| |
Main
Date: 05 May 2007 09:48:40
From: Pat
Subject: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
"justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
victim. You aren't.
To recoup:
The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.
You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than
you preferred.
You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it
shows.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.
You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in
the lane.
You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a
vehicle.
It does not matter what time of day this occurs.
I hope I haven't left anything out.
Pat in TX
|
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 16:50:54
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <1178569546.103467.104510@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > writes:
> On May 6, 3:12 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <D1p%h.7158$2v1.5...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill <b...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Again,
>> >> I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
>> >> carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
>> >> I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
>> >> But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
>> >> If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
>>
>> > I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
>> > people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work.
>>
>> Most Americans do:http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
> But I don't see actual commute distance the way the Canadian census
> reports it. Do you know where the USA hides that data?
Offhand, I'm afraid I don't. I just dredged up the
above link to address Bill's point that any form of
transportational cycling is un-do-able for some (a
minority.) I aimed to supply strictly USA rather
than North American numbers so as to remain within
Bill's perspective. Otherwise he'd just dismiss it
with: "Ya but that's not the US."
As I recall, the average home-to-work distance in Canada
is somewhere around 7 Km? Or is that round-trip?
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 13:25:46
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 3:12 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <D1p%h.7158$2v1.5...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <b...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>
> >> Again,
> >> I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
> >> carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
> >> I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
> >> But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
> >> If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
>
> > I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
> > people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work.
>
> Most Americans do:http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
But I don't see actual commute distance the way the Canadian census
reports it. Do you know where the USA hides that data? Their
websites are often almost as bad as StatCan's.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 13:20:01
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 2:22 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> nash wrote:
> > Life isn't simple.
> > Bill Baka
>
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> > No but reducing everything to lizard brain mentality
> > which for a driver is might is right/your life is mine,
> > then it is stupid simple. Only a third of people that
> > ought to be in prison are.
>
> Prison for being stupid???
Yep. Lots of people are in for basic stupidity. A lot of criminals
and other prisoners just are not smart enough to stay out of jail
given current standards and practices.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> > They risk our lives because we make them 5 seconds late
> > to sit at the next light. I can do that over and over here and
> > the same scud driver will still not get it.
>
> Been there, done that, and I agree.
>
> They are saying their
>
> > life is more important than yours. Not possible.
>
> Some office execs do think they are better than the rest of us, cage or
> no cage. Red necks are...well, just red necks and probably won't change.
>
> > Again,
> > I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
> > carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
> > I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
> > But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
> > If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
>
> I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
> people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work. Raising a
> family kind of puts the brakes on apartment living close to work in most
> US cities. If you want to remain single and never have kids then by all
> means live in your apartment with no car and no life beyond the bike.
> The infrastructure was screwed up by planners over 100 years ago.
> I have never seen anything done on a projection of what will be needed
> 20 years from now. That's a reality, even if we don't like it.
> Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 13:18:30
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <v1v%h.7517$rO7.5732@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
>
> That sort of happens to me since I ride the bike along the tops of the
> local levees and take a pretty much car and traffic free trip. I do like
> to explore and find new paved trails every summer. Someone in the local
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> government is getting it right, but slowly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IOW, getting bikes off the road.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 12:14:17
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <1178545208.866561.8790@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com > writes:
> On May 7, 3:36 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You are a city boy. Don't you ever get out of the city and exploring?
>> I think I'm feeling sorry for you.
>> Strange feeling.
>
>
> Bill, with the easy availability of car rentals (for longer trips),
> mass transit, and taxicabs, with bikes as a daily mainstay, city
> dwellers have access to anything they need.
>
> Shared auto ownership -- like the very successful Philly CarShare
> (www.phillycarshare.org) -- is another option that relieves
> individuals of the immense costs and hassles of purchase, maintenance,
> insurance, and parking.
This is where Bill would complain that not everyone
(IOW, him) doesn't have access to those amenities,
despite my showing him that most Americans, as
urban dwellers, do. That would be followed by a
long-winded ramble about the supposed evils of urban life.
> And even if you own a car, as I do, you're not obligated to drive it
> everywhere.
And this is where Bill would read your above statement
as: "get rid of all cars, everywhere. Especially Bill's
precious cars." Never mind that only people (other than
Bill) voluntarily reducing their own car dependency, wherever
and however they can, is being discussed. So now in Bill's
eyes you're a bicycle nazi :-)
> As for your sympathy for Brian... now you know how pretty much
> everybody here feels about you.
It's quite obvious that Bill is anti-transportational cycling.
I suspect it's because he perceives it as a threat to his own
pro-personal car driver agendum, as evidenced by his vehement
objections to cyclists taking the lane, as well as his general
nay-saying in this subthread.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 11:20:58
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 11:41 am, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum . He has
> obviously internalized the meanings of the laws and knows in what
> situations it is correct to obey/disobey him. He is someone who would
> have no problem cycling in any state because he understands how to
> apply experience and common sense to bike in any situation.
Veg, I ride some 7000 miles per year in Mainland China and can tell
you that, with a very few exceptions (generally when I'm being too
lazy to go fast) I ride the legal direction of traffic, ride in the
car lanes, and take the lane.
And although I still manage to have the occasional accident, I have
less accidents than a lot of people I know with similar amounts of
mileage in this country. Mostly because many of these people insist
that they can ride cyclist speeds while following work bike rules,
regulations, and habits such as wrongways riding, hugging the gutter,
and riding on the sidewalk or in the bike lanes.
Bill Baka has no problem riding in any state because he has no problem
doing anything. He's Super Bill and he is dead certain of the
existence of a state known as "dead right" where you can be following
the road code and still be unsafe. The whole bloody POINT of the
danged road code is that it is generally the safest and most
convenient way to act.
The general habit of flat out ignoring the aforementioned road code is
why I haven't bothered to get a drivers' license here (it'll do me no
good when I go to the US) and why this country has one of the highest
fatalities per population per road mileage statistics. I'm sure there
are incidents where bikes were involved (as well as incidents where
pedestrians, horses, cows, motorcycles, motor tricycles, tractors,
threshers, tractor trailers, damn blue trucks, busses, trains, and
anything else with wheels or legs was involved ... including
unicycles) but the incidents are mostly cars versus cars. Even here.
You didn't hit the bike.
You followed the law.
And I'll tell you what, even if you were a self centered noveau middle
class Chinese driver of a mid sized Xiali out on an errand for your
work unit's clearly incompete leader you still wouldn't hit the bike*.
