Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
the road.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

Thanks-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Mike Nelson[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
> the road.

These street markings are not "bike lanes".
They are only fog lines that resemble the
inside line of a bike lane. Redwood City
does have marked bike lanes, but most of them
are sub-standard: too narrow and in the "door
zone" of parked cars.

One minor improvement was made to the repaved
section of Alameda de las Pulgas in Redwood City
between Jefferson Avenue and Massachusetts Avenue,
where the traffic lanes and the center left turn
lane were narrowed slightly to widen the bike lane.
However, the bike lane is still largely in the door
zone.

> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

Yes, the San Mateo County Committee of the SVBC,
formerly known as the Peninsula Bicycle and
Pedestrian Coalition, has dealt with obstructions
in the road where bicyclists ride with limited
success. The county placed some posts on the
fog line of Alameda de las Pulgas at Camino a los
Cerros to prevent motorists from turning right at
high speed past the blind driveway of the corner
resident. After much negotiation, involving the
intercession of a County Supervisor, the posts
were removed and a raised curb was located to the
right of the usual path of bicyclists with a
forest of reflective signs within the curbed area
to warn cyclists to bear left.

We have not had any success getting Caltrans to
remove the posts on Skyline Boulevard (CA-35) at
Westmoor Avenue (not sure if this is the right
intersection) in Daly City.

[Rex Kerr]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

You could do what the director of the Chico Velo cycling club did
recently and crash and seriously injure yourself on a hazard the day
after pushing the county to remove it.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=610676
http://www.chicovelo.org/ed.html

The irony in this case is really painful. I really hope that he
recovers quickly and is able to ride again!!



>>-------------------------------------------------------<<
>> From the Chico N&R Story <<
>>-------------------------------------------------------<<
It's particularly ironic because McLaughlin pushed to get
Butte County to remove such obstacles from the Midway path
to Durham, and had talked about the Bidwell Park bollards
just one day earlier.

Now something is being done about them.
>>-------------------------------------------------------<<

[Paul M. Hobson]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity

> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>
> Thanks-

Several major Atlanta bike routes have fallen victim to so called
traffic calming in the past two years. Ours, unfortunately, are full-on
concrete creations in similar shape that turn a traffic lane into a
parking lane. They ain't goin' no whar.

\\paul

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:15:00 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> wrote:
>McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
>and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
>while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
>better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
>the road.
>
>Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>
>http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>
>Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
>thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
>have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
>solution.
>
>Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
>into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
>there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

I'd try something like writing a letter to the city attorney, copies
to the mayor and councilmen, warning that this creates a hazard, is
likely to cause injury, and creates liability to the city. You might
want to further state that this letter notices the city of the hazard,
and increases their liability accordingly. Mail the thing return
receipt requested, and keep a copy.

I hear there's lawyers in California? Fear of lawyers sometimes works
in your favor...

:)

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
> the road.
>
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>
> Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
> thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
> have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
> solution.
>
> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>
For removal see:
<http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg>.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[CJ]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> superior rights to cyclists.
>
Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Cliff

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> > Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> > City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
> > the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
> > there might be bikes on the road.
> >
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.

Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.

Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

CJ who? wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>>
> Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
> and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
> improve.
>
Wrong on both counts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
>>> the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
>>> there might be bikes on the road.
>>>
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
> distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
> latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
> city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
> lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
> bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
> standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
>
> Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
> riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
> and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
> written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
> bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
> your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
> design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
>
> Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
> across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
> It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
> do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
> under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
> drivers don't belong on the road).
>
I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion we
had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with a
Google search.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> >>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> >>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
> >>> the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
> >>> there might be bikes on the road.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
> >> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
> > Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
> > distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
> > latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
> > city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
> > lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
> > bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
> > standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
> > Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
> > riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
> > and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
> > written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
> > bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
> > your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
> > design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
> > Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
> > turning
> > across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
> > It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
> > do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
> > under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
> > drivers don't belong on the road).
> >
> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
> a Google search.

