airplanes. Prior to Covid there would always be that one person wearing one and I thought they looked a bit silly. I have flown one round-trip since the lifting of the mask mandate and I did choose to wear a mask, but it was one of those with the vents with embedded filters that wasn't acceptable during the mandate. I found it comfortable enough and going forward I plan on wearing those "comfort masks" to fend off flu, Covid, common colds and all the other airborne bugs one could be exposed to in that environment where you're so close to strangers for such a long time.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Hey, let's hop on a tangent away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I happily got all of the COVID shots available, but I've never had a flu shot and don't intend to.
Tangent appreciated, although I'm not sure how much of a tangent it really is because... I don't get how you could have a totally different position on the flu shot than you do on the covid shot. Covid was initially a lot worse than the flu, but that's becoming less so over time, so eventually, positions on the two are going to essentially merge and you either believe vaccines are effective and worth taking, or you don't.
I had only received the flu shot maybe a handful of years prior to covid, but have received it the past two years and plan to continue doing so.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 09, 2022, 10:09:58 PM
I pretty much always get my flu shot whenever it's available. My stance hasn't changed on them at all, ever.
In light of my point above, I'm really curious as to why that is. I had some mild symptoms (mostly aches and chills) from the covid vaccine, but other than the first one when I also threw up (which may have been from what I ate combined with nervousness/tension) it wasn't really any worse than the symptoms I normally get from the flu shot.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 10:04:53 PM
I get it every year because I've never had a bad reaction to it, so a worst case scenario is I'm wasting an hour of my time and having a sore arm for a few hours.
Anecdotally, since I started taking annual flu vaccines I've noticed I get colds less frequently, and I've heard several others say the same thing. I've not seen any clinical evidence of this though, but it seems to work well for me.
This is basically my position as well and I also think it reduces the frequency/severity of colds and cold-like symptoms. I seem to get sick around the same time every spring (allergies, perhaps?), but other than that and recently having covid, I really haven't been sick much in the past few years.
Oh yeah, flu shot. I get them. I know they misjudge the strain, but it's another situation where I'd rather not give it to someone that'll die from it.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
Tangent appreciated, although I'm not sure how much of a tangent it really is because... I don't get how you could have a totally different position on the flu shot than you do on the covid shot. Covid was initially a lot worse than the flu, but that's becoming less so over time, so eventually, positions on the two are going to essentially merge and you either believe vaccines are effective and worth taking, or you don't.
And, when the COVID vaccines were first being given out, that disease was still pretty bad. Having suffered through influenza without the benefit of either a flu shot or Tamiflu (I couldn't get into the clinic until it was too late because I got sick on New Year's Eve), I didn't want to suffer through anything
worse than influenza. With the efficacy of the vaccines being really high–above 90% effective at the beginning–it seemed to be a no-brainer, especially because, by the time my age group was eligible to get the shot, enough time had passed that I was no longer worried about long-term side-effects. And, by that point, two of my friends had already had a really bad case of COVID (one of them says it almost killed him, as he got it at the same time as bronchitis). Plus, we were still living under the illusion that everyone getting the vaccine might actually make COVID go away. And, last but not least, I don't have health insurance, so it would be nice to avoid a hospital stay.
In contrast, I pretty much know what to expect if I get the flu: several miserable days stuck in bed, barely able to get up to get a glass of water, and then recovery. Not great, but I know I can handle it. A lot of years, as has been mentioned, the flu shot isn't very effective, so the benefit doesn't outweigh the inconvenience by nearly as much. And obviously I'm not living under the illusion that I'm helping to eradicate influenza from the world by getting a flu shot.
But, as you say, my positions on these two will likely merge as time goes on, as COVID becomes less severe of a sickness, and as vaccines become less effective. My prediction is that I'll simply stop wanting to get COVID shots at some point–that I'll treat it like a flu shot–but it's possible my positions will merge in some other way. Who knows?
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
I had some mild symptoms (mostly aches and chills) from the covid vaccine, but other than the first one when I also threw up (which may have been from what I ate combined with nervousness/tension) it wasn't really any worse than the symptoms I normally get from the flu shot.
It knocked me flat. With the second shot, I felt like I had the actual flu all that day: off-and-on chills becoming more "on" than "off" as time went on, felt like I had a terrible fever (even though I didn't), headache, weak. I was back to normal in about 20 hours, but in the meantime it was just like being sick. The booster shot was more of the same, except the side-effects lasted even longer.
Don't get me wrong, I don't wish I hadn't gotten the shots. If I had it to do over again, I'd definitely still get them. And that's precisely what that friend I mentioned said, the one who says COVID nearly killed him: the vaccine knocked him flat too, worse than it did me, but without question he'd take that a hundred times over what he went through with the actual virus.
But I bring it up to let you know that not everyone had such an easy time of it as you did.
As for getting less frequent colds... I've found that I get colds a LOT less often now that I wash my hands more frequently. In fact, I hardly ever get anything more than a runny nose anymore.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 10:34:49 PMMedical decisions should be made in consultation with one's doctor, who can discern whether existing conditions should keep one from getting vaccinated (my sister-in-law has Guillam-Barre and her doctor recommended to stay away from the vaccination as an example).
Exactly. If HB consulted with a doctor who was familiar with his health history and comorbidities and advised him that not getting the vaccine was the best option, I'll eat my hat.
Flu shots: yes, annually, and I felt like I was walking a tightrope the one year I didn't get one. To the best of my knowledge, I have never had the flu, but it sounds awful.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 09, 2022, 10:09:58 PM
I pretty much always get my flu shot whenever it's available. My stance hasn't changed on them at all, ever.
In light of my point above, I'm really curious as to why that is. I had some mild symptoms (mostly aches and chills) from the covid vaccine, but other than the first one when I also threw up (which may have been from what I ate combined with nervousness/tension) it wasn't really any worse than the symptoms I normally get from the flu shot.
If you read between the lines in my first three posts on this page, you'll notice that my aversion to the COVID vaccine is not because of the normal side effects. I'm not scared of normal side effects for the COVID shot (that's a given with any vaccine, more or less). I'm not scared of needles. What I am scared of is the potential risk of myocarditis the COVID vaccine brings, especially given my family's history of heart troubles and crappy doctors. The flu shot, although new every year, does not carry as much potential risk to my age bracket and does not carry many side effect risks (at least, not that I'm aware of).
This is probably my last post in this thread, as it seems people on both sides of the vaccine debate are equally entrenched in their opinions and further debate seems unprofitable to both sides.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 10, 2022, 10:19:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 09, 2022, 10:09:58 PM
I pretty much always get my flu shot whenever it's available. My stance hasn't changed on them at all, ever.
In light of my point above, I'm really curious as to why that is. I had some mild symptoms (mostly aches and chills) from the covid vaccine, but other than the first one when I also threw up (which may have been from what I ate combined with nervousness/tension) it wasn't really any worse than the symptoms I normally get from the flu shot.
If you read between the lines in my first three posts on this page, you'll notice that my aversion to the COVID vaccine is not because of the normal side effects. I'm not scared of normal side effects for the COVID shot (that's a given with any vaccine, more or less). I'm not scared of needles. What I am scared of is the potential risk of myocarditis the COVID vaccine brings, especially given my family's history of heart troubles and crappy doctors. The flu shot, although new every year, does not carry as much potential risk to my age bracket and does not carry many side effect risks (at least, not that I'm aware of).
This is probably my last post in this thread, as it seems people on both sides of the vaccine debate are equally entrenched in their opinions and further debate seems unprofitable to both sides.
And fair enough if you don't want to respond to this, but from every article I've read (and I'm obviously not a doctor, so take with a grain of salt), the risk of myocarditis is exponentially higher from getting Covid than it is from getting vaccinated. But to each their own.
I’ll always get the flu shot. I know it’s not perfect - indeed, I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten the flu 2 of the last 3 years - but I’m convinced my symptoms were much easier to deal with than if I hadn’t gotten the shot.
Same deal with COVID, really. I’ve had my two shots and a booster, and the immediate side effects of that one are more annoying as I’ve gotten a fever the next night after two of those, but I’ve had COVID at least once and it was basically just a cold. The risks of COVID, which are far worse and more life-altering if you’re not vaccinated, are way more important to me than the inconvenience of getting sick for a night. Any other side effects like the myocarditis stuff that makes the news are so rare that I (and any medical professional I’ve ever talked to) am not worried about them.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 10, 2022, 10:28:38 AM
And fair enough if you don't want to respond to this, but from every article I read (and I'm obviously not a doctor, so take with a grain of salt), the risk of myocarditis is exponentially higher from getting Covid than it is from getting vaccinated. But to each their own.
Taking it back to risk aversion (the topic of the thread, remember)... Getting COVID is a
maybe type situation (at least that's what we were allowed to believe for a now-seemingly brief period of time). But getting the vaccine is something a person intentionally does to himself. I find that people's calculus for risk isn't necessarily the same between (a) conscious decisions to do something that carries a risk and (b) decisions to
avoid doing something that carries a risk.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 10, 2022, 10:28:38 AM
And fair enough if you don't want to respond to this, but from every article I've read (and I'm obviously not a doctor, so take with a grain of salt), the risk of myocarditis is exponentially higher from getting Covid than it is from getting vaccinated. But to each their own.
Which is why I ultimately decided to get the vaccine, though not until fall 2021.
I obviously don't speak for anyone else (and this doesn't reflect the actual efficacy of the vaccine), but I don't think the vaccine did anything for me. I had Covid twice, once before and once after getting the vaccine. The second time, while still more or less a typical cold, was definitely worse than the first.
I think I answered the ongoing question earlier in the thread, but no, I've never taken a flu shot. I've also never, in my memory, had the flu. (Tonsillitis was my most frequent childhood illness but after having my tonsils taken out, I never missed another day of school. I think the removal occurred before I entered fifth grade, so that was seven years of perfect attendance.)
I've seen too many people get sick after taking the flu shot. My dad got very ill from the shot one year and I've inherited so much from him genetically, that convinced me I'd never take that shot.
I don't get the flu shot simply because, as far as I can tell, I've never actually gotten the flu. Even when it was actively circulating in my department at work, I never got it. I don't know whether this is pure luck or me just having a good immune system, but either way, the inconvenience outweighs the risk.
Meanwhile, I caught covid (probably alpha, since that was the variant of choice at the time) in October 2020, and it was such a miserable experience that I had absolutely no desire to ever suffer through it again. I was never in any real risk of dying (unlike the person I caught it from, who did die of it), but it was absolutely no fun at all. It was the second-worst illness I've ever had (I think the time I had strep was worse). So I was keen on getting vaccinated as soon as possible.
The first dose was fine, but the second and third was just like having the real thing again, except for only 24 hours or so rather than the full week that the real disease was. For the third dose, we knew what was coming, so we planned it out–did it on my wife's day off, and coordinated with a friend to get vaccinated at the same time as us and stay the night at our house. That way all three of us could ride out the misery together.
I don't regret the choice; it was much more preferable to be able to have the misery limited to one day that could be scheduled than to have a solid week of it at an unpredictable time. My wife ended up catching omicron a month later (tested positive at work) and, unlike with alpha, suffered no symptoms at all, and I never tested positive for it. So as far as I'm concerned the vaccination was a rousing success for my family.
I planned out all four of my COVID shots to during work days and on base. I remember scheduling myself for work the next day after each shot. The theory I was running with was that I rather ruin a work day than a day off given it eventually became mandated for awhile and I have a ton of sick leave. The worst side effect I had was a sore arm with shots one and three. With the second one my wife was convinced that I was tired from the shot but I had only slept 5.5 hours the night before.
Also as a Senior Manager I'm not really "eligible" for awards. All the same I wanted a perfect attendance award for 2020, it was first year in about a decade I didn't call out. I would have loved to call out given how unquestioned it was, I never felt sickly.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PMHey, let's hop on a tangent away from COVID, what do you think? Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
I happily got all of the COVID shots available, but I've never had a flu shot and don't intend to.
I haven't been consistent about getting the flu shot annually. Identifying which strains will dominate a given dosing cycle is a guessing game, and efficacy is low even for the strains targeted. I've never had bad side effects from a flu shot, but I have also probably had just one case of flu in the last 20 years, which was mild and cleared within 72 hours. However, when we had an immune-compromised family member, I did ensure I got the flu shot every year.
I didn't hesitate to get the covid vaccine, but would likely have waited until there was more slack in the system (shorter lines at vaccination clinics, etc.) if the local mask mandate had been kept in place several weeks longer. I ended up on Team Moderna, in an area that standardized on Pfizer, largely because I got my first two doses during mass vaccination events at Hunter Health Clinic, which had a separate allocation (from federal stocks of the Moderna vaccine) and so did not have to follow Kansas' prioritization scheme. At the time I booked the first dose, I had no guarantee that I would be eligible for vaccination at the county-run clinic before the county repealed its mask mandate.
