Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.>
What are my chances in court with this one?
Slim.
I know what the law is,> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my> case, shouldn't it?
Of course it won't help your case. Lots of drivers speed everyday, and darned if that doesn't help the case for the next one caught.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is _`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. (_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy
On 9 May 2005 19:38:59 -0700, john@beefchickenpork.org wrote:
Hi all,>
Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an>an awful imitation of a trackstand.
Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. Did you ask the officer if it's required that you touch down? What did you say to him? If you weren't apologetic, but argumentative maybe that's why he didn't let you off with a warning? Just curious.
jj
I checked for peds, checked the>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.>
What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these>circumstances?>
Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.>
What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these> circumstances?>
Not that rich,> >>john
When/if the judge gives you an opportunity to speak on your own behalf, a contrite demeanor and an apology will best serve you. *Do*not* justify the transgression.
This applies equally when talking to cops. Yes, sir. No, sir. No excuse, sir.
When you're wrong, you're wrong. Own up to it. But it's best to not break the law while a COP IS WATCHING!
john@beefchickenpork.org wrote: I checked for peds, checked the> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
What sucky bike laws. The punishment should fit the crime, that's absurd.
This may help not one whit, but here's a joke for you:
Cop pulls a guy over for rolling through a stop sign. He tells the driver that he's going to give him a citation for failure to stop at a Stop sign.
The guy tells the officer, "Hey, I slowed down!"
"Yes," the officer says, "but you didn't *stop*."
"But I *slowed down*," says the motorist, "What's the difference?"
The cop grabs the guy, bodily, slams him against his car and starts punching him--just pummeling him mightily, in a series of alternating lefts and rights.
Suddenly, the officer stops for a second and asks the motorist, "What would you like me to do? Stop or slow down??"
"Jim" wrote: Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think you raise a very good point. I don't know what the law says, but, in my mind, if you are "paused" at the intersection well enough so you can see in all directions, and you don't proceed into someone else's right of way, you are actually less of a burden on the other traffic than a cyclist who unclips, puts a foot down, then restarts and has to worry about clipping in as he/she crosses the intersection.
I think a modest, non-defiant presentation of that point to a judge might be effective.
Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side>>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an>>an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the>>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I>>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190>>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.>>
What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,>>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily>>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my>>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these>>circumstances?>>
Not that rich,>>
john>
When/if the judge gives you an opportunity to speak on your own behalf, a> contrite demeanor and an apology will best serve you. *Do*not* justify the> transgression.>
This applies equally when talking to cops. Yes, sir. No, sir. No excuse, sir.>
When you're wrong, you're wrong. Own up to it. But it's best to not break the> law while a COP IS WATCHING!
Advice. Don't do it. We just had a bicyclist killed here in my small country town area over the weekend and it was at a traffic light controlled area. There are no official reports out yet as the dead biker collided with an SUV, (what else?) and they are still investigating. I ride weird sometimes out in the country but in town I get off the bike and act like a pedestrian, pushing little buttons for the crosswalk and all. The article got a write up in the local paper sometime in the last few days so feel free to have a look at www.appealdemocrat.com. They keep things up for a week and then you have to pay to get into the archive. Here is the actual link.
On 9 May 2005 19:38:59 -0700, john@beefchickenpork.org wrote:
Hi all,>
Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an>an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.>
What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these>circumstances?
The Toronto cops do "blitzes" in the Spring where they ticket cyclists. They do the same with jaywalking pedestrians when a bunch of people are run over in a short space of time. Two months ago the same cop wouldn't have bothered you for the same violation.
I got the same ticket from a pig in an unmarked.car in the Spring of 2003 for turning right on a red (from a bike lane to a bike lane) without stopping, also in Toronto. For those who don't live here, it's legal here to turn right at a red light here provided that you stop first and that you yield right-of-way to pedestrians and cross traffic.
Since I had gotten away with blatently blowing through so many red lights over the years (and I still do sometimes) I figured that I should just pay the ticket this time - so I did.