Not just because it is the law but because hitting him (even "just a
little tap") would inconvenience you even _more_ than the horrible
pain you suffered by having to merge before he caught up to you at the
red light.
-M
*unless perhaps you'd had one too many baijiu with lunch
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 07:33:34
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 7, 4:36 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> You are a city boy. Don't you ever get out of the city and exploring?
God, yes! In the past five years I've taken three week-long bike tours
that start and end at my front door (plus some that started farther
away.) I've circled Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay, and visited the
hills of the Alleghanies to the south. Whyever would you think I
didn't get out?
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2002
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2005
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2006
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 07:52:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Brian Huntley wrote:
> On May 7, 4:36 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You are a city boy. Don't you ever get out of the city and exploring?
>
> God, yes! In the past five years I've taken three week-long bike tours
> that start and end at my front door (plus some that started farther
> away.) I've circled Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay, and visited the
> hills of the Alleghanies to the south. Whyever would you think I
> didn't get out?
>
> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2002
> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2005
> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2006
>
At least you get out there once in a while. Some of the bicycle Nazi's
would have you believe you are doomed to Hell for even thinking about
owning or driving a car.
Anyway, I'm tired of the stubborn and arrogant people on here so
***group delete***
|
| | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:16:08
From: Larry Farrell
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Bill wrote:
> Brian Huntley wrote:
>> On May 7, 4:36 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You are a city boy. Don't you ever get out of the city and exploring?
>>
>> God, yes! In the past five years I've taken three week-long bike tours
>> that start and end at my front door (plus some that started farther
>> away.) I've circled Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay, and visited the
>> hills of the Alleghanies to the south. Whyever would you think I
>> didn't get out?
>>
>> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2002
>> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2005
>> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/BrianHuntley2006
>>
> At least you get out there once in a while. Some of the bicycle Nazi's
> would have you believe you are doomed to Hell for even thinking about
> owning or driving a car.
> Anyway, I'm tired of the stubborn and arrogant people on here so
>
>
> ***group delete***
One has to wonder if Bill's group plonk involved any more people than
have already plonked him??
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 15:58:18
From: Pat
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
>> Anyway, I'm tired of the stubborn and arrogant people on here so
>>
>>
>> ***group delete***
>
> One has to wonder if Bill's group plonk involved any more people than have
> already plonked him??
Dare we even wonder if he actually did it? Could everybody's dreams come
true all at once? Are the stars aligned or something? Did he really get the
message---for once?
Don't bet on it. Windbags like that want a forum to pontificate.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 17:32:11
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Pat wrote:
::
:: Dare we even wonder if he actually did it? Could everybody's dreams
:: come true all at once? Are the stars aligned or something? Did he
:: really get the message---for once?
::
:: Don't bet on it. Windbags like that want a forum to pontificate.
Did anyone start the timer?
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 11:13:01
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Larry Farrell wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm tired of the stubborn and arrogant people on here so
>>
>>
>> ***group delete***
> One has to wonder if Bill's group plonk involved any more people than
> have already plonked him??
He says he plonks this group every other month or so. He'll be back with
tales of implausible adventure (AKA bald-faced lies) before you know it.
And no, I never block his posts because he's a freaking RIOT sometimes!
Just poke and watch the Ernest T. Baka doll dance. LOL
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 19:02:29
From: T. Ling Yu
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in
news:463f6c2f$0$15120$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> Larry Farrell wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, I'm tired of the stubborn and arrogant people on here so
>>>
>>>
>>> ***group delete***
>
>> One has to wonder if Bill's group plonk involved any more people than
>> have already plonked him??
>
> He says he plonks this group every other month or so. He'll be back
> with tales of implausible adventure (AKA bald-faced lies) before you
> know it.
>
> And no, I never block his posts because he's a freaking RIOT
> sometimes! Just poke and watch the Ernest T. Baka doll dance. LOL
>
Plonk or delete? He posted "delete" and I take him at
his word, misapplied though it may be.
Some newsreaders store articles locally. He may have merely
deleted all articles to get rid of the stubborn and arrogant
posts. He may be giving everyone a chance to start fresh with
him by not being as stubborn and arrogant as he (says we are).
Alternatively, he may have issued an rmgroup control message
to try to delete rbm from usenet.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 11:58:34
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Larry Farrell wrote:
:: Bill wrote:
::: ***group delete***
::
:: One has to wonder if Bill's group plonk involved any more people than
:: have already plonked him??
::
You don't believe he really plonked us, do you? He's just sitting there now
streaming at how we ran his candyass off! hahahahaha.
Shall we count in minutes, hours or days as to how long he'll be gone?
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 06:40:08
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 7, 3:36 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> You are a city boy. Don't you ever get out of the city and exploring?
> I think I'm feeling sorry for you.
> Strange feeling.
Bill, with the easy availability of car rentals (for longer trips),
mass transit, and taxicabs, with bikes as a daily mainstay, city
dwellers have access to anything they need.
Shared auto ownership -- like the very successful Philly CarShare
(www.phillycarshare.org) -- is another option that relieves
individuals of the immense costs and hassles of purchase, maintenance,
insurance, and parking.
And even if you own a car, as I do, you're not obligated to drive it
everywhere.
As for your sympathy for Brian... now you know how pretty much
everybody here feels about you.
R
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:38:42
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 8:16 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Zoot,
> Every once in a while you say something intelligent and then comes one
> of these posts. Try calling an ambulance to take your kid to the dentist
> and see how far you get. With multiple kids it is flat out bad parenting
> not to have a car on hand.
Ah, but *IN* the city - our dentist is a good 3 or 4 minutes away by
foot, depending on whether traffic stops for the crosswalk or not. No
ambulance required. The family doctor recently relocated from 8
minutes away to 20 (by foot) but is still on a transit line of course.
The pediatrician is 3 minutes away. The vet is a bit further, but
there's a bus every 3.5 minutes on average because it's a feeder line
to the subway.
When needed, we've had ambulance response time on our street of well
under 10 minutes - the closest hospital is about 1.5 km away.
And there are these really cool things called taxis - they even take
debit and credit cards if you need them to - that'll take you pretty
much door to door.
Of course, for a single non-incapacitated passenger, a bike is still
usually faster.
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 08:36:02
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Brian Huntley wrote:
> On May 6, 8:16 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Zoot,
>> Every once in a while you say something intelligent and then comes one
>> of these posts. Try calling an ambulance to take your kid to the dentist
>> and see how far you get. With multiple kids it is flat out bad parenting
>> not to have a car on hand.