In my case the side effects became progressively worse with each dose (other than injection site soreness, which I've had with all three doses, I had nothing for the first, a bad headache for the second, and then headache, malaise, chills, fatigue, lymph node swelling, etc. for the booster), which makes me suspect repeated doses have a sensitizing effect for many people that may in turn make their public-health benefits harder to sell. I don't know to what extent this has been systematically investigated, however.
I have never knowingly had covid, but I have also never had a PCR or rapid antigen test.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
Never got a flu shot prior to 2020 because, being neither elderly nor immunocompromised, I didn't believe it necessary and didn't want to be taking one away from someone who needed it more than I did.
In my various readings in 2020, I ended up being disavowed of the notion that flu shots are in short supply. So for the first time in my life I went and got one, out of a sense of civic duty to do everything reasonable to keep flu cases down to help keep space in hospitals open. Got one again in 2021 and I intend to keep getting one every year indefinitely, or at least so long as I can get them free of charge. I'd probably stop if they started asking me to pay for them out of pocket.
Thread is way more boring than I thought it would be.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 10, 2022, 10:00:40 PM
Thread is way more boring than I thought it would be.
Then let's go down a different path. Growing up in West Virginia, we didn't really care so much about risk and personal safety. It got serious for me first, when I started working on the railroad in the signal design shop, and second, when I got put in charge of 50+ signalmen who grew up much like me (and didn't really care so much about risk and personal safety). But they did care about their excellent safety record, which was worth fighting for. Anyhow, this all bent over double when I got pushed into the safety certification world (and in my case, this was during a transition from hardware safety to software safety certification). I now find it much harder to be practical at home when I was the primary enforcer of zero tolerance risk.
For instance, I now have a medication-related blood issue where I need to be careful about getting cut. Living out in the woods for most of the past 30 years, I frequently use a chain saw. I started talking about the risk to my specialty doctor, who just happens to be interested in forestry and sawmills as a hobby. I was mentioning how I used to require my signalmen to use chainsaw chaps, and he couldn't believe that I never had used any. Needless to say, I now have a medical prescription for chainsaw chaps and I've used them several times recently. Twenty-five years ago, I could care less about getting cut with a chainsaw.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 10, 2022, 06:42:43 PM
I think I answered the ongoing question earlier in the thread, but no, I've never taken a flu shot. I've also never, in my memory, had the flu. (Tonsillitis was my most frequent childhood illness but after having my tonsils taken out, I never missed another day of school. I think the removal occurred before I entered fifth grade, so that was seven years of perfect attendance.)
I've seen too many people get sick after taking the flu shot. My dad got very ill from the shot one year and I've inherited so much from him genetically, that convinced me I'd never take that shot.
https://www.healthline.com/health/flu/flu-shot-yesterday-sick-today
Quote from: Duke87 on June 10, 2022, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
Let's talk flu shots. Do you guys take the "risk" of not getting flu shots? Has your stance on flu shots changed since 2020?
Never got a flu shot prior to 2020 because, being neither elderly nor immunocompromised, I didn't believe it necessary and didn't want to be taking one away from someone who needed it more than I did.
In my various readings in 2020, I ended up being disavowed of the notion that flu shots are in short supply. So for the first time in my life I went and got one, out of a sense of civic duty to do everything reasonable to keep flu cases down to help keep space in hospitals open. Got one again in 2021 and I intend to keep getting one every year indefinitely, or at least so long as I can get them free of charge. I'd probably stop if they started asking me to pay for them out of pocket.
I have never heard it said that flu shots were ever in short supply.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I’ve never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I’ve only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don’t know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I've never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I've only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don't know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn't come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I’ve never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I’ve only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don’t know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn’t come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
By that I mean potentially spreading them home and having them establish themselves. Some people don't react to bites, (such as myself) so by the time they realize they have bedbugs, they could be in very deep. Heat treating a larger home after trying other measures is around that price range, from what I've heard.
Some people also become traumatized/experience obsessive compulsive behaviors after dealing with infestations, which is a pretty well-documented phenomenon (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bedbug+ptsd).
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I've never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I've only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don't know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn't come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
By that I mean potentially spreading them home and having them establish themselves. Some people don't react to bites, (such as myself) so by the time they realize they have bedbugs, they could be in very deep. Heat treating a larger home after trying other measures is around that price range, from what I've heard.
Some people also become traumatized/experience obsessive compulsive behaviors after dealing with infestations, which is a pretty well-documented phenomenon (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bedbug+ptsd).
I remain uncompelled to become paranoid over it myself. As stated above, I've never encountered the hazard myself in hundreds of hotel stays. I see no reason to become paranoid about something that occurs infrequently. Insects don't bother me and I've never displayed indications of OCD at any point of my near 40 years of life.
Interesting aside there was a Comfort Inn I frequented in Alamogordo, NM for awhile on work trips. The reason I stayed there so often was that it was a nice hotel and had cheap rates which allowed me to pocket more of my per diem. The reason it had cheap rates was due to a fairly recent murder which had occurred in one of the rooms. An airman from Holloman Air Force Base had killed his spouse while staying at said Comfort Inn during a domestic dispute. The murder drove away a lot of customers and the hotel lowered the rates as an attempt to drive business. The fact a murder occurred at the hotel over a domestic dispute didn't bother me, so I took advantage until they rebranded as Quality Inn. After that I usually stayed in Ruidoso on work trips to southern New Mexico.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:24:46 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I’ve never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I’ve only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don’t know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn’t come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
By that I mean potentially spreading them home and having them establish themselves. Some people don't react to bites, (such as myself) so by the time they realize they have bedbugs, they could be in very deep. Heat treating a larger home after trying other measures is around that price range, from what I've heard.
Some people also become traumatized/experience obsessive compulsive behaviors after dealing with infestations, which is a pretty well-documented phenomenon (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bedbug+ptsd).
I remain uncompelled to become paranoid over it myself. As stated above, I’ve never encountered the hazard myself in hundreds of hotel stays. I see no reason to become paranoid about something that occurs infrequently.
There's a difference between paranoia and just being safe. Checking for bedbugs for me is like putting a seat belt on, or washing your hands. It isn't guaranteed to save you, and the chances of something bad happening are low if you choose not to, but it can certainly improve your chances of being safe from harm, and it only takes a few seconds. I'm not saying that you have to, just explaining the rationale as to why I do it.
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:54:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:24:46 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I've never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I've only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don't know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn't come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
By that I mean potentially spreading them home and having them establish themselves. Some people don't react to bites, (such as myself) so by the time they realize they have bedbugs, they could be in very deep. Heat treating a larger home after trying other measures is around that price range, from what I've heard.
Some people also become traumatized/experience obsessive compulsive behaviors after dealing with infestations, which is a pretty well-documented phenomenon (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bedbug+ptsd).
I remain uncompelled to become paranoid over it myself. As stated above, I've never encountered the hazard myself in hundreds of hotel stays. I see no reason to become paranoid about something that occurs infrequently.
There's a difference between paranoia and just being safe. Checking for bedbugs for me is like putting a seat belt on, or washing your hands. It isn't guaranteed to save you, and the chances of something bad happening are low if you choose not to, but it can certainly improve your chances of being safe from harm, and it only takes a few seconds. I'm not saying that you have to, just explaining the rationale as to why I do it.
Odds are so far against it being encountered, so again I see no need to be concerned.
Regarding seat belt usage, there are certain scenarios I don't bother to wear one as well. Some examples I can think of are low speed drives in my neighborhood and even things like some slower OHV trails. In that case I'm aware of the cognitive dissidence to myself, I guess that I just don't really care?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:54:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:24:46 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I've never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I've only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don't know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn't come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
By that I mean potentially spreading them home and having them establish themselves. Some people don't react to bites, (such as myself) so by the time they realize they have bedbugs, they could be in very deep. Heat treating a larger home after trying other measures is around that price range, from what I've heard.
Some people also become traumatized/experience obsessive compulsive behaviors after dealing with infestations, which is a pretty well-documented phenomenon (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bedbug+ptsd).
I remain uncompelled to become paranoid over it myself. As stated above, I've never encountered the hazard myself in hundreds of hotel stays. I see no reason to become paranoid about something that occurs infrequently.
There's a difference between paranoia and just being safe. Checking for bedbugs for me is like putting a seat belt on, or washing your hands. It isn't guaranteed to save you, and the chances of something bad happening are low if you choose not to, but it can certainly improve your chances of being safe from harm, and it only takes a few seconds. I'm not saying that you have to, just explaining the rationale as to why I do it.
Odds are so far against it being encountered, so again I see no need to be concerned.
Regarding seat belt usage, there are certain scenarios I don't bother to wear one as well. Some examples I can think of are low speed drives in my neighborhood and even things like some slower OHV trails. In that case I'm aware of the cognitive dissidence to myself, I guess that I just don't really care?
I just turned in a rental car I had while my car is being repaired, and it had an automatic parking brake that wouldn't disengage unless the driver seat belt was buckled. I'm sure there was some way around it, but I couldn't figure it out.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 12, 2022, 06:04:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:54:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:24:46 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: index on June 12, 2022, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 05:09:14 PM
I've never once encountered a bed bug in hundreds of hotel stays. In all my years of managing hotel security I've only ever had once instance of bed bugs being found. I don't know why anyone worry over something that is so unlikely to be encountered.
Better to be safe than sorry. It only takes a minute or two to check and it can save you from having to deal with a $5000 infestation.
Why would it cost me as someone who stays at a hotel $5,000 dollars? We also have mitigation measures on hand for rooms that do have bed bugs. It certainly didn't come close to 5k to clear the room I cited above, even after throwing the bedding out.
By that I mean potentially spreading them home and having them establish themselves. Some people don't react to bites, (such as myself) so by the time they realize they have bedbugs, they could be in very deep. Heat treating a larger home after trying other measures is around that price range, from what I've heard.
Some people also become traumatized/experience obsessive compulsive behaviors after dealing with infestations, which is a pretty well-documented phenomenon (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bedbug+ptsd).
I remain uncompelled to become paranoid over it myself. As stated above, I've never encountered the hazard myself in hundreds of hotel stays. I see no reason to become paranoid about something that occurs infrequently.
There's a difference between paranoia and just being safe. Checking for bedbugs for me is like putting a seat belt on, or washing your hands. It isn't guaranteed to save you, and the chances of something bad happening are low if you choose not to, but it can certainly improve your chances of being safe from harm, and it only takes a few seconds. I'm not saying that you have to, just explaining the rationale as to why I do it.
Odds are so far against it being encountered, so again I see no need to be concerned.
Regarding seat belt usage, there are certain scenarios I don't bother to wear one as well. Some examples I can think of are low speed drives in my neighborhood and even things like some slower OHV trails. In that case I'm aware of the cognitive dissidence to myself, I guess that I just don't really care?
I just turned in a rental car I had while my car is being repaired, and it had an automatic parking brake that wouldn't disengage unless the driver seat belt was buckled. I'm sure there was some way around it, but I couldn't figure it out.
Some automakers have more aggressive measures than others to ensure seatbelt compliance. Our two Subarus have progressively more annoying chimes for the front seats if it detects occupants, but nothing for the back. My Challenger just has a red screen that I think gets timed out eventually if I remember right.
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Nothing, I just choose not to. I'm aware of the risk to myself and the potential consequences of it.
Another one is running. I don't stay on the side walk or wear reflective clothing when run in the morning. I rarely use cross walks given it is just easier to cut across gaps in traffic. Of course I also run on remote country roads too, about the only measure you the to defend yourself on those is to face traffic.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:21:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Nothing, I just choose not to. I'm aware of the risk to myself and the potential consequences of it.
I don't understand this line of thought at all.
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:21:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Nothing, I just choose not to. I'm aware of the risk to myself and the potential consequences of it.
I don't understand this line of thought at all.
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
To that end, I have been injured numerous times cycling and I've had a couple concussions from it (one with a helmet on). Similarly I've numerous bone breaks, concussions and other injuries from things like running, sports, ATV riding or even plain old hiking. The way I see it the most likely way I'll go out is from one of those actives eventually, but if I do at least it will be doing something I enjoy. I see that as a better end than probably a lot people would get, especially compared to some of my immediate family.
If I had to place a bet on how I likely die I would put my money on cardiac arrest related to dehydration from running. I got pretty close to checking out that way once in 2015 when I was being with hydration in Orlando.
Most helmet laws, and many other safety laws, are created due to insistence from the family due to a family member passing away.
Of course, the family could have insisted their family member wear the helmet or safety equipment without a law in place, but the family member probably didn't want to. If the law was created prior to them getting into the crash, they probably *still* wouldn't have worn the safety equipment.
In other words, many safety laws are created and named for people that wanted nothing to do with such a law.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:21:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Nothing, I just choose not to. I'm aware of the risk to myself and the potential consequences of it.