Whenever I am with someone complaining about cyclist scofflaws I tell them about my ticket so that they understand that Toronto cyclists do indeed get ticketed, sometimes harshly. They are usually shocked that the fine is so high, that the fine is the same as it is in a car and they are surprised that I paid it without a fight. They are car drivers after all and so they run red lights too (fail to stop when they could do so safely, turn right on red without coming to a complete stop, etc).
<john@beefchickenpork.org> wrote in message news:1115692738.993770.209740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Hi all,>
Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
I did something similar in Guelph, Ont.
Several years ago, early Sunday morning I was on my way to work. I was going down hill along the top of the 'T'. The only other traffic was a police cruiser that turned from the bottom of the 'T' so that he was going the same direction but a goodly distance ahead of me.
As it was a down slope I was loathe to lose momentum and figured; 'Waht are the odds he'd be looking back at me?'
Turned out they were pretty good. I was apologetic and he let me go with a warning.
What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these> circumstances?
Not of getting the ticket. I'd say your chances are pretty much nil unless:
- the information on the ticket is incorrect. Misspelled name, incorrect address, etc.
- the officer does not show up at court.
Dunno how true these are but I've been told that if either is the case the ticket gets tossed.
Who's the idiot, the POB ignoring traffic law right in front of the> cop, or me, stopping at lights when there's no traffic, certain in the> knowledge that no Philadelphia cop would ever bestir himself to enforce> the law against a cyclist.
Booker C . Bense 10 May 2005 23:12:03 [ permanent link ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Gj5ge.735457$w62.68080@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>
"Jim" wrote: Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. (clip)>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>I think you raise a very good point. I don't know what the law says, but, >in my mind, if you are "paused" at the intersection well enough so you can >see in all directions, and you don't proceed into someone else's right of >way, you are actually less of a burden on the other traffic than a cyclist >who unclips, puts a foot down, then restarts and has to worry about clipping >in as he/she crosses the intersection.>
I think a modest, non-defiant presentation of that point to a judge might be >effective. >
_ It's a RED LIGHT, not a stop sign. It's not a question of stopping or not....
Bill Sornson wrote:> I wouldn't take reds and then ride.>
(Hey, the discussion turned to the '60s, didn't it?)>
A friend (dead now) tried that on a motorcycle and tried passing into oncoming traffic and lost. 1973. He literally left his face on the windshield as the rest of him scraped over the top of the car. His handle was 'Mad Max' before Mel Gibson, and he could handle a motorcycle better than anyone I have ever seen. Too bad he didn't have any common sense about drugs and bikes. Kinda glad that era is over, stoners I could deal with but not reds freaks. Bill Baka
"Booker C. Bense" wrote: It's a RED LIGHT, not a stop sign. It's not a question of stopping or not.... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Right you are! My thinking got derailed by something I read earlier (no names.)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:37:48 -0400, Chris B. <bikerider@-no-spam-thanks-rogers.com> wrote:
He is obvious a 60's left-over.>
You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near>shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.>
That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a very>long time. Seriously.
Generalize much?
It didn't bother me when you used the term pig, although I thought it was unnecessary and showed a lack of class. But now you insult a whole generation, and I have to agree that you are not of the 60s.
What I can't recall is which decade spawned the dickhead generation. I'm sure that you know.
Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.>
I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.>
What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these> circumstances?>
Not that rich,>
john>
The law says you have pretty much the same rights as any other vehicle on the road... and so you get tickets for illegal moves the same as everyone else.
"Booker C. Bense" <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.May.10.05@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:d5r123$gju$2@news.Stanford.EDU...> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----->
In article <Gj5ge.735457$w62.68080@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,> Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> >
"Jim" wrote: Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. (clip)> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> >I think you raise a very good point. I don't know what the law says,
but,> >in my mind, if you are "paused" at the intersection well enough so you
see in all directions, and you don't proceed into someone else's right of> >way, you are actually less of a burden on the other traffic than a
cyclist> >who unclips, puts a foot down, then restarts and has to worry about clipping> >in as he/she crosses the intersection.> >
I think a modest, non-defiant presentation of that point to a judge might
effective.> >
_ It's a RED LIGHT, not a stop sign. It's not a question of> stopping or not....>
Amazingly, in Toronto, the cops have ticketed cyclists, even though they came to a complete stop (at a stop sign, by doing a track stand), because they didn't put thier foot on the ground. That certainly seems more like harassment than anything.