>
> Ah, but *IN* the city - our dentist is a good 3 or 4 minutes away by
> foot, depending on whether traffic stops for the crosswalk or not. No
> ambulance required. The family doctor recently relocated from 8
> minutes away to 20 (by foot) but is still on a transit line of course.
> The pediatrician is 3 minutes away. The vet is a bit further, but
> there's a bus every 3.5 minutes on average because it's a feeder line
> to the subway.
>
> When needed, we've had ambulance response time on our street of well
> under 10 minutes - the closest hospital is about 1.5 km away.
>
> And there are these really cool things called taxis - they even take
> debit and credit cards if you need them to - that'll take you pretty
> much door to door.
>
> Of course, for a single non-incapacitated passenger, a bike is still
> usually faster.
>
Yep,
You are a city boy. Don't you ever get out of the city and exploring?
I think I'm feeling sorry for you.
Strange feeling.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 15:29:53
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <pio%h.877$SC4.506@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <f6edne-as4FbyKDbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Rich Clark" <rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> writes:
>>> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>>>>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>>>> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
>>>> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
>>>> 2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
>>>> 3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
>>>> when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
>>> YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.
>>
>> We're not supposed to consider that. It complicates things,
>> and drivers like things to be stupid-simple.
>
> So that makes you and your bike a genius compared to motorists??
> Yeah, right.
Voluntarily non-driving/reduced-driving cyclists have
figured out some good things that elude you car worshipers.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:04:36
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:29:53 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:
>> So that makes you and your bike a genius compared to motorists??
>> Yeah, right.
>
>Voluntarily non-driving/reduced-driving cyclists have
>figured out some good things that elude you car worshipers.
Yeah, like how to get around town.
If I have to drive to a destination I would normally ride, I forget
how to get there. I use different routes when capitalising on the
bike's superior capabilities.
With Cambie St. being dug up, you can't get anywhere in a car.
--
zk
|
| | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 01:11:55
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:29:53 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>> So that makes you and your bike a genius compared to motorists??
>>> Yeah, right.
>> Voluntarily non-driving/reduced-driving cyclists have
>> figured out some good things that elude you car worshipers.
>
> Yeah, like how to get around town.
>
> If I have to drive to a destination I would normally ride, I forget
> how to get there. I use different routes when capitalising on the
> bike's superior capabilities.
>
> With Cambie St. being dug up, you can't get anywhere in a car.
That sort of happens to me since I ride the bike along the tops of the
local levees and take a pretty much car and traffic free trip. I do like
to explore and find new paved trails every summer. Someone in the local
government is getting it right, but slowly.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 22:35:40
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Tom Keats wrote:
>
> Voluntarily non-driving/reduced-driving cyclists have
> figured out some good things that elude you car worshipers.
>
>
Agreed, but with the note that cars really are needed for families,
especially with kids that may need a rush trip to the doctor or
something. Once you have kids a car becomes a must have.
If somebody can't fathom this then they really don't need kids.
Bill (with kids and in the 'burbs) Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:04:57
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:35:40 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Agreed, but with the note that cars really are needed for families,
>especially with kids that may need a rush trip to the doctor or
>something. Once you have kids a car becomes a must have.
>If somebody can't fathom this then they really don't need kids.
Bullshit. I know three car-free dads. The kids who have now outgrown
their trailers have graduated to trail-a-bikes or a stoker position
on the tandem.
Ambulances and taxis could get your kid to hospital more safely than
a panicked parent driving.
--
zk
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 19:26:43
From: nash
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message
news:6pus33d932i5clsf23iu8qrk40msh2a95m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:35:40 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Agreed, but with the note that cars really are needed for families,
>>especially with kids that may need a rush trip to the doctor or
>>something. Once you have kids a car becomes a must have.
>>If somebody can't fathom this then they really don't need kids.
>
> Bullshit. I know three car-free dads. The kids who have now outgrown
> their trailers have graduated to trail-a-bikes or a stoker position
> on the tandem.
>
> Ambulances and taxis could get your kid to hospital more safely than
> a panicked parent driving.
> --
> zk
My Dad, the only driver, only took us on camping trips or less than once a
year to a relatives for Xmas dinner.
I had to walk about 2.5 miles to the doctor and dentist. I had a bike when
I was 8 and used that for going to school.
Kids today are spoiled most likely along with the demise of health in our
Nations due to
not cycling, walking and farming due to the car. My Dad still has his own
vegetable garden and fruit trees and at 75 is in better shape than
teenagers. Exactly from the Doctor's mouth.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 01:16:12
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:35:40 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Agreed, but with the note that cars really are needed for families,
>> especially with kids that may need a rush trip to the doctor or
>> something. Once you have kids a car becomes a must have.
>> If somebody can't fathom this then they really don't need kids.
>
> Bullshit. I know three car-free dads. The kids who have now outgrown
> their trailers have graduated to trail-a-bikes or a stoker position
> on the tandem.
>
> Ambulances and taxis could get your kid to hospital more safely than
> a panicked parent driving.
Zoot,
Every once in a while you say something intelligent and then comes one
of these posts. Try calling an ambulance to take your kid to the dentist
and see how far you get. With multiple kids it is flat out bad parenting
not to have a car on hand.
Your point of view is a bit cockeyed.
Maybe you never get out of the city so you think everything is in bike
range. For you it might be, not so for others.
Grow up.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 13:02:48
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 2:41 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> > I live in the suburbs myself.
>
> Of what city? People who live near a city not in California can't really
> appreciate a real God awful mess we have.
And people who live in California don't seem to understand that it is
just a tiny slice of the world, unlike most of the rest.
I live outside of and work in Philadelphia. I lived for many years in
Chicago, and also for some time in Charlotte NC.
I can't live car-free as I could if I lived in the city (and did in
Chicago), but my situation is typical of vast millions of people who
could just as easily be cycling to work and for local errands at least
part of the time.
> I know that many potential riders will just not part with their car.
> Maybe when gas goes over $4 a gallon, maybe $5. Five bucks a gallon
> would make those SUV's look pretty worthless along with the huge house
> payment and other necessities of life, like the $3,000 plasma TV.
> I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
R
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 15:13:20
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On 6 May 2007 13:02:48 -0700, rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com > wrote:
>And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
>taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
>pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
>help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
>when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
>cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
Whoa! That's too radical
Why haven't you been locked-up yet?