I don't understand this line of thought at all.
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
Not really. There's a difference between risk aversion and intentional risk taking with no reward whatsoever.
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:21:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Nothing, I just choose not to. I'm aware of the risk to myself and the potential consequences of it.
I don't understand this line of thought at all.
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
Not really. There's a difference between risk aversion and intentional risk taking with no reward whatsoever.
I never said what I have been doing is the logical thing to do. I'm aware of the risks and consequences to a lot of the activities I engage in. If somehow they ultimately be what takes me out then that's something I accept. That's the whole gist of this thread, what is acceptable to one person may not be to another.
I on a more philosophical level, watching two parents struggle to stay alive from long terminal cancer influences a lot of my thought. They were both past the point where there was hope and all they did was just prolong their own suffering. It was hard not to take something away from watching that level of pain with no hope attached to it. In my mom's case she actively regretted trying to prolong her life instead of attempting to pursue some of things she wanted to do before death. I guess that I ended up developing a fatalist mindset after watching everything play out. I don't know if I'd try to hang on if I live to face similar circumstances but I feel at present moment that I likely wouldn't.
To that end, if something I love doing brings a more agreeable end then I see that is a good way to go. FWIW my wife and I don't agree on a fatalistic mindset towards life. Who knows if external factors like potential children would change mine.
Even so, foregoing a helmet when biking or a seatbelt when driving still seem a bit too risky. I would certainly rather be taken out doing an activity I love than a long spell of disease and suffering that slowly takes me out with no hope. But there's never a time I skip the helmet or seatbelt because I know if I was ever so unlucky as to get in a bad wreck or accident that could potentially spell severe doom for me. If the accident is bad enough someone could end up in the same situation as someone with a terminal disease, and that I fear more than death.
All that said, I am considerably risk-averse. I have become much more so over the years as I have become more paranoid and been forced to slow down (physically). It's quite the contradiction because my very username, created (and used on several different platforms, therefore it is a trademark that stuck and I don't plan to change it) when I was far more adventurous, doesn't describe me nearly as accurately now. I used to take some risks I couldn't fathom doing now. One of the most (retrospectively) frightening things I've ever done was walk on a neighbors very tall (and thin) brick retaining wall with my neighbor friends when I was very young, it was much like walking on a tight rope. I cringe thinking about what might have happened should I have fallen from the modest height, although it's probably not as bad as I suspect. It didn't faze me at all at the time, though, I was completely carefree. This is much tamer, but I'd also casually have my portable video game consoles (3DS) in my big shorts pockets while riding rollercoasters and water rides at Universal. They're still ticking 8 years later. :)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:21:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Regarding more safety related items that have become customary, I usually don't wear a helmet on a bike if it is a casual ride with my wife. I don't usually wear mine until I hit speeds in excess of 30 MPH or go on a trail.
Why not? What's the downside of wearing it?
Nothing, I just choose not to. I'm aware of the risk to myself and the potential consequences of it.
I don't understand this line of thought at all.
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
Not really. There's a difference between risk aversion and intentional risk taking with no reward whatsoever.
I never said what I have been doing is the logical thing to do. I'm aware of the risks and consequences to a lot of the activities I engage in. If somehow they ultimately be what takes me out then that's something I accept. That's the whole gist of this thread, what is acceptable to one person may not be to another.
You do you I guess. You can explain it but I'm never going to understand why. To me it's not a risk tolerance thing, it's just a flat bad decision.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 07:05:31 PM
I on a more philosophical level, watching two parents struggle to stay alive from long terminal cancer influences a lot of my thought. They were both past the point where there was hope and all they did was just prolong their own suffering. It was hard not to take something away from watching that level of pain with no hope attached to it. In my mom's case she actively regretted trying to prolong her life instead of attempting to pursue some of things she wanted to do before death. I guess that I ended up developing a fatalist mindset after watching everything play out. I don't know if I'd try to hang on if I live to face similar circumstances but I feel at present moment that I likely wouldn't.
To that end, if something I love doing brings a more agreeable end then I see that is a good way to go. FWIW my wife and I don't agree on a fatalistic mindset towards life. Who knows if external factors like potential children would change mine.
How old were your parents when they died? I'd assume fairly old. Not wearing a bike helmet is a bad choice no matter how old you are, but it's a little more understandable if you're 80 than if you're 39. Why make choices with no benefit that risk losing what could be decades of healthy years (especially for you as a runner) out of fear for a slow death in the last year or two?
My Dad died in 2007 and my Mom in 2015. The truth is even before their deaths I was more happy engaging in activities described above but I took it another level so to speak afterwards. I figured since really most of my family was gone that I didn't really have much reason to worry about self preservation to the extent I had previously. One thing both my parents conveyed to me was how they regretted living safer lives and didn't pursue many of things they had as goals.
There is a substantial difference between wanting to die and not taking extra steps to prevent it. For example, I backed off Angel's Landing in 2016 due wet weather (for the area) and I still prepare properly hydration-wise for long runs. It would be fair to say my level of risk aversion has declined, but certainly not to a blatantly suicidal extent. I think it would be more accurate to say I'm less afraid of consequence, especially the mortal variety.
But that mindset also applies to other things that carry less chance of physical hard. I became more aggressive in pursuing a move back to the west coast since it was where I was most happy. I was willing to put more of myself into things like relationships which led to me meeting my wife. I also was a lot more fearful or risk adverse with spending money rather and saving it for a future which might not be a reality.
Amusingly I am the command safety manager at my job. The difference there is that safety in the venue of work is a profit and loss item. Just like any expense mitigation of accident claims can lead to operating more in the black.
Re: the bike helmet thing, a lot of it is generational. No one my age wore helmets as a kid. I'd feel weird wearing one now doing something other than mountain biking.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 10:23:16 PM
Re: the bike helmet thing, a lot of it is generational. No one my age wore helmets as a kid. I'd feel weird wearing one now doing something other than mountain biking.
I should note that was also a thing for me. I don't recall ever wearing a helmet on a bike when I was a kid.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 10:23:16 PM
Re: the bike helmet thing, a lot of it is generational. No one my age wore helmets as a kid. I'd feel weird wearing one now doing something other than mountain biking.
I feel similarly on this. My friends and I rode our bikes in all kinds of crazy places and in all kinds of crazy ways and no one had helmets. I don't bike much now, but do have a helmet but kind of feel silly wearing it when going down a flat, uncrowded bike path.
Now skiing on the other hand, I learned to ski and skied until probably almost 20 years ago without a helmet. No one had them. A friend who had a pretty nasty accident convinced me it was worth getting and using one. And now I can't imaging skiing without one, especially since I'm a pretty aggressive skier and like to head into the trees as much as I can when snow conditions permit. Also, as a ski instructor, I'm required to wear one at my home mountain if I'm wearing my ski school vest. Not that I'd ski without it any time.
Of course, the times when I used to bike all over the place without a helmet was the same era when a little league baseball coach thought nothing of piling 15 kids and probably a dog or two in the back of a pickup truck and getting on the highway to take the team out for ice cream after a game.
Regarding trucks, it is interesting when we visit family in Mexico since piling in the back is no big deal. We took ten people with us to Chapala during our last visit in a capped F-150. We passed a bunch of work trucks carrying loads of people in the back on the way. People would lose their shit if they saw something like that state side nowadays.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 11:03:14 PM
Regarding trucks, it is interesting when we visit family in Mexico since piling in the back is no big deal. We took ten people with us to Chapala during our last visit in a capped F-150. We passed a bunch of work trucks carrying loads of people in the back on the way. People would lose their shit if they saw something like that state side nowadays.
Similar for me. As kids, we rode in the bed of trucks to go to soccer practice and whatnot. 80's youth, am I right?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 11:10:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 11:03:14 PM
Regarding trucks, it is interesting when we visit family in Mexico since piling in the back is no big deal. We took ten people with us to Chapala during our last visit in a capped F-150. We passed a bunch of work trucks carrying loads of people in the back on the way. People would lose their shit if they saw something like that state side nowadays.
Similar for me. As kids, we rode in the bed of trucks to go to soccer practice and whatnot. 80's youth, am I right?
Yes, born 1982. I also remember similar minds being prevalent well into the late 1990s. I took people for rides in the back of my CK during high school all the time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 11:19:46 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 11:10:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 11:03:14 PM
Regarding trucks, it is interesting when we visit family in Mexico since piling in the back is no big deal. We took ten people with us to Chapala during our last visit in a capped F-150. We passed a bunch of work trucks carrying loads of people in the back on the way. People would lose their shit if they saw something like that state side nowadays.
Similar for me. As kids, we rode in the bed of trucks to go to soccer practice and whatnot. 80's youth, am I right?
Yes, born 1982. I also remember similar minds being prevalent well into the late 1990s. I took people for rides in the back of my CK during high school all the time.
During my time in Boone before I transferred I had rode to a party with some other people in the back of a pickup truck. Saw others doing it too, so it's not totally dead, although college kids are obviously a different breed.
I had the same thought about bike helmets: Never wore one as a kid. I bought a bike and helmet a number of years ago; rode the bike once and never took the helmet out of the box.
When I last went ice skating (which was only about the 5th time i skated on ice), I realized I was out there without a helmet and it almost felt illegal, as if somehow the safety industry overlooked this activity. My 2nd time ice skating left me with a nice scar above my eye when I tripped and my forehead hit the ice. Probably should've gone to the ER but it stopped bleeding several hours later. My wife, in her previous skating session, skated at Rockefeller Center. 2 NYPD officers had noticed I was a spectator watching her. She tripped and bounced her head off the ice at one point. Those cops looked at me; I looked at them, and we all went "ooooohhhh". She quickly got up and continued skating, and was fine.
Last year, after the tornado hit South Jersey, I was volunteering with a random church one day to help clear brush from properties hit by the tornado. As it approached nightfall, we gathered into the back of a windowless, seatless van to go back to the church. Along with the feeling of being kidnapped, it had been quite a number of years since I had ridden in a vehicle without seats, much less seat belts. It did being back memories of riding in the back of pickups unrestrained.
When I used to play hockey all we really had were loose fitting helmets that flew off at the slightest contact. It feels weird seeing face guards making it all the way to the NHL. Considering how jacked up my chest had gotten from playing goalie and taking hits from pucks it amazes me to think they weren't even required equipment for a long time at the NHL level.
As a Gen Xer, I only wore a bike helmet for longer bike rides. I biked everywhere before I got my license and did 100 km rides with my uncle and aunt.
Got in a couple of accidents where I was very lucky that I didn't get a head injury.
Later on, as a Mormon missionary, helmets were required. I was only on a bike for a few months, though.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 11:10:51 PM
80's youth, am I right?
Consider the boomers. I was born in the late 50's. We never had bike helmets. We were allowed to roam the neighborhood freely; just come home when the streetlights came on (so as dusk approached, we didn't look at the streetlights). We didn't have car safety seats for babies or kids - for quite a while we didn't even have seat belts.
It's a wonder any of us survived, I guess.
Quote from: GaryV on June 13, 2022, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 11:10:51 PM
80's youth, am I right?
Consider the boomers. I was born in the late 50's. We never had bike helmets. We were allowed to roam the neighborhood freely; just come home when the streetlights came on (so as dusk approached, we didn't look at the streetlights). We didn't have car safety seats for babies or kids - for quite a while we didn't even have seat belts.
It's a wonder any of us survived, I guess.
Basically that's how it was for me in the 80s and early 90s. Seatbelts were optional so long as we were in the back seat of the van or Vista Cruiser.
In fact, doesn't Michigan still not have a rear passenger seat belt law?
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2022, 10:35:53 AM
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
Not to make this a political thread, but if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. I work remotely, so could move anywhere in the world that I wanted provided they have a digital nomad visa.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2022, 10:35:53 AM
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
Not to make this a political thread, but if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. I work remotely, so could move anywhere in the world that I wanted provided they have a digital nomad visa.
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2022, 10:35:53 AM
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
I can see it if they spoke fluent Portuguese and if they keep enough in reserve to make it back if things fail.
But...why Portugal?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2022, 10:35:53 AM
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
Not to make this a political thread, but if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. I work remotely, so could move anywhere in the world that I wanted provided they have a digital nomad visa.
My wife and I have talked about retiring down in Mexico. We have a ways to go, but we like the slower and more laid pace of life. Fair chance I'll pay to have an extra room built at the family house this next week if the price is still $3,000-$4,000 Pesos like it was in 2020.
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
Nowhere right now, but the context wasn't there for me to make that statement either. And even then, it was only "tempted", which is a lot different than actually doing it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2022, 10:07:07 AM
Quote from: GaryV on June 13, 2022, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 11:10:51 PM
80's youth, am I right?