The fact of the matter is that you were putting no one in danger. You inconvenienced no one and you got yourself out of the intersection before any cars came around.
I'd also advise you to take it to court - you might get lucky.
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:31:57 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:37:48 -0400, Chris B.><bikerider@-no-spam-thanks-rogers.com> wrote:>
He is obvious a 60's left-over.>>
You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near>>shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.>>
That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a very>>long time. Seriously.>
Generalize much?>
It didn't bother me when you used the term pig, although I thought it>was unnecessary and showed a lack of class. But now you insult a whole>generation, and I have to agree that you are not of the 60s. >
What I can't recall is which decade spawned the dickhead generation.>I'm sure that you know.
Bob wrote:> Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:>
Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of
you to>> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.>
"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has> denigrated and derided their immediate predecessors yet each
has, in> the fullness of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's> wise therefore to take the long view and realize that, in 100 years,> we'll all be idiots."> Alas, how true. My parents' generation was called in a recent best-seller "The Greatest Generation", but there have been a number of recent articles on the 60th anniversary of the end of WW2 that have noted how much of that is a convenient myth. A couple of examples: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full http://www.signandsight.com/features/96.html Still, the old geezers lived through the depression and WW2, so they start two legs up on those of us who've lived in affluence all of our lives and have managed to (legitimately) avoid being drafted into active combat.
Bob wrote:> Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:>
Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.>
"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has denigrated> and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the fullness> of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise therefore to> take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be> idiots.">
Regards,> Bob Hunt>
P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years? <g>>
Any bets on which country will have become a second class nation and which will evolve as the dominator? If I live another 100 years I will still live in disbelief of the stupidity and greed of politicians. Bill Baka
Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of>
you to>
glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.>>
"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has>>denigrated and derided their immediate predecessors yet each>
has, in>
the fullness of time, been judged on their own shortcomings.>
It's>
wise therefore to take the long view and realize that, in>
100 years,>
we'll all be idiots.">>
Alas, how true. My parents' generation was called in a recent> best-seller "The Greatest Generation", but there have been a> number of recent articles on the 60th anniversary of the end> of WW2 that have noted how much of that is a convenient myth.> A couple of examples:> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full>http://www.signandsight.com/features/96.html> Still, the old geezers lived through the depression and WW2,> so they start two legs up on those of us who've lived in> affluence all of our lives and have managed to (legitimately)> avoid being drafted into active combat.>
What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on the moon and this generation just seems to be playing computer games. Progress is being made, but what is the use of a cell phone you can lose it in the lint in your pocket? And the great President Bush II with his vision of landing a man on the moon by (maybe) 2020 or so. I think we are backsliding. My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of different parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas. What's up with Texas getting idiots elected? Is the present generation better or just too absorbed in themselves to notice what is going on around the world? Adding fuel to the way OT fire. Bill Baka
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:51:00 -0700, bbaka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:
Mike Kruger wrote:>> Bob wrote:>>
Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:>>>
Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of>>
you to>>
glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.>>>
"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has>>>denigrated and derided their immediate predecessors yet each>>
has, in>>
the fullness of time, been judged on their own shortcomings.>>
It's>>
wise therefore to take the long view and realize that, in>>
100 years,>>
we'll all be idiots.">>>
Alas, how true. My parents' generation was called in a recent>> best-seller "The Greatest Generation", but there have been a>> number of recent articles on the 60th anniversary of the end>> of WW2 that have noted how much of that is a convenient myth.>> A couple of examples:>> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full>>http://www.signandsight.com/features/96.html>> Still, the old geezers lived through the depression and WW2,>> so they start two legs up on those of us who've lived in>> affluence all of our lives and have managed to (legitimately)>> avoid being drafted into active combat.>>
What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on the moon and >this generation just seems to be playing computer games. Progress is >being made, but what is the use of a cell phone you can lose it in the >lint in your pocket? And the great President Bush II
DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),
with his vision of >landing a man on the moon by (maybe) 2020 or so. I think we are >backsliding.