--
zk
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:53:08
From: Rich Clark
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message
news:0lks33hhv9e922bgfk5spqunsk6hd2nd81@4ax.com...
> On 6 May 2007 13:02:48 -0700, rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
>>taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
>>pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
>>help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
>>when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
>>cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
>
> Whoa! That's too radical
> Why haven't you been locked-up yet?
Because I haven't caused any traffic jams, I guess.
The congestion taxes in London and NYC have long-term potential; the leading
mayoral candidate in Philadelphia is proposing something similar. The cool
part is when city politicians figure out that they can run on a platform of
"tax the suburbanites!" without losing any votes.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is doing its part to make $5 gas a
reality without any help from us.
R
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:04:09
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:53:08 -0400, "Rich Clark"
<rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net > wrote:
>
>"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
>news:0lks33hhv9e922bgfk5spqunsk6hd2nd81@4ax.com...
>> On 6 May 2007 13:02:48 -0700, rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
>>>taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
>>>pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
>>>help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
>>>when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
>>>cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
>>
>> Whoa! That's too radical
>> Why haven't you been locked-up yet?
>
>Because I haven't caused any traffic jams, I guess.
>
>The congestion taxes in London and NYC have long-term potential; the leading
>mayoral candidate in Philadelphia is proposing something similar. The cool
>part is when city politicians figure out that they can run on a platform of
>"tax the suburbanites!" without losing any votes.
>
Congestion fees have been suggested here but only for the downtown
core. There's the typical ballyhoo from business owners and drivers.
It might happen if we can get the jack-boots out of city hall in the
next election.
>Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is doing its part to make $5 gas a
>reality without any help from us.
>
>R
>
--
zk
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 08:05:52
From: Pat
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"Zoot Katz" --Billy is trying to hijack the post and the forum. Don't
respond to him--all he wants is to be the center of attention once again.
Haven't you noticed he jumps into every post and attempts to make it all
about him? Don't feet the troll....
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 22:58:18
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Rich Clark wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:0lks33hhv9e922bgfk5spqunsk6hd2nd81@4ax.com...
>> On 6 May 2007 13:02:48 -0700, rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
>>> taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
>>> pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
>>> help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
>>> when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
>>> cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
>> Whoa! That's too radical
>> Why haven't you been locked-up yet?
>
> Because I haven't caused any traffic jams, I guess.
>
> The congestion taxes in London and NYC have long-term potential; the leading
> mayoral candidate in Philadelphia is proposing something similar. The cool
> part is when city politicians figure out that they can run on a platform of
> "tax the suburbanites!" without losing any votes.
>
> Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is doing its part to make $5 gas a
> reality without any help from us.
>
> R
>
>
The sad part is that he will probably do it before his time is up.
Heating oil and electric power plants will be paying more and so will
we. I can make it without gas, but I kinda sorta want my electricity and
winter heat.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 22:32:00
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On 6 May 2007 13:02:48 -0700, rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
>> taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
>> pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
>> help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
>> when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
>> cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
>
> Whoa! That's too radical
> Why haven't you been locked-up yet?
For once I'm with you, Zoot.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 19:08:13
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:32:00 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On 6 May 2007 13:02:48 -0700, rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
>>> taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
>>> pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them. It won't
>>> help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
>>> when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
>>> cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
>>
>> Whoa! That's too radical
>> Why haven't you been locked-up yet?
>
>For once I'm with you, Zoot.
Yeah right, breeze.
--
zk
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 20:11:28
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
rdclark wrote:
> On May 6, 2:41 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> I live in the suburbs myself.
>> Of what city? People who live near a city not in California can't really
>> appreciate a real God awful mess we have.
>
> And people who live in California don't seem to understand that it is
> just a tiny slice of the world, unlike most of the rest.
True, but it does have 30 million people crammed into it, mostly in the
cities.
>
> I live outside of and work in Philadelphia. I lived for many years in
> Chicago, and also for some time in Charlotte NC.
I was born in Chicago and as a child there was never much of a traffic
problem. I went back in 1993 and got stuck in traffic in a place that
used to have dirt roads in the 50's. All the corn fields had been turned
into condo fields. I was totally bummed.
>
> I can't live car-free as I could if I lived in the city (and did in
> Chicago), but my situation is typical of vast millions of people who
> could just as easily be cycling to work and for local errands at least
> part of the time.
That much is true. There are neighbors of mine who will hop into their
gas guzzler just to go 1 block to a mini-mart to buy cigarettes. They
could at least walk that distance.
>
>> I know that many potential riders will just not part with their car.
>> Maybe when gas goes over $4 a gallon, maybe $5. Five bucks a gallon
>> would make those SUV's look pretty worthless along with the huge house
>> payment and other necessities of life, like the $3,000 plasma TV.
>> I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
>
> And I don't care what it takes to make it change. $5 gas. Congestion
> taxes. Bring it all on. Make the people who live outside the cities
> pay through the nose for the privilege of driving into them.
Huh????? Since when is it a privilege to drive into the muck?
It won't
> help exurban congestion, but it'll be a start on the big picture, and
> when people see how much more liveable the inner cities are when the
> cars are gone, maybe they woun't be so anxious to run away.
That would probably be good for some, but the problem is that all the
high rises are business buildings and not 50 story apartments or condos.
>
> R
>
We can hope.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 12:12:36
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <D1p%h.7158$2v1.5220@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
>
>> Again,
>> I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
>> carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
>> I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
>> But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
>> If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
>>
>>
> I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
> people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work.
Most Americans do:
http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 12:52:41
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <D1p%h.7158$2v1.5220@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>> Again,
>>> I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
>>> carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
>>> I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
>>> But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
>>> If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
>>>
>>>
>> I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
>> people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work.
>
> Most Americans do:
> http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
>
>
Nice link to show the population is going way up, which is the root of
the problem. People still have to go to the cities for work but the
cities were planned and built for the horse and buggy days. They never
had a clue how bad the population was going to get. These days when a
new road is needed it never gets done, just postponed until even the
politicians are getting stuck in traffic.
I guess I'm just not in the most category since I am in electronics.
Telecommuting should be an option but I'm finding that most bosses want
you there and under their scrutiny.
Maybe people who work less specialized jobs can choose their city, but I
can't, although I have given up on the 150 mile commute and motel all week.
Even $100K isn't worth it to me anymore.
Big cities kind of suck. Bad air, overcrowded, even back streets become
parking lots at rush hour, etc....