Consider the boomers. I was born in the late 50's. We never had bike helmets. We were allowed to roam the neighborhood freely; just come home when the streetlights came on (so as dusk approached, we didn't look at the streetlights). We didn't have car safety seats for babies or kids - for quite a while we didn't even have seat belts.
It's a wonder any of us survived, I guess.
Basically that's how it was for me in the 80s and early 90s. Seatbelts were optional so long as we were in the back seat of the van or Vista Cruiser.
In fact, doesn't Michigan still not have a rear passenger seat belt law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2022, 10:35:53 AM
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
Quitting a job before having another one lined up is enormously risky. I did it once, in my mid-twenties, and it worked out fine, but it's not something I'd try again, especially now that I have a family that would be impacted by the decision.
And I can only hope he and/or his wife have the right to seek employment in Portugal.
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
If this happens to be directed towards me, I've been looking at a few places: Montenegro, Georgia, Panama, Ecuador, and Chile near the top of the list.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 13, 2022, 11:25:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2022, 10:07:07 AM
Quote from: GaryV on June 13, 2022, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 12, 2022, 11:10:51 PM
80's youth, am I right?
Consider the boomers. I was born in the late 50's. We never had bike helmets. We were allowed to roam the neighborhood freely; just come home when the streetlights came on (so as dusk approached, we didn't look at the streetlights). We didn't have car safety seats for babies or kids - for quite a while we didn't even have seat belts.
It's a wonder any of us survived, I guess.
Basically that's how it was for me in the 80s and early 90s. Seatbelts were optional so long as we were in the back seat of the van or Vista Cruiser.
In fact, doesn't Michigan still not have a rear passenger seat belt law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Not really on my end, I know what we did and what my parents allowed was unsafe. In fact when I was four-five I recall asking what happens if there was a crash and I didn't have my belt on in the back of the Vista Cruiser. My Mom's placate on answer was "you'll just hit the seat and be fine."
Oddly at the same age I was extremely afraid of structure fires after watching The Towering Inferno and for some reason running out gas. It even to the point where I would ask my Dad frequently if the electrical wiring at home was up to code and I would hide the fire escape ladder in my room.
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:45:42 AMBut...why Portugal?
That is my question too--I have shirttail relatives who also moved to Portugal and are apparently gainfully employed there, though AFAIK, they are not wealthy or in shortage occupations (one is a social worker and the other is a physical therapist). One has an Italian last name, and Italy is one of several EU countries that allow indefinite expatriatism (Luxembourg is another), so I wonder if they came as EU citizens.
Generic reasons for moving to Portugal (https://immigrantinvest.com/blog/pros-and-cons-living-in-portugal-en/) apparently include low cost of living, the ability to use English on a daily basis, and certain tax advantages for residents.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 11:46:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
If this happens to be directed towards me, I've been looking at a few places: Montenegro, Georgia, Panama, Ecuador, and Chile near the top of the list.
What do these countries have that the US doesn't?
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:45:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2022, 10:35:53 AM
A cousin of mine is pulling up stakes, and he and his family are moving to Portugal. He gave up his job, I presume his wife is giving up a job as well, and they are selling most all their worldly possessions to make the move. I have no idea if he has employment lined up there or not, but to me that's a very big and risky decision that I would never feel comfortable making.
I can see it if they spoke fluent Portuguese and if they keep enough in reserve to make it back if things fail.
But...why Portugal?
I don't know. I don't talk to him really often and have only seen the news on Facebook. (His mother is my first cousin and he lives [lived] in Radcliff and worked at Fort Knox). The family visited there recently as tourists. Maybe they liked it so much they decided to move there.
Quote from: thspfc on June 13, 2022, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 11:46:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
If this happens to be directed towards me, I've been looking at a few places: Montenegro, Georgia, Panama, Ecuador, and Chile near the top of the list.
What do these countries have that the US doesn't?
Many things. Cheaper real estate and gun control near the top of the list.
Quote from: thspfc on June 13, 2022, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 11:46:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
If this happens to be directed towards me, I've been looking at a few places: Montenegro, Georgia, Panama, Ecuador, and Chile near the top of the list.
What do these countries have that the US doesn't?
I think it's more a question of what don't they have. I threw out Mexico above and the slower pace of day to day life. You don't have a fast paced largely white collar work culture and a lot of materialism seen State side just isn't a thing down there. Mass media proliferation isn't a constant thing for most either, that's particularly appealing to me. In our case the lack of fully modern infrastructure and living in an open air home doesn't bother my wife and I. It definitely doesn't hurt that food and property are substantially cheaper as well.
Quote from: thspfc on June 13, 2022, 02:50:59 PMWhat do these countries have that the US doesn't?
It varies from country to country, but when I lived in Britain as a student, I really valued having access to healthcare free at the point of use.
This said, there are some generic disadvantages to living abroad as an American. One is the assumption that you have money. In some countries, notably Latin America, this has less to do with the actual contents of your own bank account and more to do with what are assumed to be your relationships to family back home. Another is lack of the informal knowledge of how things work that people accumulate when they live in a country from birth. This typically comes into play with legal matters, but can show up in surprising contexts, such as buying a used car for cash on the barrelhead--many countries don't issue vehicle titles like American states routinely do, so if (for example) you hand over the agreed-on amount and all you get is a vehicle keepership form and an inspection certificate, you don't automatically have a native's confidence that no-one is going to come after you for taking receipt of a stolen car.
Natives who know you are American often expect you to justify US policies, even if they are ones you disagree with (guns, the Iraq war, and the Katrina response all come to mind). It doesn't become less awkward even if you later come to reconsider your disagreement (I initially opposed the Kosovo intervention but later came to realize it stopped a genocide). Things become easier if the sitting President is popular abroad (think Obama versus Bush), but never to an extent that allows discretion to be wholly abandoned.
You also slip into a relationship with the US Government and its servants that is uneasy at best and antagonistic at worst. If you live abroad, you are presumed to be less attached to the US, and that often leads to friction when going through immigration on re-entering the US. If you ever run into a problem that requires you to contact diplomatic or consular staff, the starting assumption often is that you are asking them to clean up a mess you made. US Government employees posted abroad tend to live in a bubble, with their housing and their children's schooling provided as fringe benefits, and drive around in vehicles imported from the US that are often poorly suited for the local road system (think a Ford Crown Victoria parked on double yellow here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7528362,-1.2504979,3a,75y,11.24h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEV1EVtSKs_84RSrHz8lhYw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEV1EVtSKs_84RSrHz8lhYw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D7.0105624%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)). It is a bit like not wanting to take an out-of-town relative to a restaurant meal in your city when you know he or she has a tendency to bully waitstaff. High-profile incidents like a government employee's wife killing someone by driving on the wrong side of the road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn) don't help.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2022, 04:38:32 PMYou also slip into a relationship with the US Government and its servants that is uneasy at best and antagonistic at worst. If you live abroad, you are presumed to be less attached to the US, and that often leads to friction when going through immigration on re-entering the US. If you ever run into a problem that requires you to contact diplomatic or consular staff, the starting assumption often is that you are asking them to clean up a mess you made. US Government employees posted abroad tend to live in a bubble, with their housing and their children's schooling provided as fringe benefits, and drive around in vehicles imported from the US that are often poorly suited for the local road system (think a Ford Crown Victoria parked on double yellow here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7528362,-1.2504979,3a,75y,11.24h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEV1EVtSKs_84RSrHz8lhYw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEV1EVtSKs_84RSrHz8lhYw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D7.0105624%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)). It is a bit like not wanting to take an out-of-town relative to a restaurant meal in your city when you know he or she has a tendency to bully waitstaff. High-profile incidents like a government employee's wife killing someone by driving on the wrong side of the road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn) don't help.
And decades of this, I think, explains the negative attitude towards Americans overseas better than anything else.
Quote from: thspfc on June 13, 2022, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 11:46:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2022, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 10:39:43 AM
... if certain aspects of this country keep going the way that they seem to be, I am very tempted to do the same in a few years. ...
MUST MAKE IT A POLITICAL THREAD
Thats... actually a pretty neutral statement. In the right context I could see pretty much any person saying that exact same thing regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or really any other spectrum. Not that that speaks well of the state of the country either!
So, where are you moving to?
If this happens to be directed towards me, I've been looking at a few places: Montenegro, Georgia, Panama, Ecuador, and Chile near the top of the list.
What do these countries have that the US doesn't?
I can't speak to any of the countries on this list in particular, but Americans often go abroad in search of better healthcare and working conditions, including higher wages and government-mandated paid time off. If one has an appetite for the presence of a better social safety net, leaving the country is basically the only solution, since opposition to it in the US is so entrenched. Also, US culture in some regions can be extremely off-putting if one doesn't hold the majority view (e.g. if one is LGBT in Florida or Texas).
I'd be skittish about Georgia simply because it is in a prime position to become another Ukraine. I have seen (but not vetted) social media posts that indicate that the Georgian—Russian border has been silently creeping southward.
Georgia suffered Russian invasions prior to Ukraine and two de facto countries Abkhazia and South Ossetia appeared and are disputed by all countries save each other, Russia and countries that sympathize with Russian interests (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria so far - along with the two breakaways in Ukraine). The war there didn't last as long as the one in Ukraine, but there is enough tension because of Russian rebels in the two breakaway regions. There are increased fears there again after Ukraine was invaded.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 14, 2022, 04:38:15 AM
Georgia suffered Russian invasions prior to Ukraine and two de facto countries Abkhazia and South Ossetia appeared and are disputed by all countries save each other, Russia and countries that sympathize with Russian interests (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria so far - along with the two breakaways in Ukraine). The war there didn't last as long as the one in Ukraine, but there is enough tension because of Russian rebels in the two breakaway regions. There are increased fears there again after Ukraine was invaded.
But, but, but, they have good gun control!
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 14, 2022, 04:38:15 AM
Georgia suffered Russian invasions prior to Ukraine and two de facto countries Abkhazia and South Ossetia appeared and are disputed by all countries save each other, Russia and countries that sympathize with Russian interests (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria so far - along with the two breakaways in Ukraine). The war there didn't last as long as the one in Ukraine, but there is enough tension because of Russian rebels in the two breakaway regions. There are increased fears there again after Ukraine was invaded.
But, but, but, they have good gun control!
Wut.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2022, 07:32:19 PM
I'd be skittish about Georgia simply because it is in a prime position to become another Ukraine. I have seen (but not vetted) social media posts that indicate that the Georgian—Russian border has been silently creeping southward.
Admittedly so with regards to proximity to Russia. I'm not sure if Russia is going to get past their quagmire in Ukraine to even have the energy to try to further their empire.
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 14, 2022, 04:38:15 AM
Georgia suffered Russian invasions prior to Ukraine and two de facto countries Abkhazia and South Ossetia appeared and are disputed by all countries save each other, Russia and countries that sympathize with Russian interests (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria so far - along with the two breakaways in Ukraine). The war there didn't last as long as the one in Ukraine, but there is enough tension because of Russian rebels in the two breakaway regions. There are increased fears there again after Ukraine was invaded.
But, but, but, they have good gun control!
Fine. Less whack jobs with easy access to guns that kill strangers for fun. That's a better classification.
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 14, 2022, 04:38:15 AM
Georgia suffered Russian invasions prior to Ukraine and two de facto countries Abkhazia and South Ossetia appeared and are disputed by all countries save each other, Russia and countries that sympathize with Russian interests (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria so far - along with the two breakaways in Ukraine). The war there didn't last as long as the one in Ukraine, but there is enough tension because of Russian rebels in the two breakaway regions. There are increased fears there again after Ukraine was invaded.
But, but, but, they have good gun control!
Wut.
Troll
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 14, 2022, 04:38:15 AM
Georgia suffered Russian invasions prior to Ukraine and two de facto countries Abkhazia and South Ossetia appeared and are disputed by all countries save each other, Russia and countries that sympathize with Russian interests (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria so far - along with the two breakaways in Ukraine). The war there didn't last as long as the one in Ukraine, but there is enough tension because of Russian rebels in the two breakaway regions. There are increased fears there again after Ukraine was invaded.
But, but, but, they have good gun control!
Wut.
Troll
L + ratio
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 09:55:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
Not really. There's a difference between risk aversion and intentional risk taking with no reward whatsoever.
I never said what I have been doing is the logical thing to do. I'm aware of the risks and consequences to a lot of the activities I engage in. If somehow they ultimately be what takes me out then that's something I accept. That's the whole gist of this thread, what is acceptable to one person may not be to another.
You do you I guess. You can explain it but I'm never going to understand why. To me it's not a risk tolerance thing, it's just a flat bad decision.
Should he wear a helmet while running? While walking across the street? While driving a car?
Is there any reward to not wearing a helmet in any of those situations?
Quote from: kphoger on June 14, 2022, 01:22:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 09:55:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
Not really. There's a difference between risk aversion and intentional risk taking with no reward whatsoever.