Must be!
My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has >Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of different >parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas.
DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),
What's up with >Texas getting idiots elected? Is the present generation better or just >too absorbed in themselves to notice what is going on around the world?
Some (most) manage to be as shallow and decadent as you boomers while some of us saw the writing on the wall years ago and will be far better prepared for the dismal times that lie just ahead.
Anyhow, enough of this unpleasantness. Focus on enjoying your retirements!
Chris B. wrote:> On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:51:00 -0700, bbaka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:>
What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on
the moon>> and this generation just seems to be playing computer games.>> Progress is being made, but what is the use of a cell phone you can>> lose it in the lint in your pocket? And the great President Bush II>
DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),>
My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has>> Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of
different>> parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas.>
DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),>
This round goes to Chris B., for correctly noting that G. W. Bush is a boomer president.
Chris B. wrote:>>What's up with >>Texas getting idiots elected? Is the present generation better or just >>too absorbed in themselves to notice what is going on around the world?>
Some (most) manage to be as shallow and decadent as you boomers while> some of us saw the writing on the wall years ago and will be far> better prepared for the dismal times that lie just ahead.>
Anyhow, enough of this unpleasantness. Focus on enjoying your> retirements!
I plan to ride off into the sunset and just keep going some day. Of course then they will say I have to be locked up for my own good. Funny how the younger generation gets to mess with the older ones who raised them. Bill Baka
Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to>>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.>>
The Baby Boomer Generation includes those born after World War II from> 1946-1964 inclusive. Which means anyone 41 to 59 is a Baby Boomer. Did> I do that math right? That's a hell of a lot of people. And a big age> span.>
I wrote a paper on this generation and I was shocked by the dates. For> some reason I did not know boomers were still being BORN in the> sixties. You are talking about a hell of alot of people here.> 1946-1964??? That spans three decades. Amazing. No wonder generation> X wants us dead.. >
Maggie>
What mathematical definition defines a baby boomer?
"Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com> wrote in message news:1115943562.600334.74250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
1oki wrote:>
'And then one day you find,>> Ten years have got behind you.>> No one told you when to run>> You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd>
Given the general tone of this thread perhaps a better lyric for a sig.> line would be....>
'Everyday when I look in the mirror> All these lines in my face getting clearer' - Aerosmith
I have a few other possibles:
-- 'We're only immortal - for a limited time' -rush
-- 'As your looks start slipping, so should your standards.' -red green
-- 'When did Motley Crew become classic rock? And when did Ozzy become an actor?' -bowling for soup
-- 'In the days of my youth I was told what it means to be a man Now that I've reached that age I've tried to do all those things as best I can' -led zeppelin
"Maggie" <lbuset@allsecretarial.com> wrote in message news:1116012399.643511.147900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> 1oki wrote: [...]>> Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes>> me the first Gen-Xer.>
That actually makes sense mathmatically. Congratulations on being in> the first Gen-Xer group.
I'm still waiting for my prize.
Some other things that I considered on my rain shortened ride:
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and then JFK being assassinated in the autumn of1963 might be the reason why the Boomer gen was considered ended specifically by 1964: the end of the post-war optimism perhaps.
I'm guessing the generation currently being born will look at Sept 11 the same way Gen-Xers look at JFK's assassination and CMC.
I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.
Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in communes - the Woodstock generation. If JFK marked the end of optimism for the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen X.
The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.
My husband is in the group of first baby> boomers. Born in 1946.>
I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.> Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth?
...gooooogle...