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 11:59:44
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 1:22 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
> people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work. Raising a
> family kind of puts the brakes on apartment living close to work in most
> US cities. If you want to remain single and never have kids then by all
> means live in your apartment with no car and no life beyond the bike.
> The infrastructure was screwed up by planners over 100 years ago.
> I have never seen anything done on a projection of what will be needed
> 20 years from now. That's a reality, even if we don't like it.
In any metropolitan area there are plenty of choices for anyone who
wants to be within cycling range of their employment. It's not a
choice between carlessness and car dependency. Nearly anyone who's not
physically disabled can ride 12 miles, and that's a 1-hour commute,
about the same amount of time door-to-door as the same trip in a car
or on a train. And you'll be hard-pressed to find any city that
doesn't have plenty of desirable housing within a 12-mile radius of
the city center.
I live in the suburbs myself.
People can choose to relax their death-grip on cars. The problem is
that the vast majority of them have never even been shown that it's an
option.
R
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 12:41:09
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
rdclark wrote:
> On May 6, 1:22 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
>> people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work. Raising a
>> family kind of puts the brakes on apartment living close to work in most
>> US cities. If you want to remain single and never have kids then by all
>> means live in your apartment with no car and no life beyond the bike.
>> The infrastructure was screwed up by planners over 100 years ago.
>> I have never seen anything done on a projection of what will be needed
>> 20 years from now. That's a reality, even if we don't like it.
>
> In any metropolitan area there are plenty of choices for anyone who
> wants to be within cycling range of their employment. It's not a
> choice between carlessness and car dependency. Nearly anyone who's not
> physically disabled can ride 12 miles, and that's a 1-hour commute,
> about the same amount of time door-to-door as the same trip in a car
> or on a train. And you'll be hard-pressed to find any city that
> doesn't have plenty of desirable housing within a 12-mile radius of
> the city center.
Try that with Silicon valley and you come up way short. Unless you want
to get yourself in a half million dollar fixer upper or a million
dollars on a decent place you can't live there. There are a lot of
people who have lived there and own their houses but the commute for
most is too far. Maybe 10-20% could ride a bike but certainly not many more.
>
> I live in the suburbs myself.
Of what city? People who live near a city not in California can't really
appreciate a real God awful mess we have.
>
> People can choose to relax their death-grip on cars. The problem is
> that the vast majority of them have never even been shown that it's an
> option.
Of the ones who could ride, many of them want to show off their shiny
new car, don't have a clue about life outside their cubicle, or some
lame excuse.
>
> R
>
>
I know that many potential riders will just not part with their car.
Maybe when gas goes over $4 a gallon, maybe $5. Five bucks a gallon
would make those SUV's look pretty worthless along with the huge house
payment and other necessities of life, like the $3,000 plasma TV.
I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 11:51:22
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 6, 12:05 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Rich Clark wrote:
> Home or cyclist pate on the road.
You know, Bill, it's become very plain that your primary motivator is
fear. You have this big macho libertarian frontiersman act that you
put on, but down underneath you seem to be afraid of everything.
I suppose that's one way to live. But when fear drives you to
stupidity, as it apparently often does, it can be just as dangerous as
being a risk-taker. Sometimes the two states are indistinguishable.
R
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 12:31:25
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
rdclark wrote:
> On May 6, 12:05 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Rich Clark wrote:
>> Home or cyclist pate on the road.
>
> You know, Bill, it's become very plain that your primary motivator is
> fear. You have this big macho libertarian frontiersman act that you
> put on, but down underneath you seem to be afraid of everything.
>
> I suppose that's one way to live. But when fear drives you to
> stupidity, as it apparently often does, it can be just as dangerous as
> being a risk-taker. Sometimes the two states are indistinguishable.
>
> R
>
As I have said before the only thing I fear is ending my days in a
'rest' home.
I am not stupid enough to try to assert my 'right to the road' with a
line of semi's.
I had a nice ride yesterday with no semis so I rode the entire way on
the proper side of the road.
There was no reason, safety or otherwise to wrong way it.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 23:59:07
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <f6edne-as4FbyKDbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Rich Clark" <rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net > writes:
>
> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>>
>> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
>> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
>>
>> 1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
>> 2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
>> 3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
>> when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
>
> YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.
We're not supposed to consider that. It complicates things,
and drivers like things to be stupid-simple.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 10:32:12
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <f6edne-as4FbyKDbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Rich Clark" <rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> writes:
>> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>>>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>>> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
>>> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
>>>
>>> 1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
>>> 2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
>>> 3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
>>> when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
>> YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.
>
> We're not supposed to consider that. It complicates things,
> and drivers like things to be stupid-simple.
So that makes you and your bike a genius compared to motorists??
Yeah, right.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
Life isn't simple.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:09:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Life isn't simple.
Bill Baka
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No but reducing everything to lizard brain mentality
which for a driver is might is right/your life is mine,
then it is stupid simple. Only a third of people that
ought to be in prison are.
They risk our lives because we make them 5 seconds late
to sit at the next light. I can do that over and over here and
the same scud driver will still not get it. They are saying their
life is more important than yours. Not possible.
Again,
I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 18:22:27
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
nash wrote:
> Life isn't simple.
> Bill Baka
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> No but reducing everything to lizard brain mentality
> which for a driver is might is right/your life is mine,
> then it is stupid simple. Only a third of people that
> ought to be in prison are.
Prison for being stupid???
> They risk our lives because we make them 5 seconds late
> to sit at the next light. I can do that over and over here and
> the same scud driver will still not get it.
Been there, done that, and I agree.
They are saying their
> life is more important than yours. Not possible.
Some office execs do think they are better than the rest of us, cage or
no cage. Red necks are...well, just red necks and probably won't change.
> Again,
> I invite you to the one tonne challenge or any other
> carbon counter. Just because you do not see what it is
> I am doing for you does not mean it does not exist.
> But I can see almost any driver does not give a shit about that.
> If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
>
>
I know the above was meant for veg, but you have to be real. Not all
people have the luxury of living within cycle range of work. Raising a
family kind of puts the brakes on apartment living close to work in most
US cities. If you want to remain single and never have kids then by all
means live in your apartment with no car and no life beyond the bike.
The infrastructure was screwed up by planners over 100 years ago.
I have never seen anything done on a projection of what will be needed
20 years from now. That's a reality, even if we don't like it.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 23:40:07
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
veg_all@yahoo.com writes:
> It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum .
Yes.
We worship The Great Bill. He is our Oracle.