I never said what I have been doing is the logical thing to do. I'm aware of the risks and consequences to a lot of the activities I engage in. If somehow they ultimately be what takes me out then that's something I accept. That's the whole gist of this thread, what is acceptable to one person may not be to another.
You do you I guess. You can explain it but I'm never going to understand why. To me it's not a risk tolerance thing, it's just a flat bad decision.
Should he wear a helmet while running? While walking across the street? While driving a car?
Is there any reward to not wearing a helmet in any of those situations?
Interestingly "in theory" a helmet would have likely prevented a concussion when I was hit by a car during 2010 while running (between 2-3 PM). I landed on my left arm (which led to a break in the distal radius) and smacked my headed into the asphalt. Wouldn't have done much for the arm or my cracked ribs but I would have been likely more coherent. Perhaps it would have stopped my face from getting tattooed by the hot asphalt?
Quote from: kphoger on June 14, 2022, 01:22:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 09:55:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 12, 2022, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Hence the title or this subject of this thread.
Not really. There's a difference between risk aversion and intentional risk taking with no reward whatsoever.
I never said what I have been doing is the logical thing to do. I'm aware of the risks and consequences to a lot of the activities I engage in. If somehow they ultimately be what takes me out then that's something I accept. That's the whole gist of this thread, what is acceptable to one person may not be to another.
You do you I guess. You can explain it but I'm never going to understand why. To me it's not a risk tolerance thing, it's just a flat bad decision.
Should he wear a helmet while running? While walking across the street? While driving a car?
Is there any reward to not wearing a helmet in any of those situations?
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a
me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I distinctly recall kids my age who wore helmets being ripped apart as being nerds by their peers. It usually wasn't long after the first verbal assailment that the helmet in question would no longer appear.
For what it's worth, there at least used to be two or three "old farts" who would sit in front of this building (https://goo.gl/maps/EZHcDAxWWSaXDayh8) in Carrier Mills, IL. You know, the type who might hang out at the local doughnut shop and tell stories about the '55 Ford they had as a teenager or complain about their wives' sciatica or whatever, except the town they live in isn't big enough to have a doughnut shop, so they just sit on a bench instead, wearing overalls that look brand new even though they've owned them for 21 years and counting, a plaid long-sleeved shirt with the top button fastened even though it's 95° outside, and Velcro sneakers because their arthritis has gotten so bad they can't tie shoelaces anymore. I used to see these guys every so often, as the school district nearby was one of my usual delivery route customers. (2008 imagery (https://goo.gl/maps/2BkQ163pdB4kYN2m9) is too grainy for me to tell if it's them or not.)
Anyway, one day I noticed one of them wearing a bicycle helmet while just sitting there on the bench with his buddies. Then, the next time I saw them, he was again wearing the bicycle helmet. I thought it looked quite laughable, ridiculous–dare I say, like a clown. Of course, I assume it's because he was old and worried about falling, perhaps even suffering from some sort of balance problem, and he'd rather look silly than get a head injury at his age.
There must be some reward for not wearing a helmet. Because they sure fought hard to get the motorcycle helmet law reversed in Michigan. And now you see loads of motorcyclists without helmets. Must be some reason.
Quote from: kphoger on June 14, 2022, 03:29:42 PM
...Anyway, one day I noticed one of them wearing a bicycle helmet while just sitting there on the bench with his buddies. Then, the next time I saw them, he was again wearing the bicycle helmet. I thought it looked quite laughable, ridiculous–dare I say, like a clown. Of course, I assume it's because he was old and worried about falling, perhaps even suffering from some sort of balance problem, and he'd rather look silly than get a head injury at his age.
The so-called Mayor of the unincorporated town that I lived near was autistic, and he often rode a bicycle to the local gas station hangout. After years of talking with him, I noticed that he was wearing a bicycle helmet at the gas station every time I saw him. I just assumed that he could no longer remember to take it off. No, he never wore a bicycle helmet when riding a bike. He started falling frequently and the doctor recommended that he quit riding, and he also recommended a bicycle helmet whenever he was walking around. He was faithful to the very end. After his death, that gas station commissioned someone do a professional cartoon sketch of "The Mayor", indeed with his bicycle helmet (that had a double meaning).
I know it's just one guy, but this one guy happens to be a former editor-in-chief of Bicycling magazine, and has researched and written about cycling for a quarter-century:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/commentary-why-i-stopped-wearing-a-bike-helmet/
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing , but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2022, 03:17:54 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I distinctly recall kids my age who wore helmets being ripped apart as being nerds by their peers. It usually wasn't long after the first verbal assailment that the helmet in question would no longer appear.
As long as personal anecdotes matter, I have always worn a bike helmet - including when I was in elementary and middle school - and never experienced any of this, nor did I witness anyone else experience that.
So, we have a lot of people that need to make fun of other people wearing helmets to make them feel better about themselves and then some helmet wearers that cared so much about the boors that made fun of them that they took their helmets off.
And we wonder why our country is so screwed up nowadays.
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I believe you're in the minority there.
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I believe you're in the minority there.
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
Alright, let's put it to a poll.
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I believe you're in the minority there.
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
Alright, let's put it to a poll.
Jayhawk's just a mean guy.
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I believe you're in the minority there.
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
Alright, let's put it to a poll.
Jayhawk's just a mean guy.
We'll let the votes decide. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31638.0
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I believe you're in the minority there.
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
Alright, let's put it to a poll.
Jayhawk's just a mean guy.
I said median, not mean. :)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 03:08:40 PM
The reward is not looking like a clown. And not having to bring around a helmet everywhere. Yes, it's a small reward, but it's also a very small risk to walk across the street without a helmet. I doubt a helmet would save you in a severe car crash, unless it's a full-on motorcycle helmet.
Again, generationally, we made fun of the kids riding bikes with helmets on back in the 80's. While I understand that the mentality has changed, I still perceive overprotective parents when I see kids with helmets riding a bike on a sidewalk. I'm aware this is a me thing, but to me, the kids look like "clowns" to use your nomenclature.
I believe you're in the minority there.
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
I wasn't wearing one as already stated above. I don't recall anyone ever using "clown" to describe a child with a helmet on in the 1980s/1990s. I do recall kids calling the helmet wearing kids "nerd" and "safety nerd" numerous times. Being classified as any kind of "nerd" by your peers whether it was true or not in the 1980s or early 1990s was not likely to help your social standing as a child.
I don't recall kids being made fun of for wearing bicycle helmets when I was prime bike riding age (late 70's to mid 80's) but I also don't recall ever seeing anyone wearing one in the first place. It was not a thing anyone considered.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:15:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 14, 2022, 05:08:09 PM
I don't honestly believe I am. I think I'm probably around the median age here. I would assume most users older than me feel at least somewhat similarly, and they definitely weren't wearing bike helmets as a kid.
Alright, let's put it to a poll.
Jayhawk's just a mean guy.
I said median, not mean. :)
Well played! :cheers:
I didn't wear a helmet when I was a child. I started cycling very early on, as my dad is a somewhat avid cyclist. Heck, I used to ride down staircases with no hands and no helmet. But that's the kind of kid I was: always climbing trees, skateboarding (poorly), doing crazy twist-flips off the high dive, using my bike to its full extent. It made my mom nervous, but my dad balanced that out by letting me "be a boy" most of the time. He once drew a cartoon for my mom, in which I was in the act of riding my bike off the roof of the house and my mom was shouting "Don't you dare land in my flower bed!" That summed up the family dynamic pretty well.
When I was in high school, I wore a helmet more often. I don't think I wore it all the time, but I honestly can't remember if there was any guiding principle to determine when I would. If my ride took me out on the highway, I definitely would wear a helmet. If I was riding all over town with my friends, through unpaved back alleys, over curbs, doing jumps–I think I would wear one but can't quite remember for sure. But if I was just going a couple of blocks down to the pool, I wouldn't.
Then, when I moved to the Chicago area, I made sure to wear a helmet almost all the time. (Technically, this was moving back to the Chicago area, as I learned to ride as a youngster in New Lenox, but we moved to a small town in Kansas when I was about to enter fourth grade.) The Chicago area is the only place I've had a bicycle-vehicle crash, and I had one three times in those seven years. Ironically, at least one of them–maybe more–was an occasion on which I wasn't wearing a helmet; my head hit the pavement, but my stocking cap provided enough protection because it was at low speed.
When my wife and I got married, we moved to southern Illinois. I don't remember if I wore a helmet there, but maybe. I occasionally cycled to and from work, and part of that route involved a secondary state highway with no shoulders. I always felt kind of nervous on that road.
Here in Wichita, I only ride for pleasure, and I don't wear a helmet. Part of the reason is that the pads inside have degraded and come off. But part of the reason is that I just don't care to wear it.
As our sons have learned to ride, we've started them off without helmets. Our middle child is a big worrier, and it was like pulling teeth to get him o learn to ride–in part because he kept insisting that he needed a helmet to stay safe. We told him that we'd get him a helmet after he'd learned to ride, not before. Our eldest son is free to ride all over the neighborhood, and he does so without a helmet. However, we don't allow him to cross any major (four-lane) roads into adjacent neighborhoods. It's my plan to buy him a helmet and then allow him a larger radius once he starts wearing that. I'm a lot more nervous about him crossing a four-lane arterial than I am about him riding neighborhood streets.
I don't even think they made helmets for bicyclists when I was growing up. And if they did, the practice certainly wasn't promoted.
I'm spending the week down in Jalisco in a town of about 28,000. Of the all the cyclists I've observed maybe 10% are wearing helmets, 30% for the moped/dirk bike riders and about 50% for the ATV riders.
It has at this point been well over a decade since the last time I rode a bicycle for any reason, but as a kid I was taught you're supposed to wear a helmet and I was pretty consistent about doing so. I was not made fun of for this, other kids also wore helmets, all at their parents' insistence.
The practice has definitely fallen by the wayside though, I rarely see anyone - child or adult - wearing a bike helmet anymore.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 18, 2022, 03:03:53 PM
It has at this point been well over a decade since the last time I rode a bicycle for any reason, but as a kid I was taught you're supposed to wear a helmet and I was pretty consistent about doing so. I was not made fun of for this, other kids also wore helmets, all at their parents' insistence.
The practice has definitely fallen by the wayside though, I rarely see anyone - child or adult - wearing a bike helmet anymore.
In that viral video of Biden falling off his bike today, he has a helmet on while the person who was riding directly behind him was not wearing a helmet. Best I can tell, of those individuals shown, half were helmeted and half weren't.
Again, it's probably the age difference, but bike helmets weren't a thing in my youth.
I would imagine that for someone in their 80s, whose death would at least marginally affect the lives of 300 million people, not wearing a helmet is not really a very attractive option. If some random staffer cracks their head open on the pavement, it's tragic and might slow work down a little bit, but you don't have to hang up new pictures in every federal office building or anything.
Of course, if he really wanted to take the risk, there's not really much that could be done to stop him. His predecessor is documented to have stared directly at the sun with no eye protection, and the Secret Service didn't try to intervene.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 18, 2022, 03:03:53 PM
It has at this point been well over a decade since the last time I rode a bicycle for any reason, but as a kid I was taught you're supposed to wear a helmet and I was pretty consistent about doing so. I was not made fun of for this, other kids also wore helmets, all at their parents' insistence.
The practice has definitely fallen by the wayside though, I rarely see anyone - child or adult - wearing a bike helmet anymore.
Around here the majority wear helmets.
Growing up throughout the 1980s, I didn't notice too many people nor kids wearing bike helmets, except for professional riders. My family, friends, and classmates didn't wear them. At some point in the early-1990s, I noticed kids wearing them. And it seemed that mass-media portrayed bicyclists and skateboarders wearing them, too. (I never saw an actual skateboarder wearing one until I saw X Games on TV.)
I didn't originally use a helmet to get back and forth to class on campus, until I was involved in a 50/50 accident, with no time to react for a vehicle which stopped suddenly in my bike lane. Although I was fine, I started to think of the words of Jackie Stewart: "Don't buy a $10 helmet unless you have a ten-dollar head" so I bought a helmet and used that for several years. Honestly, I haven't seriously biked any distance more than a few hundred feet in almost 20 years.
My kids bike with helmets and always wear them, though my old bike helmet hangs in the storm shelter nowadays. The kids around these parts do not seem to wear helmets; you might see it on a young child (like 2-5) but not much after that. There's a part of me that thinks the parents are just giving their children a little more freedom like we had as kids, but there's also a nagging feeling that the parents also tend to be a little more careless. To be fair, there's a lot less vehicular traffic in this neighborhood than the one I grew up in.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 19, 2022, 03:18:43 AM
I would imagine that for someone in their 80s, whose death would at least marginally affect the lives of 300 million people, not wearing a helmet is not really a very attractive option. If some random staffer cracks their head open on the pavement, it's tragic and might slow work down a little bit, but you don't have to hang up new pictures in every federal office building or anything.