You decide which are bad and which are good:
1954
-US Supreme Court ruling, Brown vs Board of Education, finds segregation unconstitutional -Marilyn Monroe marries Joe DiMaggio -the battle and fall of Dien Bien Phu -first mass polio vaccination campaign for children begins in Pittsburgh -first hydrogen bomb test at Bikini atoll -Canada's first subway opens in Toronto -Lt. Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser is made premier of Egypt -The Federal German Republic [West Germany] is granted sovereignty and admitted into NATO. -Pierre Mendes-France becomes prime minister of France -The words 'under god' added to the US pledge of allegiance -Krushchev visits China , marks the high point of Sino-Soviet relations. -Roger Bannister runs the first four minute mile -world's first atomic power plant opens near Moscow. -Viet nam partitioned into North and South. US begins sending aid directly to South Viet Nam. -Algerian War of Independence against France begins -First issue of _Dissent_ appears, edited by Irving Howe published -Senator McCarthy censured for; 'contempt of a Senate subcommittee, abuse of its members and insults to the Senate' and 'conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute' -First issue of Sports Illustrated published -CIA sponsored coup overthrows Guatemalan government. -WHBQ becomes the first radio station to air an Elvis Presley record -Ellis Island closes as immigration point-of-entry -Louison Bobet of France wins the Tour de France. -NY Giants win the World Series -Detroit Red Wings win Stanley Cup. -Minneapolis Lakers win the NBA championship -West Germany wins the World Cup.
I know. Too much information.
-- 'I've got a bad reputation in this town It's something I can't live down I wish I could be what people want me to be But somehow I can't come around' -david wilcox
"1oki" <nolooke@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:JeadncDhf9zFiBjfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we > asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.
Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in > communes - the Woodstock generation. If JFK marked the end of optimism > for the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen > X.
The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.
D'oh! Too much cut&pasting. One shouldn't read what I wrote but what I meant!
I meant to say:
I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we assume Gen X lasted 20 years or so then Gen X runs from 1965 to 1984-ish and Gen Y goes from 1985 to 2004-ish.
Dunno what seminal event you could pick from the mid-80's... Teased hair and cordless phones the size of airline luggage? Gen X seems to cover a broad swathe from the 60's hippies to '70's Watergate narcissism and malaise to 80's gauche greed and glitz.
GenY's big event is easier: Sep 11 will be the defining event for them:
If one wanted to be depressing:
Boomers/JFK: The end of optimism X-ers/Watergate: The end of innocence Y-ers/Sep 11: The end of hope?
-- 'It is terrible to speak well and be wrong.' -sophocles
I mean what defines the boom?>>Why are those dates chosen?>>
Marty>
I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But> everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense> because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea> where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides a> bike who can explain it?> The demographic anomaly is that the baby boom stretched from 1946 to> 1964. While the oldest of the early boomers graduated from college> during the Summer of Love, the youngest of the late boomers left> college during the Reagan years. >
Maggie>
It probably refers to children born as a result of all them soldiers coming home and they were pretty well getting too old by 1964, or their wives were hitting menopause and they couldn't have anymore. That's the only flat out guess I have. Bill Baka
I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the>> end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth?
Maggie,> Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you claim> with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and I'm> 56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).
Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your math skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)
Keep an eye out for an abacus on those scavenger rides... B
1oki wrote:> "1oki" <nolooke@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:JeadncDhf9zFiBjfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...>
I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we >>asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.>
Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in >>communes - the Woodstock generation. If JFK marked the end of optimism >>for the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen >>X.>
The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.>
D'oh! Too much cut&pasting. One shouldn't read what I wrote but what I > meant!>
I meant to say:>
I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we assume > Gen X lasted 20 years or so then Gen X runs from 1965 to 1984-ish and Gen Y > goes from 1985 to 2004-ish.
That makes my daughter a Gen X, version 0.7, I think.>
Dunno what seminal event you could pick from the mid-80's... Teased hair > and cordless phones the size of airline luggage? Gen X seems to cover a > broad swathe from the 60's hippies to '70's Watergate narcissism and malaise > to 80's gauche greed and glitz.
What I remember most is that some flaming assed idiot came up with rap music and it stuck, still is.>
GenY's big event is easier: Sep 11 will be the defining event for them:>
If one wanted to be depressing:>
Boomers/JFK: The end of optimism> X-ers/Watergate: The end of innocence> Y-ers/Sep 11: The end of hope?