Without The Great Bill we'd all be aimlessly
riding in all directions with nowhere really
to go. The Great Bill is all-knowing about
everything.
He's also just another pro-car/anti-bicycle
idiot, but <shrug > who isn't?
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 10:29:50
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> veg_all@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum .
>
> Yes.
>
> We worship The Great Bill. He is our Oracle.
>
> Without The Great Bill we'd all be aimlessly
> riding in all directions with nowhere really
> to go.
Bullshit, moron.
The Great Bill is all-knowing about
> everything.
>
> He's also just another pro-car/anti-bicycle
> idiot, but <shrug> who isn't?
Wow,
Are you screwed up or what? I didn't even renew my driver's license last
year so I have been a non-driver for about 7 months now.
>
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 22:51:44
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <463d5eaa$0$15123$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com > writes:
>
> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>>
>> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
>> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
> [blather]
>
> Wow, now you're trying to rationalize your childish antics by giving a
> pseudo-intellectual analysis of the law. You're a self-righteous, ignorant
> twit, and you give more proof of it every time you hit send.
Get used to it. He is not alone.
On the good side, neither are you :-)
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 21:28:09
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
In article <1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
veg_all@yahoo.com writes:
> Pat wrote:
>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>
> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
> ok, then it is 'right'.
So you have this wrong-headed, firm belief that cyclists have no
right to be on the road, despite what the Law says. Okay. Now
we know where we stand.
> There are three ways to understand law:
Sure, Judge Veg, Your Worship.
By extension you could also rationalize that because the law
says it is /wrong/, doesn't necessarily mean it's not ok --
like you, creating a disturbance/disturbing the peace with
your unnecessary horn-honking.
I guess the Law is only right when it's in your favour.
And when it isn't, it's a ass.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 20:41:22
From:
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Pat wrote:
> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
It seems the cycling nazis fall mostly into the most primitive
category 1 type of citizens. I.e, because the law says so then it is
correct in every gazillion situation. The absurdity of this can be
seen by looking at how quickly bike laws differ from state to state.
I dont see anything different about the roads and drivers between
most states, so why should the laws be different? So if you are the
type who blindly follows laws then you will be totally unprepared for
handling unique situations.
It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum . He has
obviously internalized the meanings of the laws and knows in what
situations it is correct to obey/disobey him. He is someone who would
have no problem cycling in any state because he understands how to
apply experience and common sense to bike in any situation.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2007 21:57:35
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
veg_all@yahoo.com wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>
> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
>
> 1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
> 2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
> 3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
> when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
>
> It seems the cycling nazis fall mostly into the most primitive
> category 1 type of citizens. I.e, because the law says so then it is
> correct in every gazillion situation. The absurdity of this can be
> seen by looking at how quickly bike laws differ from state to state.
> I dont see anything different about the roads and drivers between
> most states, so why should the laws be different? So if you are the
> type who blindly follows laws then you will be totally unprepared for
> handling unique situations.
>
> It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum . He has
> obviously internalized the meanings of the laws and knows in what
> situations it is correct to obey/disobey him. He is someone who would
> have no problem cycling in any state because he understands how to
> apply experience and common sense to bike in any situation.
>
If you mean I am still alive and bending the law for my own safety, that
I understand. Today I went for a 4.5 hour ride and followed all laws
since the semi plague seems to have taken the day off. I did have some
good interactions with car drivers today, maybe because there was no
hurry and none of those damned double dump semis.
Some people just don't get it and will damn and double damn me for not
living by their standards.
I seem to be the odd duck on this group for defensive riding.
Happys to yah.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2007 21:50:48
From: Zen Cohen
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
<veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Pat wrote:
>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>
> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
[blather]
Wow, now you're trying to rationalize your childish antics by giving a
pseudo-intellectual analysis of the law. You're a self-righteous, ignorant
twit, and you give more proof of it every time you hit send.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 May 2007 22:09:06
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Zen Cohen wrote:
> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
>> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
> [blather]
>
> Wow, now you're trying to rationalize your childish antics by giving a
> pseudo-intellectual analysis of the law. You're a self-righteous, ignorant
> twit, and you give more proof of it every time you hit send.
>
>
>
Wow,
Another hot button issue.
Most laws are good ones all around.
Some laws are marginal and can be bent on occasion.
Some laws flat out stink.
Disclaimer;
I'm not just talking about traffic laws.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 00:12:56
From: Rich Clark
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
<veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Pat wrote:
>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>
> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
>
> 1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
> 2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
> 3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
> when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.
4) Obey laws because they are the thin line between order and anarchy.
In the end, Veggie, you reveal yourself to be just another "entitled" driver
who thinks the laws don't apply to him because he's so special. When you sit
there in a traffic jam with all the other caged animals, because some other
special person up ahead was too special to stop at a red light and got
t-boned, or was too special to find a parking space and is blocking an
entire lane while he runs in to get his dry-cleaning, think about how
special you are now. Meanwhile, the guy on the bike is home by now.
Here's an exercise for the simple-minded: make a list, and every time you
get stopped in traffic for more than two minutes, add the cause to the list.
Pretty soon you'll get tired of makin a list that consists entirely of
traffic jams caused by TOO MANY CARS, with not a single one caused by a
cyclist anywhere on there.
So be as self righteous as like. You won't fix your problem as long as you
and everybody like you keeps driving, and if every cyclist on the planet
stopped riding their bikes, your problem would just get that much worse.
Any way you look at it, your position is self-defeating.
R
|
| | | |
Date: 05 May 2007 22:05:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Rich Clark wrote:
> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1178422882.046336.177770@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>>> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>> I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
>> ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:
>>
>> 1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
>> 2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
>> 3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
>> when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply
>
> YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.
>
> 4) Obey laws because they are the thin line between order and anarchy.
What's this anarchy shit? Some traffic laws are written really bad by
legislators who 'think' they know what to do.
Politicians write the laws and us mere mortals are supposed to follow
them, good, bad, or just plain wrong.
>
> In the end, Veggie, you reveal yourself to be just another "entitled" driver
> who thinks the laws don't apply to him because he's so special. When you sit
> there in a traffic jam with all the other caged animals, because some other
> special person up ahead was too special to stop at a red light and got
> t-boned, or was too special to find a parking space and is blocking an
> entire lane while he runs in to get his dry-cleaning, think about how
> special you are now. Meanwhile, the guy on the bike is home by now.
Home or cyclist pate on the road.