Of course, if he really wanted to take the risk, there's not really much that could be done to stop him. His predecessor is documented to have stared directly at the sun with no eye protection, and the Secret Service didn't try to intervene.
I get the feeling that the Secret Service intervenes only when there's a threat from some external source. I recall statements from a number of presidents that they wanted to do certain things, but the Secret Service told them "no." (Which seems odd, since the president is at the top of the federal government executive branch organizational chart. One would think that the SS takes orders from him, not the other way around.)
If I was in Biden's position, riding on asphalt, I'd be more concerned about wearing knee pads or long pants to prevent road rash from a potential tumble.
I just found out Saturday that my wife has NEVER, not once, ever worn a bicycle helmet.
We went with my eldest son to buy him a bike helmet. When we got home and fitted it to his head, I laughed, pointed to the little sticker on the inside of the helmet that said 'REAR', and wondered how anyone could be ridiculous enough to try and put a bike helmet on backwards. That's when my wife informed me that she has never worn one and would have no idea which way it's supposed to go. She then picked it up, looked at it for a few seconds, and proceeded to tell me her first inclination would be to put it on the wrong way.
(https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1242726943_80.177.117.97.jpg)
Quote from: hbelkins on June 19, 2022, 09:04:26 PMI recall statements from a number of presidents that they wanted to do certain things, but the Secret Service told them "no." (Which seems odd, since the president is at the top of the federal government executive branch organizational chart. One would think that the SS takes orders from him, not the other way around.)
That's because they don't tell the President "no." The only stories I'm aware of that are similar to what you're describing are the times President Obama wanted to attend a White Sox/Nationals or Bulls/Wizards game, and they said something more along the lines of "here are the threats that we can screen out and here are the ones that we can't."
Frankly, I've never heard of any ex-President saying that they wanted to do X, but the Secret Service said "no."
As I understand it, the Secret Service is under the Secretary of Homeland Security (formerly the Secretary of the Treasury), who serves at the pleasure of the President but who is rarely dismissed without good cause owing to the hassle factor of hauling a new permanent appointment through Senate confirmation.
When Presidents say they "can't" do a quotidian thing and the implication is that the "can't" has to do with security, I usually understand that to mean they could if they insisted, but find it prudent not to do so. One example that comes to mind is Obama driving a car ten feet during some kind of ceremony at an auto plant (perhaps the one millionth of a particular car model rolling off the assembly line?) and commenting that was the most he had driven since he became President.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2022, 10:46:29 AM
Frankly, I've never heard of any ex-President saying that they wanted to do X, but the Secret Service said "no."
I doubt this would really be put out into the public, especially for minor stuff. "Hey, I should get out and walk in this parade". "Mr. President, I would advise against that".
They didn't say No, but they didn't exactly open the doors for him either.
If a President indicated they wanted to make a stop, there are Secret Service teams that would quickly scout an area before the President arrived (and we're talking a matter of minutes), and before the President was allowed out of the vehicle the area would be comfortably secured.
More significant stuff would be a matter of policy if he was allowed to roam somewhere, like a mall or something. But stuff like that normally wouldn't be impromptu trips.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2022, 10:46:29 AM
Frankly, I've never heard of any ex-President saying that they wanted to do X, but the Secret Service said "no."
Not an ex-president, but I've definitely heard it from a sitting president.
Wasn't it Reagan who took everyone (including the SS) by surprise by getting out of the car and walking for part of the inaugural parade?
https://civilservicehq.com/can-the-secret-service-override-the-president/
I can't say this site is 100% credible, but it appears to be. It indicates that the Secret Service does have authority over the President when it comes to the President's security.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2022, 03:10:11 PMWasn't it Reagan who took everyone (including the SS) by surprise by getting out of the car and walking for part of the inaugural parade?
That was Obama.
Meanwhile, going to the other extreme, Ukrainian President Zelensky caused a major headache for his staff a few months back, while Kyiv was in very real danger of falling into Russian hands, by popping out of the office unexpectedly to go buy a particular borscht he'd been craving.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 20, 2022, 03:15:32 PM
I can't say this site is 100% credible, but it appears to be. It indicates that the Secret Service does have authority over the President when it comes to the President's security.
I get the feeling that this is one of those "power in name only" sorts of thing. Yes, the Secret Service has the legal power to tell the President no, but the President has the power to fire the head of the Secret Service, so who really has the power there?
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2022, 03:48:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2022, 03:10:11 PMWasn't it Reagan who took everyone (including the SS) by surprise by getting out of the car and walking for part of the inaugural parade?
That was Obama.
That recently? I thought it happened in the much more distant past.
second term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVMbnb3jGE
Apparently, every recent President has walked part of the inauguration route: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/trump-inaugural-parade-walk.html
^ The article was written before Biden became president, but he did it too.
Quote from: Big John on June 20, 2022, 09:56:28 PM
second term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVMbnb3jGE
He did that at his first inauguration as well, I remember watching it live.
The only inauguration I can ever remember watching live was Trump's, and that wasn't by choice. I was at a transportation conference that day and they put the speech up on the big screens at lunch.
I tend to tune out speeches by elected officials of both parties and all that overblown pomp and circumstance.
Kentucky state government gets closed down when the governor is inaugurated, mostly because Frankfort is a cluster foxtrot that day and you can't get to a lot of the offices. Out of fairness, they give everyone a holiday, even those who don't work in Frankfort.
Just once, I'd like to see a governor come in and say, "I don't want any of this stuff. No parade, no inaugural speech, no inaugural balls. Time to get to work."
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 07:14:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
^This. Isn't printing paper easier than minting coins?
Yes, but paper only lasts a couple of years in circulation, while coins last for decades.
Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2022, 10:29:01 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 07:14:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
^This. Isn't printing paper easier than minting coins?
Yes, but paper only lasts a couple of years in circulation, while coins last for decades.
Many big non-Euro, non-USD currencies have gone to "paper" money that is actually printed on plastic, which of course lasts a lot longer than paper. Both Canada and Mexico have done so; Canada's is said to smell faintly of maple syrup.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 20, 2022, 07:19:43 PM
Meanwhile, going to the other extreme, Ukrainian President Zelensky caused a major headache for his staff a few months back, while Kyiv was in very real danger of falling into Russian hands, by popping out of the office unexpectedly to go buy a particular borscht he'd been craving.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 20, 2022, 03:15:32 PM
I can't say this site is 100% credible, but it appears to be. It indicates that the Secret Service does have authority over the President when it comes to the President's security.
I get the feeling that this is one of those "power in name only" sorts of thing. Yes, the Secret Service has the legal power to tell the President no, but the President has the power to fire the head of the Secret Service, so who really has the power there?
So I think we got our answer yesterday.
Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2022, 10:29:01 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 07:14:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 08, 2022, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2022, 07:10:16 AM
$1 bills shouldn't exist anymore, anyway. Canada, the UK, the euro, Australia, and New Zealand all have 1 and 2 as coins, while their lowest banknote is 5. (Switzerland and Japan go farther and have 5 francs and 500 yen as coins and 10 francs and 1000 yen as the lowest banknote, but I don't think we need to do that.)
All the currencies I mentioned are somewhat similar to the US dollar (New Zealand at NZ$3=US$2 is the farthest away), with some above and some below, except Japan where yen are basically cents instead of dollars.
What makes them right and us wrong?
^This. Isn't printing paper easier than minting coins?
Yes, but paper only lasts a couple of years in circulation, while coins last for decades.
Well...if you're going to reply to a very early post in this thread, you might as well have read the entire discussion on the matter that followed.
Sort of an Internet Explorer response: Loaded the page after every other browser did...
Regarding my trip to Mexico I did notice an oddity that was relevant to this thread. As already stated above I basically saw close to nobody wearing helmets on bikes or mopeds during my trip. That said, I did see several people on a bike or moped wearing outdoor face masks. I thought that was an interesting contrast, not enough concern to wear a helmet on bad road surfaces but concern about catching a disease in a well ventilated outdoor environment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2022, 01:03:05 PM
Regarding my trip to Mexico I did notice an oddity that was relevant to this thread. As already stated above I basically saw close to nobody wearing helmets on bikes or mopeds during my trip. That said, I did see several people on a bike or moped wearing outdoor face masks. I thought that was an interesting contrast, not enough concern to wear a helmet on bad road surfaces but concern about catching a disease in a well ventilated outdoor environment.
How about a "risk miscalculation" thread?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2022, 04:02:50 AM
Many big non-Euro, non-USD currencies have gone to "paper" money that is actually printed on plastic, which of course lasts a lot longer than paper. Both Canada and Mexico have done so; Canada's is said to smell faintly of maple syrup.
Polymer bills annoy me. That's because, when you fold one, the fold tends to become rather permanent. With paper bills, you can pretty well flatten them out again, but not so with the polymer. This makes stacking them a more frustrating activity.
Quote from: thspfc on June 29, 2022, 06:04:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2022, 01:03:05 PM
Regarding my trip to Mexico I did notice an oddity that was relevant to this thread. As already stated above I basically saw close to nobody wearing helmets on bikes or mopeds during my trip. That said, I did see several people on a bike or moped wearing outdoor face masks. I thought that was an interesting contrast, not enough concern to wear a helmet on bad road surfaces but concern about catching a disease in a well ventilated outdoor environment.
How about a "risk miscalculation" thread?
Could be to avoid bugs and debris?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2022, 01:03:05 PM
Regarding my trip to Mexico I did notice an oddity that was relevant to this thread. As already stated above I basically saw close to nobody wearing helmets on bikes or mopeds during my trip. That said, I did see several people on a bike or moped wearing outdoor face masks. I thought that was an interesting contrast, not enough concern to wear a helmet on bad road surfaces but concern about catching a disease in a well ventilated outdoor environment.
I suspect there are a few things at play here:
(1) Mexicans seem to be much more willing to abide by mask rules, even if they don't agree with the rules, than us Americans. I've personally witnessed this firsthand in several contexts. For example, while I was waiting outside a grocery store there one busy evening back in March, I decided to count how many people I saw coming in or out of the store without a face mask, and I counted a grand total of zero. Another example: at an outdoor church service, behind a closed gate and out of view from the street, in a congregation full of conservatives, pretty much the only people I saw who didn't wear a mask even at the very beginning of the service were the elderly (others at least started out wearing them but took them off later); I think those elderly folks were the type who just do whatever they want all the time anyway.
(2) It's possible that helmet laws are not strictly enforced, and Mexicans only seem to care about traffic laws that are actually enforced. I'm guessing there isn't a law for bicycles, but I'm not sure what legal framework mopeds operate under: that is, I'm not sure what if any motorcycle-related traffic laws apply to them. Similarly, I don't think I've ever seen someone wearing a helmet while driving around on a four-wheeler.
(3) Face masks are cheaper than helmets. If you look closely, too, a lot of the helmets you see in Mexico are actually just hardhats.
I can't help but wonder if people's greater exposure to sickness and disease in lesser-developed countries makes them more willing to abide by health guidelines.
Quote from: webny99 on June 30, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I can't help but wonder if people's greater exposure to sickness and disease in lesser-developed countries makes them more willing to abide by health guidelines.
Specifically with Mexico, disease is more generally an accepted part of life.
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
My distaste for motorcycles and motorcycling in general increased today after an incident that occurred this morning. I was on NY 262 heading west, and came upon a pair of motorcycles. After several miles, I established that their cruising speed was around 62-63 mph. As it happened, my preferred speed was a bit faster than that, around 70 mph, since was in a bit of a hurry. So, I pulled out to pass as soon as there was a long passing zone and an ample opportunity to do so.
By the time I was completing the pass, we had reached a very slight curve in the road and I could see traffic approaching a ways in the distance. Meanwhile, the motorcycles had started accelerating, so I accelerated too, to around 80 mph, to ensure I could complete the pass, which I did. After I moved back to the right, one of the motorcycles came right up behind me, clearly agitated, and tailgated me for a half mile or so while approaching traffic went past. (Good thing for him, I'm not one to brake check, although in hindsight, I should have put my hazards on.)
By the time the oncoming traffic had cleared, we had approached two more cars. I pulled out to pass the first one, and the motorcycles followed, the first one still tailgating. After passing the first car, I moved back to the right. The motorcycles went roaring past me and the second car, pulling a wheelstand as they passed. I maintained 70 mph as I passed the second car, and momentarily caught back up to the motorcyclists, one of whom looked back and gave me a little wave, as if to say "bye-bye". They sped up again, but would eventually slow back down to 65 mph or so, which continued as I followed them through Byron and most of the way to Bergen. Near Bergen, they passed a string of four vehicles led by a slow camper, and I soon lost sight of them.