The beginning of 1984 as pertains to the book of that name. he just missed it by about 20 years. Bill Baka>
--> 'It is terrible to speak well and be wrong.'> -sophocles>
I mean what defines the boom?>>>Why are those dates chosen?>>>
Marty>>
I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But>>everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense>>because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea>>where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides>
bike who can explain it?>
Perhaps because 1965 marked the sharp increase in> American military involvement in Viet-Nam that to> many signifies the beginning of the "Vietnam War."> 1965 was certainly very different from 1964 in that> regard.
Johnson, Democrat idiot/a$$hole. Bush, Republican/a$$hole. Bill Baka>
Tanya Quinn wrote:>>But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to>
someone>
without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing address?>>It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.>
Why give them your driver's license? You weren't driving. All that is> required is for you to give them your name and address. They don't need> to see ID unless they suspect you are lying. If you give them your> driver's license the ticket can inadvertently get entered in the system> as if you were driving a car in which case you could lose points.>
Just carry you SS card for ID. Only one number and I don't think a cop is looking for identity theft. Bill Baka
I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the>>>end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? >
Maggie,>>Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you claim>>with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and I'm>>56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).>
Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your math> skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)>
Keep an eye out for an abacus on those scavenger rides... B>
I was in a hurry, not in calculator mode. I still can't believe it is not the late 90's anymore. Time really does fly. Bill Baka
On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:07:06 -0700, bbaka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:
Just carry you SS card for ID.>Only one number and I don't think a cop is looking for identity theft.>Bill Baka
Let me guess in bakaland, there are photos on your SS card.
Another example of little bill's crappy advice. There is no reason to carry your SS card and if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have provided a very valuable set of numbers.
"In the United States, demographers have put the generation's birth years at 1946 to 1964, despite the fact that the US birth rate (per 1,000 population) actually began to decline after 1957. William Strauss and Neil Howe,... put the generation's birth years at 1943 to 1960. ...
"Interestingly, the birth rate actually began to climb in 1940: From that year through 1943, the US birth rate rose four years in a row for the first time since at least the beginning of the 19th Century...
"In Canada, the baby boom is usually defined as the generation born from 1947 to 1966 - Canadian servicemen were repatriated later than American servicemen, and Canada's birth rate did not start to rise till 1947, and most Canadian demographers prefer to use the later date of 1966 as the boom's end in that country."
I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the>>>>end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? >>
Maggie,>>>Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you>
claim>
with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and>
I'm>
56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).>>
Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your>
math>
skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)>>
Thanks guys........AND I WON'T BE 51 UNTIL MAY 22nd. (send> presents)...so...I AM STILL 50. But if anyone did the math wrong...and> kept me in my forties...that's ok.
That was me, but I got jumped for it. You can always be in your 40's or even 30's in your mind.
I'll be doing the charity ride on> my birthday...remember. My first charity ride on a bike.>
Anyway, Forties, fifties, whats the difference? I had my midlife> crisis when I turned forty, glad its over. It lasted a about 8 years.> >
My husband is going to be 59.......whoa...almost 60. I married an old> fart.
I have yet to see what a mid-life crisis is for men. Maybe I am there and don't know it since all the hormonal equipment still works just fine. I was just thinking about having another child when my wife pointed out to me that SHE was a little old for that. Oh well.>
Only kidding.....I like older men.....young guys are too into> themselves. Who needs that. Wait, I am married. I forgot, I> can't date anymore. oops. I better break that date I have Friday> with that 42 year old guy. And I was really looking forward to going> to that Sushi Bar.>
Mike Latondresse 15 May 2005 04:40:12 [ permanent link ]
bbaka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in news:1116101500.391321@news01.syix.com:
Maggie wrote:>> Bill Sornson wrote:>>
bbaka wrote:>>>
Maggie wrote:>>>
I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and>>>>>the end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? >>>
Maggie,>>>>Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you>>
claim>>
with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet,>>>>and >>
I'm>>
56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).>>>
Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on>>>your >>
math>>
skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)>>>
Thanks guys........AND I WON'T BE 51 UNTIL MAY 22nd. (send>> presents)...so...I AM STILL 50. But if anyone did the math>> wrong...and kept me in my forties...that's ok. >
That was me, but I got jumped for it.> You can always be in your 40's or even 30's in your mind.>
Yeah, you are only young once but you can be immature forever.