>
> Here's an exercise for the simple-minded: make a list, and every time you
> get stopped in traffic for more than two minutes, add the cause to the list.
> Pretty soon you'll get tired of makin a list that consists entirely of
> traffic jams caused by TOO MANY CARS, with not a single one caused by a
> cyclist anywhere on there.
Welcome to modern life. For the simple minded, more people every year is
going to mean more cars and more traffic jams. When you find a way to
stop the over-population that is the root cause hurry up and call Bush.
I'm sure Mr. president will appoint you to a cushy study position.
>
> So be as self righteous as like. You won't fix your problem as long as you
> and everybody like you keeps driving, and if every cyclist on the planet
> stopped riding their bikes, your problem would just get that much worse.
>
> Any way you look at it, your position is self-defeating.
Life is self defeating. Has anybody won the game of life and been
granted not ever getting old? After a few hundred years living in this
mess might get old.
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 16:40:33
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
On May 5, 2:11 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
> > "justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
> > victim. You aren't.
>
> > To recoup:
> > The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>
> And is required "By law" to move off the road if more than 5 vehicles
> are piled up behind them, just like in a car.
If it may endanger the cyclist? BTW what law are you talking about.
This is an international forum. Traffic laws in Canada may not match
traffic laws in the USA or South Africa. I have never seen the 5
vehicle law in the ON or QC codes
> The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.
>
> No, but it is a better option than pissing off dozens or hundreds of
> motorists each day.
Why? They are already pissed off because they're in an automotive
traffic jam.
> You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than
> > you preferred.
>
> Correct, as long as it was only for a block or two, then it gets old in
> a hurry.
So who cares? I try to be very courtious to motor vehicles but I
don't see any reason to be subservent and go around saying "Yes massa,
yes massa" just because I delaly a motorist for a few moments because
I feel my safety is in jeprody.
> You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it
> > shows.
>
> Could have been running late to work, that shows too, with the boss.> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>
> Tell that to the line of cars behind a cyclist on a 45 MPH road.
I have :) Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. You may have missed the point that
the cyclist caught up to the OP at the next red light.
> Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.
>
> A quick toot from far behind is better than nothing. A long blast close
> up is cause for confrontation.
You're right in that a short "I;m here " toot is not all that bad but
since 99.9% of cyclists already know that even if the idiot driver
does not the toot is still startling and may be misintepreted
> Cars don't have "Ding, ding" cycle bells.
They are normally more than noisey enough. A horn is all to easily
seen as a threat. Most cars in my expereince don't honk when they
approach another motor vehicle.
> You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in
> > the lane.
>
> It has already been mentioned that it was rush hour and the left lane
> was full of cars, probably caused by that cyclist who obnoxiously took
> the lane and caused a traffic jam behind him.
Bull shit and you know it.
> You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a
> > vehicle.
>
> A damn slow vehicle compared to a car.
Some times.
> It does not matter what time of day this occurs.
> Mostly true.
>
> > I hope I haven't left anything out.
>
> I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that blew a head
> gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to bikes too.
>
> > Pat in TX
>
> Bill wrote,
> Pat,
> Quit trying to be a cycling Nazi.
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 04:17:36
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
John Kane wrote:
> On May 5, 2:11 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>>> You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
>>> "justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
>>> victim. You aren't.
>>> To recoup:
>>> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
>> And is required "By law" to move off the road if more than 5 vehicles
>> are piled up behind them, just like in a car.
> If it may endanger the cyclist? BTW what law are you talking about.
> This is an international forum. Traffic laws in Canada may not match
> traffic laws in the USA or South Africa. I have never seen the 5
> vehicle law in the ON or QC codes
USA, California.
>
>> The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.
>>
>> No, but it is a better option than pissing off dozens or hundreds of
>> motorists each day.
> Why? They are already pissed off because they're in an automotive
> traffic jam.
Yeah, and if you get enough of them pissed to be honking at the lead
driver because they don't see you, he might try to pass or maybe rear
end you. He would probably get off and the other motorists cheering him.
Ride to stay healthy, not piss off as many motorists as possible.
I rode today on a country road, legal side even, close to the stripe,
and got a few beeps for warning, and even a few waves and beeps from
traffic on the other side. Have a good attitude and not a me versus them
train of thought and it can be quite nice.
BTW, I got passed by a hybrid of some sort today, and didn't hear it
coming behind me. They are too quiet.
Also Harleys passing you can blast your ears. They apparently don't like
us slow bicycle riders.
>
>> You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than
>>> you preferred.
>> Correct, as long as it was only for a block or two, then it gets old in
>> a hurry.
>
> So who cares? I try to be very courtious to motor vehicles but I
> don't see any reason to be subservent and go around saying "Yes massa,
> yes massa" just because I delaly a motorist for a few moments because
> I feel my safety is in jeprody.
As someone just said above, after a block or two it gets old, and
holding someone up for more than that is being an asshole. That just
means the car driver won't give you more respect, but contempt.
>
>> You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it
>>> shows.
>> Could have been running late to work, that shows too, with the boss.> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
>>
>> Tell that to the line of cars behind a cyclist on a 45 MPH road.
> I have :) Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
> stopped cars on the 45 mph road. You may have missed the point that
> the cyclist caught up to the OP at the next red light.
>
>> Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.
>>
>> A quick toot from far behind is better than nothing. A long blast close
>> up is cause for confrontation.
>
> You're right in that a short "I;m here " toot is not all that bad but
> since 99.9% of cyclists already know that even if the idiot driver
> does not the toot is still startling and may be misintepreted
I actually got the toot..toot from a few hundred yards behind twice
today and they both crossed over a double yellow line to pass me. That
is a no pass sign here in California and a trooper might see it as an
excuse for a ticket. An oncoming car, other lane, laid on the horn for
about 15 seconds until he was past. OK, horn works, but driver may not.
>
>> Cars don't have "Ding, ding" cycle bells.
> They are normally more than noisey enough. A horn is all to easily
> seen as a threat. Most cars in my expereince don't honk when they
> approach another motor vehicle.
>
>> You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in
>>> the lane.
>> It has already been mentioned that it was rush hour and the left lane
>> was full of cars, probably caused by that cyclist who obnoxiously took
>> the lane and caused a traffic jam behind him.
> Bull shit and you know it.
We need a picture.
>
>> You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a
>>> vehicle.
>> A damn slow vehicle compared to a car.
> Some times.
>
>> It does not matter what time of day this occurs.
>> Mostly true.
>>
>>> I hope I haven't left anything out.