The camper turned off at the end of NY 262, and I continued down NY 19 to NY 33 to I-490. Not far down I-490, I again saw the same two motorcycles in the distance, and eventually caught up to them as I was cruising at just under 80 mph. I again pulled out to pass and they sped up to match my speed, rode along side me for a while, and eventually roared off. At the next exit, a red Mazda entered the highway and merged well in front of me, then easily overtook the motorcycles a moment later with no problem at all. I caught up to the motorcycles again by the time they exited at NY 531, so I rolled my window down and waved as they went over the overpass.
Even though I don't feel I did anything wrong here, I was certainly distressed and annoyed by the interaction which brought a sour ending to an otherwise delightful Saturday morning clinching trip.
Quote from: webny99 on August 27, 2022, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
My distaste for motorcycles and motorcycling in general increased today after an incident that occurred this morning. I was on NY 262 heading west, and came upon a pair of motorcycles. After several miles, I established that their cruising speed was around 62-63 mph. As it happened, my preferred speed was a bit faster than that, around 70 mph, since was in a bit of a hurry. So, I pulled out to pass as soon as there was a long passing zone and an ample opportunity to do so.
By the time I was completing the pass, we had reached a very slight curve in the road and I could see traffic approaching a ways in the distance. Meanwhile, the motorcycles had started accelerating, so I accelerated too, to around 80 mph, to ensure I could complete the pass, which I did. After I moved back to the right, one of the motorcycles came right up behind me, clearly agitated, and tailgated me for a good 1/2 mile or so. (Good thing for him, I'm not one to brake check, although in hindsight, I should have put my hazards on.)
By that time, we were quickly approaching two more cars. I pulled out to pass the first one, and the motorcycles followed, the first one still tailgating. After passing the first car, I moved back to the right. The motorcycles went roaring past me and the second car, pulling a wheelstand as they passed. I maintained 70 mph as I passed the second car, and momentarily caught back up to the motorcyclists, one of whom looked back and gave me a little wave, as if to say "bye-bye". They sped up again, but would eventually slow back down to 65 mph or so, which continued as I followed them through Byron and most of the way to Bergen. Near Bergen, they passed a string of four vehicles led by a slow camper, and I soon lost sight of them.
The camper turned off at the end of NY 262, and I continued down NY 19 to NY 33 to I-490. Not far down I-490, I again saw the same two motorcycles in the distance, and eventually caught up to them as I was cruising at just under 80 mph. I again pulled out to pass and they sped up to match my speed, rode along side me for a while, and eventually roared off. At the next exit, a red Mazda entered the highway and merged well in front of me, then easily overtook the motorcycles a moment later with no problem at all. I caught up to the motorcycles again by the time they exited at NY 531, so I rolled my window down and waved as they went over the overpass.
Even though I don't feel I did anything wrong here, I was certainly distressed and annoyed by the interaction which brought a sour ending to an otherwise delightful Saturday morning clinching trip.
I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.
Just last week on I-65 I was behind a car that was passing a string of trucks while cruising at a steady 72 mph. After clearing the last truck he sped up to 76 but refused to move over to the right. When I attempted to pass on the right, he sped up to at least 85 mph to prevent it, and was back down to 72 upon reaching the next group of trucks to pass.
During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway. Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting. At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California. I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 04:07:18 PM
During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway. Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting. At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California. I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.
Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2022, 05:27:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 04:07:18 PM
During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway. Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting. At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California. I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.
Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.
> I think lane splitting should be banned because it is dangerous
> If I was nearby I would go out of my way to make it more dangerous
Incredible.
I don't think the lane splitter is the problem in this situation, H.B.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2022, 05:27:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 04:07:18 PM
During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway. Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting. At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California. I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.
Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.
So I see you promote and are more than willing to commit vehicular aggravated assault. You will get arrested and convicted for this. If they're dead as a result, You'll be charged with vehicular homicide.
Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 05:45:53 PM
Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.
Ignoring the law.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 05:45:53 PM
Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.
Lane splitting is known by the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 05:45:53 PM
Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.
For whatever reason the traffic code doesn't cater much to hand holding in California. My personal favorite is if a road isn't signed out in the boons it has a default 55 MPH speed limit. Trying to maintain 55 MPH on a clear winter morning on the likes of CA 1 in Big Sur is a whole crap ton of technically legal fun.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 05:45:53 PM
Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.
When someone chooses to engage in lane splitting (or indeed ride a motorcycle at all) they are willfully engaging in a behavior that is higher-risk, for the reward of being able to move in traffic faster. The risks are obvious, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're detailed in official state education materials for motorcyclists. By engaging in lane splitting, a cyclist is making an informed decision to accept that risk, and the state is giving them the freedom to do so. There is no requirement to lane-split if you are on a motorcycle.
Prop 65 warnings are intended to prevent businesses from concealing the presence of hazardous chemicals in their products. If this information is concealed from the consumer, they cannot make an informed decision as to whether they should accept that risk or not. The risk is unknown to them. There is no way to judge whether the risk is low enough to be acceptable, or whether it is high enough that they would not want to engage in that risk. (The appearance of Prop 65 warnings on almost everything is an unfortunate unintended consequence of businesses having figured out the hit in sales from carrying a Prop 65 warning is less than it would cost to test for the need for a Prop 65 warning, but that has nothing to do with what the purpose of the law was intended to be.) You can still buy something with a Prop 65 warning on it–by doing so you are (theoretically) making an informed decision to accept that risk.
So it is entirely sensible and internally consistent to have both.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 27, 2022, 04:01:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 27, 2022, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
My distaste for motorcycles and motorcycling in general increased today after an incident that occurred this morning. I was on NY 262 heading west, and came upon a pair of motorcycles. After several miles, I established that their cruising speed was around 62-63 mph. As it happened, my preferred speed was a bit faster than that, around 70 mph, since was in a bit of a hurry. So, I pulled out to pass as soon as there was a long passing zone and an ample opportunity to do so.
By the time I was completing the pass, we had reached a very slight curve in the road and I could see traffic approaching a ways in the distance. Meanwhile, the motorcycles had started accelerating, so I accelerated too, to around 80 mph, to ensure I could complete the pass, which I did. After I moved back to the right, one of the motorcycles came right up behind me, clearly agitated, and tailgated me for a good 1/2 mile or so. (Good thing for him, I'm not one to brake check, although in hindsight, I should have put my hazards on.)
By that time, we were quickly approaching two more cars. I pulled out to pass the first one, and the motorcycles followed, the first one still tailgating. After passing the first car, I moved back to the right. The motorcycles went roaring past me and the second car, pulling a wheelstand as they passed. I maintained 70 mph as I passed the second car, and momentarily caught back up to the motorcyclists, one of whom looked back and gave me a little wave, as if to say "bye-bye". They sped up again, but would eventually slow back down to 65 mph or so, which continued as I followed them through Byron and most of the way to Bergen. Near Bergen, they passed a string of four vehicles led by a slow camper, and I soon lost sight of them.
The camper turned off at the end of NY 262, and I continued down NY 19 to NY 33 to I-490. Not far down I-490, I again saw the same two motorcycles in the distance, and eventually caught up to them as I was cruising at just under 80 mph. I again pulled out to pass and they sped up to match my speed, rode along side me for a while, and eventually roared off. At the next exit, a red Mazda entered the highway and merged well in front of me, then easily overtook the motorcycles a moment later with no problem at all. I caught up to the motorcycles again by the time they exited at NY 531, so I rolled my window down and waved as they went over the overpass.
Even though I don't feel I did anything wrong here, I was certainly distressed and annoyed by the interaction which brought a sour ending to an otherwise delightful Saturday morning clinching trip.
I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.
I've been known to respond to that phenomenon on the Thruway by matching speed with a vehicle (usually a truck) going slower than they want to go for a few miles when ahead of them. That tends to get the message through. This is fairly easy on the Thruway, with the long distance between most exits and nearly all of it being just two lanes each way - traffic patterns tend to get stale unless you have a noticeable speed differential from surrounding traffic, and it's easy to box someone in, intentionally or otherwise (given how thick traffic can be, especially when passing a string of trucks).
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2022, 05:56:40 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 05:45:53 PM
Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.
When someone chooses to engage in lane splitting (or indeed ride a motorcycle at all) they are willfully engaging in a behavior that is higher-risk, for the reward of being able to move in traffic faster. The risks are obvious, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're detailed in official state education materials for motorcyclists. By engaging in lane splitting, a cyclist is making an informed decision to accept that risk, and the state is giving them the freedom to do so. There is no requirement to lane-split if you are on a motorcycle.
Prop 65 warnings are intended to prevent businesses from concealing the presence of hazardous chemicals in their products. If this information is concealed from the consumer, they cannot make an informed decision as to whether they should accept that risk or not. The risk is unknown to them. There is no way to judge whether the risk is low enough to be acceptable, or whether it is high enough that they would not want to engage in that risk. (The appearance of Prop 65 warnings on almost everything is an unfortunate unintended consequence of businesses having figured out the hit in sales from carrying a Prop 65 warning is less than it would cost to test for the need for a Prop 65 warning, but that has nothing to do with what the purpose of the law was intended to be.) You can still buy something with a Prop 65 warning on it–by doing so you are (theoretically) making an informed decision to accept that risk.
So it is entirely sensible and internally consistent to have both.
Prop 65 was a good idea that was horribly executed. When people see prop 65 stickers everywhere, no one cares, and nothing bad happens, they lose their significance. The threshold should have been higher, to the point where the warnings stand out and therefore businesses are enticed to keep their products below the warning level.
Your argument for the legality of lane splitting is akin to the argument
against COVID mask and vaccine mandates. "Individual people can make their own decisions", except, those decisions can have devastating impacts on others. Lane splitting motorcyclists cause an accident, vehicles behind them swerve to avoid, and chaos ensues. So I hope you weren't in favor of those mandates . . .
I mean, I don't really care whether lane splitting is legal or not, since I don't ride a motorcycle. My point was merely that Prop 65 and lane-splitting are ideologically consistent.
Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road. For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios. Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2022, 06:14:07 PM
I mean, I don't really care whether lane splitting is legal or not, since I don't ride a motorcycle. My point was merely that Prop 65 and lane-splitting are ideologically consistent.
That's a fair point. But no other state has done hazardous chemical warnings as widespread as CA has with prop 65. So it's odd that CA is on the most concerned end of the spectrum with prop 65, yet they're the least concerned with lane splitting. And that fits in a thread about risks.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 06:15:13 PM
Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road. For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios. Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.
I don't recall any either. But if 49 of 50 states agree it should be illegal, in a country where states disagree on a lot? That means something.
Paris allows lane splitting. I didn't see any in London, but I don't know if I simply missed it.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 06:24:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 06:15:13 PM
Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road. For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios. Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.
I don't recall any either. But if 49 of 50 states agree it should be illegal, in a country where states disagree on a lot? That means something.
The contradiction is pretty amusing given how lax California can be regarding traffic laws while at the take time being incredibly bureaucratic with other safety regulations.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2022, 06:24:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 06:15:13 PM
Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road. For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios. Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.
I don't recall any either. But if 49 of 50 states agree it should be illegal, in a country where states disagree on a lot? That means something.
The contradiction is pretty amusing given how lax California can be regarding traffic laws while at the take time being incredibly bureaucratic with other safety regulations.
If I had to guess, it was probably originally enacted to help traffic and/or reduce vehicle emissions (both of which are bigger problems in California than other states). Given that the California legislature has no inhibition about enacting new regulations when they feel it's justified, and going on what you said, I'm guessing there simply haven't been enough incidents to bother doing so.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2022, 07:17:51 PM
If I had to guess, it was probably originally enacted to help traffic and/or reduce vehicle emissions (both of which are bigger problems in California than other states). Given that the California legislature has no inhibition about enacting new regulations when they feel it's justified, and going on what you said, I'm guessing there simply haven't been enough incidents to bother doing so.
Lane-splitting was found to be neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited in California state law. The state therefore set about studying the issue.
I can find plenty of articles whose authors state that easing traffic congestion was the reason for the change, but that doesn't mean the safety implications were simply ignored. Quite the contrary: read the actual bill analysis, and you won't see any mention of traffic congestion, but you will see mention of safety studies.
Quote from: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AB 51
BILL ANALYSIS
April 6, 2015
SUBJECT: Vehicles: motorcycles: lane splitting
A 2014 study published by the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with OTS and CHP, found that lane splitting can be done safely when riders are travelling only slightly faster than surrounding traffic. The study also points out that lane splitting offers motorcyclists a safer position in traffic which protects them from often catastrophic rear-end impacts. The Hurt Report of 1981, reportedly the one of most comprehensive motorcycle crash causation studies to date, also noted that reducing a motorcyclist's exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways is one way to reduce front- and rear-end collisions.