The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
>> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
>> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
>> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
>> on the road.
>>
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way it
does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
>> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
>> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
>> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
>> on the road.
>>
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> superior rights to cyclists.
>
>> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>>
>> Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
>> thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
>> have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
>> solution.
>>
>> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
>> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
>> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>>
> For removal see:
> <http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg>.
>
> [1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>
> I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> their best interest to do so.


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
"belong."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
t...
>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
>>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
>>> might be bikes on the road.
>>>
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>
> I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> their best interest to do so.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
>>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
>>> might be bikes on the road.
>>>
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>>
>>> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>>> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>>> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>>>
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>>>
>>> Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
>>> thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now
>>> they have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
>>> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
>>> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>>>
>> For removal see:
>> <http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg>.
>>
>> [1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
>> - A. Derleth
>
>

[landotter]

On Jan 31, 8:12 pm, Rex Kerr > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> > into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> > there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>
> You could do what the director of the Chico Velo cycling club did
> recently and crash and seriously injure yourself on a hazard the day
> after pushing the county to remove it.
>
> http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=610676http://www.chicovelo.org/ed.html
>
> The irony in this case is really painful. I really hope that he
> recovers quickly and is able to ride again!!
>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------<<
> >> From the Chico N&R Story <<
> >>-------------------------------------------------------<<
> It's particularly ironic because McLaughlin pushed to get
> Butte County to remove such obstacles from the Midway path
> to Durham, and had talked about the Bidwell Park bollards
> just one day earlier.
>
> Now something is being done about them.


A bike path is no place for a peloton. No one to blame but the cyclist
in his case. Hope he recovers and learns his lesson.

[Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604]

I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
that's where cyclists should be.

I understand the attractions of them, but....

73, doug

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > writes:

> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> >> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
> >>
> >> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> >> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> >> superior rights to cyclists.
> >
> > I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> > anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> > it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> > roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> > unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> > their best interest to do so.
>
>
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.
>
> Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
> Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
> want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
> safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
> by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
> not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
> first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
> somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
> for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
> All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
> lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
> "belong."
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
> t...
> >>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> >>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> >>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
> >>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
> >>> might be bikes on the road.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> >> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
> >>
> >> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> >> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> >> superior rights to cyclists.
> >
> > I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> > anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> > it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> > roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> > unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> > their best interest to do so.
> >
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >
> >
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> >>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> >>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
> >>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
> >>> might be bikes on the road.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> >> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

[Diablo Scott]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity

I've been involved in neighborhood traffic calming in my California city
and can perhaps lend some insight into how this happens.

Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input other than
someone complaining about speed; the city verifies that the complaint is
valid and they add whatever measures seem appropriate - stop signs,
speed limit signs, "please don't use our neighborhood as a shortcut"
signs, etc.

Level 2 traffic calming includes physical restraints to vehicles such as
street narrowing, rumble strips, and speed humps. Street narrowing is
supposed to be landscaped, designed structures that make it difficult
for cars to drive too fast. Speed humps generally are designed to be
minimally inconvenient at speeds less than 30 mph or so.

Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood residents form
a committee that works with the city to develop some kind of plan as to
what measures will be taken and who will pay for them; then a majority
of the residents affected must vote to approve the plan. At this point a
few neighbors who don't want the speed humps start to leaflet the
residents about how evil the humps are; citing reduced housing values,
increased emergency vehicle response time, cost, noise, and inefficacy.
The other neighbors then investigate other Level 2 measures such as
street narrowing. Since street narrowing is usually the most expensive
option, the residents may opt to have a temporary trial of such measures
to see if they're effective before making them permanent.

What I see in your photos appears to be a temporary form of street
narrowing and I'd guess their hope is to have landscaped areas, raised
medians, or pedestrian islands eventually in their place.

[[email protected]]

Mike,
Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
Is that really a big problem there?
Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the
obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire-
liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do
as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of
thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government'
would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life
better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged
'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this.