In article <1116186953.506522.153620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Veloise" <kmssavage@earthlink.net> writes:> Jeff Starr wrote:>> At least two, I was born in Dec '54.>
Yea, Sagittarius!>
--Karen M.> Dec '56
Dec '53, myself.
cheers, Tom
-- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a> transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find> me.
I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15 minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining, you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.
If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to carry with you, but blood type is worthless.
In article <1116431336.957155@news01.syix.com>, Bill Baka wrote:
I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the wrong > kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.> Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).
That's correct, with the exception of O negative blood, which can be safely transfused into anyone, regardless of their blood type.
Jim Smith wrote:>> bbaka <bbaka@syix.com> writes:>>
I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a>>>transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find>>>me.>> I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it>> for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay>> attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15>> minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O>> negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for>> type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining,>> you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.>> If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to>> carry with you, but blood type is worthless.>>
I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the> wrong kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.> Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).
Oh yeah, if you are B negative A positive could kill you, but O negative is pretty safe for everybody.
It is always preferable to trasfuse the same type blood. (As a matter of fact, when there is time, they always mix a little of your blood with the donor blood in a test tube first and watch it for a little while to make sure they are compatible.) But if they don't have time to do that, like if you are going to bleed to death in the next 10 minutes, the thing to do is just squeeze in a couple of units of O negative while they are checking your blood type and doing the mixing in the test tube thing. Writing your blood type on a card or in your helmet doesn't do any good because there are only two possible scenarios: 1) either you have half an hour to check the blood type and test for compatability, or 2) you just give O negative.
Nobody is going to trust what is writen on the card or in the helmet because it is basically always safe to give O negative, but if the card is wrong and you pay attention to it, you might give something that could kill. For example, if you had a brother with type A and he happend to be wearing your helmet that said "type B." It would be a very bad thing(TM) to give him type B, but it would be just fine to give him type O.
Jim Smith wrote:> Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com> writes:>
Jim Smith wrote:>>
bbaka <bbaka@syix.com> writes:>>>
I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a>>>>transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find>>>>me.>>>
I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it>>>for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay>>>attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15>>>minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O>>>negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for>>>type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining,>>>you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.>>>If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to>>>carry with you, but blood type is worthless.>>>
I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the>>wrong kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.>>Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).>
Oh yeah, if you are B negative A positive could kill you, but O> negative is pretty safe for everybody. >
It is always preferable to trasfuse the same type blood. (As a matter> of fact, when there is time, they always mix a little of your blood> with the donor blood in a test tube first and watch it for a little> while to make sure they are compatible.) But if they don't have time> to do that, like if you are going to bleed to death in the next 10> minutes, the thing to do is just squeeze in a couple of units of O> negative while they are checking your blood type and doing the mixing> in the test tube thing. Writing your blood type on a card or in your> helmet doesn't do any good because there are only two possible> scenarios: 1) either you have half an hour to check the blood type and> test for compatability, or 2) you just give O negative.>
Nobody is going to trust what is writen on the card or in the helmet> because it is basically always safe to give O negative, but if the> card is wrong and you pay attention to it, you might give something> that could kill. For example, if you had a brother with type A and he> happend to be wearing your helmet that said "type B." It would be a> very bad thing(TM) to give him type B, but it would be just fine to> give him type O.>
I never really put that much thought into it, since I give blood as regularly as I can, but it is 6 miles each way through city traffic. Then when I go to leave I sometimes get the "Oh my God, you're riding a bicycle after giving blood?". Beats walking. 12 miles on a bike is short, on foot it's sore feet. Bill (non doctor, obviously) Baka