According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS websites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject. To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines. Specifically, the bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic. Additionally, the bill provides that motorcycles must continue to be operated in a safe manner, in compliance with existing laws, to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to cite motorcyclists that misuse the practice.
The author notes that lane splitting, when performed in accordance with CHP guidelines, improves safety by reducing the potential for catastrophic rear-end collisions, making motorcycles more visible to drivers in heavy traffic, and preventing motorcycle engine breakdowns that occur from excessive idle time. The author contends that providing reasonable guidelines for lane splitting helps inform drivers and motorcycle riders alike and removes ambiguities in the law.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 27, 2022, 04:01:40 PM
I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.
Just last week on I-65 I was behind a car that was passing a string of trucks while cruising at a steady 72 mph. After clearing the last truck he sped up to 76 but refused to move over to the right. When I attempted to pass on the right, he sped up to at least 85 mph to prevent it, and was back down to 72 upon reaching the next group of trucks to pass.
I had this same thing happen to me multiple times on my most recent cross-country trip. I find that drivers who engage in this kind of behavior almost always have California, New York, or Florida license plates.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 27, 2022, 04:01:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 27, 2022, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 03:00:49 PM
Motorcycles. I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is. Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk. And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle. Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.
So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"
Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.
My distaste for motorcycles and motorcycling in general increased today after an incident that occurred this morning. ...
eanwhile, the motorcycles had started accelerating, so I accelerated too, to around 80 mph, to ensure I could complete the pass, which I did. After I moved back to the right, one of the motorcycles came right up behind me, clearly agitated, and tailgated me for a good 1/2 mile or so. (Good thing for him, I'm not one to brake check, although in hindsight, I should have put my hazards on.)
By that time, we were quickly approaching two more cars. I pulled out to pass the first one, and the motorcycles followed, the first one still tailgating. After passing the first car, I moved back to the right. The motorcycles went roaring past me and the second car, pulling a wheelstand as they passed. I maintained 70 mph as I passed the second car, and momentarily caught back up to the motorcyclists, one of whom looked back and gave me a little wave, as if to say "bye-bye". They sped up again, but would eventually slow back down to 65 mph or so, which continued ...
Even though I don't feel I did anything wrong here, I was certainly distressed and annoyed by the interaction which brought a sour ending to an otherwise delightful Saturday morning clinching trip.
I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.
Just last week on I-65 I was behind a car that was passing a string of trucks while cruising at a steady 72 mph. After clearing the last truck he sped up to 76 but refused to move over to the right. When I attempted to pass on the right, he sped up to at least 85 mph to prevent it, and was back down to 72 upon reaching the next group of trucks to pass.
Absolutely, I've seen this many times, and as vdeane notes, it often seems to happen on the Thruway. It baffles me that people would insist on passing slowly and then speeding up when they're done passing. If anything, I'd do the opposite to help maintain speed differential between lanes and improve the overall traffic flow.
However, before today I'd never really encountered it on a two-lane road before. The way the motorcyclists reacted was almost like they were insulted that I would try to pass them. Of course, about half of the driving population seems to have a phobia of passing on two-lane roads, which I've never understood. Yes, it's very different than passing on the freeway, but there's no reason to be held up by a slower driver for miles on end if the coast is clear to pass - that's what the passing zones are there for. And I've found that the vast majority of the time, you can do it almost as easily as you can on the freeway, just with some extra caution and alertness (sometimes even with the cruise control set the whole time, although generally speaking this is more doable out west than it is here).
Quote from: US 89 on August 27, 2022, 10:06:30 PM
I had this same thing happen to me multiple times on my most recent cross-country trip. I find that drivers who engage in this kind of behavior almost always have California, New York, or Florida license plates.
This is anecdotal but I recall one specific occurrence with a Chevy SUV with CT plates, and it was nowhere near Connecticut.
Also, with regards to Florida plates, they're often used on rentals around here, so it could be anybody.
I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 28, 2022, 08:59:40 AM
I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.
I see people do it occasionally, what a bad idea. In addition to California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, and Texas are trying to make it legal in those states.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 28, 2022, 09:41:39 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 28, 2022, 08:59:40 AM
I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.
I see people do it occasionally, what a bad idea.
Until you see it in practice during stopped traffic on the Bay Bridge. Totally saves time and is probably the sole reason you see sports bikes during commute hours in general around San Francisco.
Yeah, it's insanely dangerous...if you do it at 70 mph. If it's happening in the middle of a pack of cars rolling along at 10 mph I don't see why there's much reason to disallow it.
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 27, 2022, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2022, 05:27:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2022, 04:07:18 PM
During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway. Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting. At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California. I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.
Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.
So I see you promote and are more than willing to commit vehicular aggravated assault. You will get arrested and convicted for this. If they're dead as a result, You'll be charged with vehicular homicide.
Only if it's illegal for me to open my door if I'm sitting stopped in traffic. Which, to my knowledge, it isn't.
However, if someone is committing an illegal act (lane splitting) then wouldn't they be liable for their own law-breaking and reaping the consequences thereof?
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
I think intentionally inflicting serious bodily harm on someone would make you a bad person, whether or not it's legal on a technicality.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PMOnly if it's illegal for me to open my door if I'm sitting stopped in traffic. Which, to my knowledge, it isn't.
In the UK you are required to check that nothing is in the way before you open a car door. "Dooring" (opening a car door into the path of a cyclist) is therefore automatically the fault of the person in the car. I haven't checked, but I suspect that many, perhaps most, US states have a similar provision in law.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2022, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 28, 2022, 09:41:39 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 28, 2022, 08:59:40 AM
I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.
I see people do it occasionally, what a bad idea.
Until you see it in practice during stopped traffic on the Bay Bridge. Totally saves time and is probably the sole reason you see sports bikes during commute hours in general around San Francisco.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 08:00:39 PM
Yeah, it's insanely dangerous...if you do it at 70 mph. If it's happening in the middle of a pack of cars rolling along at 10 mph I don't see why there's much reason to disallow it.
Which is precisely the type of traffic in which lane splitting is permitted in California. Allow me to re-post a portion of the official analysis of the actual bill that legalized lane splitting in California:
Quote from: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AB 51
BILL ANALYSIS
April 6, 2015
SUBJECT: Vehicles: motorcycles: lane splitting
A 2014 study published by the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with OTS and CHP, found that lane splitting can be done safely when riders are travelling only slightly faster than surrounding traffic. [...] Specifically, the bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
However, if someone is committing an illegal act (lane splitting) then wouldn't they be liable for their own law-breaking and reaping the consequences thereof?
Fault isn't always assigned in increments of 100%. For example, the last time I had a fender bender, the other party was determined to be 80% at fault and I to be 20% at fault.
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
This is an issue in Colorado right now as one of the 14ers (peaks over 14,000 feet), Mount Lindsey, is partially on private property and the land owner has closed the summit because there was a ruling that, if someone got hurt on his property, he was liable. By putting up the "No Trespassing" signs, he absolves himself of responsibility if someone broke the law to climb it.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 29, 2022, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
This is an issue in Colorado right now as one of the 14ers (peaks over 14,000 feet), Mount Lindsey, is partially on private property and the land owner has closed the summit because there was a ruling that, if someone got hurt on his property, he was liable. By putting up the "No Trespassing" signs, he absolves himself of responsibility if someone broke the law to climb it.
I think this is the same logic behind "no swimming" signs at some NY state parks, most (in)famously, Lakeside Beach State Park. But I would think "swim at your own risk" (which would be my preference) would also absolve the state of any responsibility, so I'm not sure why it's necessary to prohibit it altogether.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 29, 2022, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.
Alternatively... if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.
Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2022, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 29, 2022, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.
Alternatively... if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.
"shoot to wound" is a myth.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 31, 2022, 11:31:57 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2022, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 29, 2022, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.
Alternatively... if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.
"shoot to wound" is a myth.
Lots of people have said this anecdote over the years, but I have yet to find any actual successful examples that didn't have some underlying circumstances (for example, setting up a trap).
Quote from: formulanone on September 01, 2022, 04:21:06 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 31, 2022, 11:31:57 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2022, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 29, 2022, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.
Alternatively... if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.
"shoot to wound" is a myth.
Lots of people have said this anecdote over the years, but I have yet to find any actual successful examples that didn't have some underlying circumstances (for example, setting up a trap).
The explanation I've heard is that "shoot to wound" doesn't mean the target is immediately immobilized like it does in movies and TV shows, and you may end up in a situation where the person you've shot-to-wound has an adrenaline surge and is a bigger danger than they were before you shot them.
Source: A guy who's fired a gun on exactly one occasion
Quote from: abefroman329 on September 01, 2022, 11:02:19 AM
Quote from: formulanone on September 01, 2022, 04:21:06 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 31, 2022, 11:31:57 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2022, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 29, 2022, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2022, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 10:26:49 PM
If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.
In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.
Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.
Alternatively... if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.
"shoot to wound" is a myth.
Lots of people have said this anecdote over the years, but I have yet to find any actual successful examples that didn't have some underlying circumstances (for example, setting up a trap).
The explanation I've heard is that "shoot to wound" doesn't mean the target is immediately immobilized like it does in movies and TV shows, and you may end up in a situation where the person you've shot-to-wound has an adrenaline surge and is a bigger danger than they were before you shot them.
Source: A guy who's fired a gun on exactly one occasion
Yeah, that's what I've heard too: psychologically, the one with nothing left to lose is potentially more dangerous.
My point was about successfully suing a homeowner during breaking and entering, et cetera.
Quote from: formulanone on September 02, 2022, 08:04:50 AMMy point was about successfully suing a homeowner during breaking and entering, et cetera.
Oh.
Well, the thing about sensationalist headlines such as "movie theater where Aurora mass shooting took place sues victims of shooting" is that they actually mean that there's a dispute over liability going on between insurance carriers. So, if you hear a story about a robber suing the owner of the home they broke into, then it's probably something along those lines.
The "shoot to wound" phrase calls to mind East German border guards trying to claim at trial that what they were doing was somehow acceptable because they were told to aim for the legs rather than center mass.
Quote from: abefroman329 on September 02, 2022, 01:45:02 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 02, 2022, 08:04:50 AMMy point was about successfully suing a homeowner during breaking and entering, et cetera.
Oh.
Well, the thing about sensationalist headlines such as "movie theater where Aurora mass shooting took place sues victims of shooting" is that they actually mean that there's a dispute over liability going on between insurance carriers. So, if you hear a story about a robber suing the owner of the home they broke into, then it's probably something along those lines.
I recall one down in South Florida some decades ago where the storeowners had somehow hooked up a lethal amount of voltage to a metal frame. Crooks had broken in through the roof and one of them was electrocuted on his way out. So this supposedly brought up some sort of lawsuit (https://apnews.com/article/2d3051f7a0931adc61347fc3d573ea09), but I can't find a resulting decision in a case...perhaps someone knows how to look that up?
(Wow, that was much older than I thought.)
Quote from: formulanone on September 02, 2022, 05:59:26 PMI recall one down in South Florida some decades ago where the storeowners had somehow hooked up a lethal amount of voltage to a metal frame. Crooks had broken in through the roof and one of them was electrocuted on his way out. So this supposedly brought up some sort of lawsuit (https://apnews.com/article/2d3051f7a0931adc61347fc3d573ea09), but I can't find a resulting decision in a case...perhaps someone knows how to look that up?
The precedent that is usually cited nationally is a 1971 Iowa Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney) to the effect that mantraps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantrap_(snare)) do not enjoy protection at law. I would therefore expect the store owners to be found liable, but this is Florida . . .
Edit: The shopowner involved is named Prentice Rasheed. I don't know if he was sued in civil court, but he went free in 1986 when a grand jury refused to return a true bill for manslaughter. The Orlando
Sentinel reported in 1991 that he was still trying to pay off $200,000 in legal fees.
I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't think B&E should be punishable by immediate, extrajudicial execution.
Quote from: abefroman329 on September 06, 2022, 11:38:00 AM
I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't think B&E should be punishable by immediate, extrajudicial execution.
I agree. So we may be a minority but at least it's not a minority of one.
We had a case in central Minnesota a number of years ago where a man was found guilty of torturing and murdering two kids he caught burglarizing his house, with the court finding it went beyond the scope of the Castle doctrine. Of course, a bunch of people found this outrageous, stating basically "if we catch them in our house we should be free to do whatever awful things we wish to them".
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 06, 2022, 05:30:55 PM
We had a case in central Minnesota a number of years ago where a man was found guilty of torturing and murdering two kids he caught burglarizing his house, with the court finding it went beyond the scope of the Castle doctrine. Of course, a bunch of people found this outrageous, stating basically "if we catch them in our house we should be free to do whatever awful things we wish to them".
Yeah, I believe there was a somewhat-similar case in Oklahoma where a homeowner shot some intruders in the back while fleeing and also tried to argue castle doctrine. Not sure if it worked for them, though.