Holy ****sky, comrade, wha' hoppened to the revolution?
ABS

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> >
>
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Of course, we've discussed this before. But:

Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

Are cyclists required to use them? Perhaps not legally, at least in
certain places. But most motorists and bicyclists seem to _think_
bicyclists are required to use them. IOW, you can prove the
requirement doesn't exist once you get to court; but as a day to day
matter, you're expected to not leave the lane.

Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
turns, especially by novices.

Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
are painted. Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't
belong on unstriped roads.

And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
ride here."

If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
seem a lot more benign.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Z.]

writes:

> On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> > to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> > rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> > "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> > Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> > they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> > are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> > framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> > it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.
>
> Of course, we've discussed this before. But:
>
> Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter.
>
> Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
> they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
> worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
> obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
> etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

The bike lanes in the town I live in get regular maintenance and are
clear of debris. The current design standards in our state provide
sufficient clearance to get by parked cars safely.

>
> Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
> safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
> driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
> turns, especially by novices.

Bike lanes have no impact on left turns - the novices who start a left
turn from near a curb would do that regardless, and with a properly
designed bike lane, the adjacent traffic lane would be roughly 12 feet
(maybe a bit less) in width. If you stay two feet inside the bike
lane, that puts you 14 feet from lane stripe on the left side of the
adjecent lane. Curiously, this is where John Forrester claims you
should be riding given a wide outside lane - about 14 feet from the
lane stripe so that cars can pass you easily, and close enough to
the stream of traffic that drivers will be leary of just shooting
out in front of you without looking. Your safety is not going to
decrease measurably simply because there was a bike lane stripe
when you end up riding along the same path you'd follow with no
stripe.

> Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
> Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
> are painted.

Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
weave around cars spread out all across the lane.

> Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't belong on
> unstriped roads.

You mean like HOV lanes tell motorists that buses and cars with more
than one passengers don't belong on unstriped roads? Get real - what
Krygowski claims bike lanes "tell" motorists is just mindless rhetoric.

>
> And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
> absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
> conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

.... which you don't get when you have decent design standards, and
when your vehicle code allows you to ignore bike lanes that ignore
the standards.

> ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
> outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
> useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
> somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
> ride here."

Nope. Look at the design standards for bike lanes versus shoulder
stripes and see which has the better treatment at intersections.
>
> If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
> seem a lot more benign.

Why not use both, picking which one is appropriate depending on the
situation? BTW, at least in California, sharrows can only be used
in specific situations. You can't put them anywhere you like.

Also, our town recently removed two old bike lanes that were substandard
according the latest design standards (but not substandard when they were
installed) and those are going to be replaced with sharrows. In one case,
there will be a sharrow in one direction and a bike lane in the other
(6 feet wide with no parking allowed). The one removed was in the
direction where parking was allowed.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Mike,
> Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
> obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
> ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
> area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
> to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
> thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
> Is that really a big problem there?

They have studies that show such things slow down traffic by a whopping 4%
(so why bother?).

> Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the
> obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire-
> liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do
> as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of
> thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government'
> would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life
> better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged
> 'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this.

Pretty crazy to encourage people to ride in the gutter, with barriers on
each side.

In the end, I'm realizing that I might have missed an opportunity here. It's
quite likely they could have achieved their "traffic calming" goals by
making the road more friendly towards bikes. After all, isn't the usual dig
about bikes that we get in the way of cars? Why not turn that to an
advantage in something like this? Why not deliberately engineer a road that
favors bikes, at the expense of cars? Then the residents get what they want
(less traffic, and lower speeds) and we get a safe road to ride. Essentially
turn a win-lose-lose into a win-win-lose (residents/bikes/cars).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 2:28*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

> Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
> you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
> simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
> weave around cars spread out all across the lane.

Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely
obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the
'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance,
also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike
lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as
'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue.

And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it
ALL?

Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL
RUNS OUT!
Used to be you could count on the goodwill of strangers in our
country, but now...don't forget what happened to Blanche DuBois.