>> I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that blew a head
>> gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to bikes too.
>>
>>> Pat in TX
>> Bill wrote,
>> Pat,
>> Quit trying to be a cycling Nazi.
>
>
Another never ending debate.
At least it was a nice riding day today.
Sigh, again.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 03:08:07
From: nash
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. You may have missed the point that
the cyclist caught up to the OP at the next red light.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
1. If it is rush hour it may not be 45mph traffic.
2. They ought to slow down and save gas and the air.
3. Drivers cut me off constantly and they purposefully act like they
do not see me coming and all they are going to do is sit in traffic anyway.
That is why I would rather be on my own, going alot faster, than with them
hanging
over my head all the way stinking up the highway and the scenery with their
ugly faces.
Albeit residential has its own dangers I am talking larger parallel
arterials but with less traffic.
the 80 ton double trailer semi that almost mowed be down twice had to sit in
traffic behind another 30 cars turning left. He said I was in his way.
Whoosh.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 15:52:30
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"nash" wrote: Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm going to jump to the other (unpopular)side of the argument now. I can
picture the road with both lanes filled with stopped cars. Where do you
ride while you are passing them? Not the shoulder, surely--we have already
established that that would be unsafe. Or, are you trying to have it both
ways?
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 16:20:32
From: nash
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:2Rm%h.426055$5j1.392153@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "nash" wrote: Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
> stopped cars on the 45 mph road. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm going to jump to the other (unpopular)side of the argument now. I can
> picture the road with both lanes filled with stopped cars. Where do you
> ride while you are passing them? Not the shoulder, surely--we have
> already established that that would be unsafe. Or, are you trying to have
> it both ways?
If I said that I am not sure but I would mean the space they are suppose to
leave you between them and the curb. When they are slow you can predict
they are not going to cut you off every 10 seconds so the ride is perfect.
You can also get to the left turn lane easier. They cannot pretend they do
not see you or that my speed angle made them shit themselves.
Taking the lane is something I do sometimes where there is a sign saying
pedestrians and bicycles crossing adjacent to the cross Surrey 8 foot wide
trail. Cars ignore that and when I am in a hurry that is what I will do
since I can wait 4 lights before I get across.
Going to the intersection is an option buy why should I when the sign says
people like me will be crossing there. What will they say to the cop when
they hit me?
Anyway, I hope that helps.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 03:27:30
From: nash
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
> the 80 ton double trailer semi that almost mowed be down twice had to sit
> in traffic behind another 30 cars turning left. He said I was in his
> way. Whoosh.
>
I think he needed a gun pointed to his head to feel what it was like with a
couple rounds aimed over his bow. He should damn well go the jail for
threatening my life also.
Why do drivers get away with that. That is not how things are done
democratically.
No one likes getting taught a lesson. Nobody learns like that on the road.
Go to your mla and cry for wider streets for the bikers so you can drive
your 80 ton semi whatevers where you please. Donot go driving like a maniac
like so many do.
If a train was headed for a person down the track, they could not hear you
and you could not warn them, and you could stop it from hitting them by
jumping in front of the train yourself would you?
Well, scaring me off the street where I have never ridden before BTW, is not
going to solve the probem which is the mismanagement of traffic by the
gov'ts.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 04:29:01
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
nash wrote:
>> the 80 ton double trailer semi that almost mowed be down twice had to sit
>> in traffic behind another 30 cars turning left. He said I was in his
>> way. Whoosh.
80 tons in the US is about double the limit. Here it is more like
80,000 pounds for everything. 80 tons is an oversize load and requires
warning cars to accompany them.
>>
> I think he needed a gun pointed to his head to feel what it was like with a
> couple rounds aimed over his bow. He should damn well go the jail for
> threatening my life also.
> Why do drivers get away with that. That is not how things are done
> democratically.
Driving is Democratic?
> No one likes getting taught a lesson. Nobody learns like that on the road.
> Go to your mla and cry for wider streets for the bikers so you can drive
> your 80 ton semi whatevers where you please. Donot go driving like a maniac
> like so many do.
We had an 80 ton semi overturn here in California just south of
Sacramento, and it was an oversize load with a warning car. The driver
was "not paying attention" (CHP conclusion) and went off the right side
of the road. He then tried to correct this and lost it and overturned.
About 500 gallons of brake fluid was leaked onto the road.
Would have been better to use 2 semis, or a better driver.
Shit happens.
> If a train was headed for a person down the track, they could not hear you
> and you could not warn them, and you could stop it from hitting them by
> jumping in front of the train yourself would you?
Some body with an I-pod or cell phone got Darwined out here a few months
back. Body slam to get him out of the way I would consider, but not
sacrifice myself for him.
> Well, scaring me off the street where I have never ridden before BTW, is not
> going to solve the probem which is the mismanagement of traffic by the
> gov'ts.
Nobody here will argue about that, ever.
Bill Baka
>
>
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 18:11:12
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Pat wrote:
> You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
> "justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
> victim. You aren't.
>
> To recoup:
> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
And is required "By law" to move off the road if more than 5 vehicles
are piled up behind them, just like in a car.
> The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.
No, but it is a better option than pissing off dozens or hundreds of
motorists each day.
> You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than
> you preferred.
Correct, as long as it was only for a block or two, then it gets old in
a hurry.
> You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it
> shows.
Could have been running late to work, that shows too, with the boss.
> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
Tell that to the line of cars behind a cyclist on a 45 MPH road.
> Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.
A quick toot from far behind is better than nothing. A long blast close
up is cause for confrontation. Cars don't have "Ding, ding" cycle bells.
> You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in
> the lane.
It has already been mentioned that it was rush hour and the left lane
was full of cars, probably caused by that cyclist who obnoxiously took
the lane and caused a traffic jam behind him.
> You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a
> vehicle.
A damn slow vehicle compared to a car.
> It does not matter what time of day this occurs.
Mostly true.
>
> I hope I haven't left anything out.
I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that blew a head
gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to bikes too.
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
Bill wrote,
Pat,
Quit trying to be a cycling Nazi.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2007 19:40:39
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
"Bill" wrote: I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that
blew a head gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to
bikes too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll remember that the next time my bike blows a head gasket.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2007 03:58:19
From: Bill
Subject: Re: To veg_all@yahoo.com
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bill" wrote: I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that
> blew a head gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to
> bikes too.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'll remember that the next time my bike blows a head gasket.
>
>
Wow,
Must be some kinda cool bike.
Bill
|
|