ABS

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
>>>>> the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
>>>>> there might be bikes on the road.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>>>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>> Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
>>> distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
>>> latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
>>> city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
>>> lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
>>> bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
>>> standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
>>> Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
>>> riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
>>> and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
>>> written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
>>> bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
>>> your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
>>> design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
>>> Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
>>> turning
>>> across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
>>> It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
>>> do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
>>> under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
>>> drivers don't belong on the road).
>>>
>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>> a Google search.
>
> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>
We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.

> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>
> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
> any of the following situations:
> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> private road or driveway.
> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
> debris or other hazardous conditions.
> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
> affected by the movement.
>
> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
> Highways Code.
>
> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>
[Yawn]

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly makes
a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of us live
in California!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> ...
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option....
>
What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving
cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation
during the license suspension period.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
>
> Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
> were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
> that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
> sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
> that's where cyclists should be.
>
> I understand the attractions of them, but....
>
I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
"bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".

People of that type should have their motor vehicle license revoked for
at least 5 years.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> ...
> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> engineering matter....
>
Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant difference
- motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes literally),
but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own space.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

wrote:
> Mike,
> Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
> obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
> ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
> area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
> to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
> thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
> Is that really a big problem there?...
>
In da 'hood, passing on the right in the "bicycle/bus" lane is common
practice, often done at 20-30 mph over the speed limit. So is pulling up
in the right turn lane and going straight before the light changes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> ...
>> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead
>> people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should
>> have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that
>> "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not required
>> that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good
>> thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both motorists and
>> potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the transportation
>> network. But it must be done within a framework that says bikes aren't
>> *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must be an option. And
>> hopefully, a desirable option....
> >
> What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving
> cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation
> during the license suspension period.
>

I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead
>>> people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should
>>> have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that
>>> "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not
>>> required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my
>>> opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both
>>> motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the
>>> transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that
>>> says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must
>>> be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option....
>> >
>> What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly
>> behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for
>> transportation during the license suspension period.
>>
>
> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
> in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.
>
Around here, many do not have licenses - generally they run from the
police, ditch the unlicensed and/or stolen car, and try to escape on
foot. They are not to blame, since they are what the system wants them
to be, a permanent underclass.

> Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
> is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
> trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
> around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
> their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
> a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
> watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."
>
Yet another undesirable group in Florida?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[CJ]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> > I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> > some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> > to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
> >
> > Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
> > were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
> > that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
> > sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
> > that's where cyclists should be.
> >
> > I understand the attractions of them, but....
> >
> I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
> "bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".
>
MMMOOOOOOMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY

The big kids are pickin' on me again.

Cliff

[Bill Z.]

writes:

> On Feb 1, 2:28Â*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
> > you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
> > simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
> > weave around cars spread out all across the lane.
>
> Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely
> obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the
> 'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance,
> also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike
> lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as
> 'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue.

Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.

It's better for you if they merge into a bike lane before turning
across it - at least you won't be cut off.
>
> And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it
> ALL?

Sharrows are used to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a bicycle
and car to procede side-by-side. They are a good idea, just like
those symbols they put on the road when two lanes merge.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

CJ (who?) anonymously snipes:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
>>> I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
>>> some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
>>> to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
>>>
>>> Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
>>> were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
>>> that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
>>> sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
>>> that's where cyclists should be.
>>>
>>> I understand the attractions of them, but....
>>>
>> I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
>> "bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".
>>
> MMMOOOOOOMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY
>
> The big kids are pickin' on me again.
>
Catch the cagers outside their vehicles and they stop being so tough.
Wonder why? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
> >> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
> >> a Google search.
> > The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >
> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
> (pun intended) by emotion.

Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>
> > As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
> > <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
> > and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
> > 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
> > roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
> > upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
> > moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
> > bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
> > any of the following situations:
> > (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
> > pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
> > overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
> > (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> > private road or driveway.
> > (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
> > debris or other hazardous conditions.
> > (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> > (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
> > the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
> > giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
> > (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
> > affected by the movement.
> > 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
> > establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
> > from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
> > defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
> > highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
> > 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
> > (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
> > constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
> > Highways Code.
> > Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
> > standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
> > that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
> > requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
> >
> [Yawn]

[Facts appear to bore him]

> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
> us live in California!!!

I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > ...
> > LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> > use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> > install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> > engineering matter....
> >
> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
> space.

Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
vehicle's mass.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 12:07 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
> a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
> lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
> in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
> drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.

And in a related fantasy, when enough drivers get speeding tickets,
all drivers will obey the speed limits.

Just before hell freezes over, that is.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Z.]

writes:

> On Feb 2, 12:07 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
> > a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
> > lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
> > in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
> > drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.
>
> And in a related fantasy, when enough drivers get speeding tickets,
> all drivers will obey the speed limits.

.... which is why the cameras used to catch red light runners in
San Francisco are reducing the number of people running red lights?

The "problem" being discussed, of course, was not a few drivers
violating the law but enough to cause a long queue of stopped
cars in the bike lane. It's pretty easy to get these guys.
You just stop the lot of them and process them one by one. With
all the grid lock, it is not like they are going to get away.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Diablo Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>
> I've been involved in neighborhood traffic calming in my California city
> and can perhaps lend some insight into how this happens.
>
> Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input other than
> someone complaining about speed; the city verifies that the complaint is
> valid and they add whatever measures seem appropriate - stop signs, speed
> limit signs, "please don't use our neighborhood as a shortcut" signs, etc.
>
> Level 2 traffic calming includes physical restraints to vehicles such as
> street narrowing, rumble strips, and speed humps. Street narrowing is
> supposed to be landscaped, designed structures that make it difficult for
> cars to drive too fast. Speed humps generally are designed to be
> minimally inconvenient at speeds less than 30 mph or so.
>
> Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood residents form a
> committee that works with the city to develop some kind of plan as to what
> measures will be taken and who will pay for them; then a majority of the
> residents affected must vote to approve the plan. At this point a few
> neighbors who don't want the speed humps start to leaflet the residents
> about how evil the humps are; citing reduced housing values, increased
> emergency vehicle response time, cost, noise, and inefficacy. The other
> neighbors then investigate other Level 2 measures such as street
> narrowing. Since street narrowing is usually the most expensive option,
> the residents may opt to have a temporary trial of such measures to see if
> they're effective before making them permanent.
>
> What I see in your photos appears to be a temporary form of street
> narrowing and I'd guess their hope is to have landscaped areas, raised
> medians, or pedestrian islands eventually in their place.

You describe the situations almost perfectly. The City Manager sent me a
document that detailed the entire process, from initial complaints through
meetings through surveys and votes and then finally this. And you're right,
this is an experiment to see it if will work. Our hope is to dramatically
shorten the length of that experiment.

I can see where putting some mild twists in the road might make sense; If
you got rid of some parking (residents would LOVE that!) you could build
islands and still give a straight, wide alternative route for cyclists. My
guess is that cyclists would use the normal roadway downhill, and the
straighter path (bypassing the islands) uphill.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>> us live in California!!!
>
> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
> is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
> pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
> traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.

It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> > Tom Sherman > writes:
>> >
>> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>> >> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>> >> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>> >> a Google search.
>> > The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>> >
>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
>> (pun intended) by emotion.
>
> Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
> recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>>
>> > As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
>> > <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
>> > and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>> > 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
>> > roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
>> > upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
>> > moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
>> > bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
>> > any of the following situations:
>> > (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
>> > pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
>> > overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
>> > (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>> > private road or driveway.
>> > (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
>> > debris or other hazardous conditions.
>> > (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
>> > (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
>> > the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
>> > giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
>> > (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
>> > affected by the movement.
>> > 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
>> > establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
>> > from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
>> > defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
>> > highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
>> > 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
>> > (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
>> > constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
>> > Highways Code.
>> > Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
>> > standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
>> > that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
>> > requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>> >
>> [Yawn]
>
> [Facts appear to bore him]
>
>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>> us live in California!!!
>
> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
> is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
> pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
> traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jym Dyer]

> Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input
> other than someone complaining about speed ...
> ...
> Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood
> residents form a committee ...

=v= What city is concocting these definitions? By definition,
"traffic calming" is a particular approach to road design; the
level of community involvement is another dimension entirely.

=v= Traffic calming, by definition, is all about changing the
way a street feels, so that motorists don't feel compelled to
speed. While various traffic-control devices may be employed
to this end, that's different from throwing such devices in the
way of a big wide uncalmed road that people are speeding on.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to
> a wide outside lane without the bike lane stripe ....

=v= The wide outside lane (WOL) was piloted in San Francisco.
They had two effects:

(1) Wide lane! I'll double-park my car in it!
(2) Wide lane! I'll drive my car faster!

These effects don't work very well with each other, and for
bicyclists they are pretty much a worst-case scenario.

=v= I'm not saying bike lanes are better, but WOLs have not
proven themselves to be anything but a failure.
<_Jym_>

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Eric Vey wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead
>>>> people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should
>>>> have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that
>>>> "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not
>>>> required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my
>>>> opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both
>>>> motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the
>>>> transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that
>>>> says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must
>>>> be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option....
>>> >
>>> What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly
>>> behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for
>>> transportation during the license suspension period.
>>>
>>
>> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that
>> people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving
>> anyway.
>>
> Around here, many do not have licenses - generally they run from the
> police, ditch the unlicensed and/or stolen car, and try to escape on
> foot. They are not to blame, since they are what the system wants them
> to be, a permanent underclass.

Uhmm, while we do have that going on as well, driving on a revoked or
suspended license for some people seems the be treated as an
administrative matter by the statutes and the courts. After 5
consecutive citations, in I think it is 5 years, it finally reaches the
level of a the most minor misdemeanor, but not much happens if miscreant
doesn't show up for arraignment, just more fines and fees that will go
unpaid.

While I'm sure that some people lose their license because they didn't
pay the $12.50 required every 4 years, most lose it because of points
and that usually indicates poor driving habits.

As I said, eventually they kill someone, often by driving in a reckless
manner.

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

CJ schrieb:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>>
> Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road.

No, they don't.

> Only when bicycles
> and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
> improve.

Taxes paid for motor vehicles do not compensate for the external damages
done by them.

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:
>>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>>
>>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>>> superior rights to cyclists.
>> I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
>> anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
>> it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
>> roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
>> unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
>> their best interest to do so.
>
>
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network.

Lanes for blue cabriolets are a good thing, because they signal to
people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that blue cabriolets are
a part of the transportation network.

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 schrieb:
> I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

What the hell is an "automobile traffic lane"?

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

schrieb:

> Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL
> RUNS OUT!

Oh, the energy industry and others are already working on replacements,
so that "we" never have to change our automobile way of life ...

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

Bill Z. schrieb:
>
> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
> vehicle's mass.

And under California street law?

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

vey schrieb:

>
> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
> in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Like Paris Hilton, and then they go to jail ...

> Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
> is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
> trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
> around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
> their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
> a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
> watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."
>


They watch them? While their license is still suspended? Is it not the
police's task in US states to prevent dangers to public safety?

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jens Müller wrote:
> vey schrieb:
>
>>
>> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that
>> people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving
>> anyway.
>
> Like Paris Hilton, and then they go to jail ...
>
>> Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then
>> there is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against
>> them. I'm trying to determine why both of these things are true, but
>> ask any cop around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they
>> start rolling their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at
>> least 20 people a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended
>> license and then watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."
>>
>
>
> They watch them? While their license is still suspended? Is it not the
> police's task in US states to prevent dangers to public safety?
>
The primary function of the police in the US is to protect the property
of those who are better off. This goes back to the country's founding by
privileged white men who sought to protect that privilege.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>>>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>>>> a Google search.
>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>>>
>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
>> (pun intended) by emotion.
>
> Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
> recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>
That possibility does exist.

>>> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
>>> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
>>> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>>> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
>>> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
>>> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
>>> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
>>> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
>>> any of the following situations:
>>> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
>>> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
>>> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
>>> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>>> private road or driveway.
>>> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
>>> debris or other hazardous conditions.
>>> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
>>> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
>>> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
>>> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
>>> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
>>> affected by the movement.
>>> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
>>> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
>>> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
>>> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
>>> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
>>> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
>>> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
>>> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
>>> Highways Code.
>>> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
>>> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
>>> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
>>> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>>>
>> [Yawn]
>
> [Facts appear to bore him]
>
I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
California, but it does happen).

>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>> us live in California!!!
>
> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
> is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
> pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
> traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.
>
Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
>>> engineering matter....
>> >
>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
>> space.
>
> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
> vehicle's mass.
>
The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on the
cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is small and
the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire and
immediate.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604]

Jens Müller > writes:

> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 schrieb:
> > I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> > some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> > to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
>
> What the hell is an "automobile traffic lane"?

Badly put, even I unconciously accept the implicit assumptions of
society- the lane that motorists believe belongs to them.

73, doug

[Bill Z.]

Jens Müller > writes:

> Bill Z. schrieb:
> > Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> > one's
> > vehicle's mass.
>
> And under California street law?

What's that?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
> >>>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
> >>>> a Google search.
> >>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >>>
> >> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
> >> (pun intended) by emotion.
> > Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
> > recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
> >
> That possibility does exist.

So it was you as I remembered.
>
> >>> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
> >>> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
> >>> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
> >>> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
> >>> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
> >>> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
> >>> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
> >>> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
> >>> any of the following situations:
> >>> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
> >>> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
> >>> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
> >>> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> >>> private road or driveway.
> >>> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
> >>> debris or other hazardous conditions.
> >>> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> >>> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
> >>> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
> >>> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
> >>> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
> >>> affected by the movement.
> >>> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
> >>> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
> >>> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
> >>> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
> >>> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
> >>> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
> >>> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
> >>> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
> >>> Highways Code.
> >>> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
> >>> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
> >>> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
> >>> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
> >>>
> >> [Yawn]
> > [Facts appear to bore him]
> >
> I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
> California, but it does happen).

Then stay out of a discussion about traffic conditions in a small city
in California.

> >> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
> >> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
> >> us live in California!!!

> > I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
> > however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
> > on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
> > location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
> > relevant.
> >
> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.

If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> >>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> >>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> >>> engineering matter....
> >> >
> >> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
> >> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
> >> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
> >> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
> >> space.
> > Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> > one's
> > vehicle's mass.
> >
> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
>
> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> and immediate.

See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

---
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > writes:

>
> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
> Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
> newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
> interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
> Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.


I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
situations.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > writes:
>
>> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
>> Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
>> newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
>> interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
>> Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.
>
>
> I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
> previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
> a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
> think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
> situations.
>
Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
controlled access freeways).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>>>>>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>>>>>> a Google search.
>>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>>>>>
>>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
>>>> (pun intended) by emotion.
>>> Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
>>> recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>> >
>> That possibility does exist.
>
> So it was you as I remembered.
>
That response is illogical.

>>>>> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
>>>>> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
>>>>> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>>>>> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
>>>>> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
>>>>> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
>>>>> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
>>>>> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
>>>>> any of the following situations:
>>>>> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
>>>>> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
>>>>> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
>>>>> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>>>>> private road or driveway.
>>>>> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
>>>>> debris or other hazardous conditions.
>>>>> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
>>>>> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
>>>>> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
>>>>> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
>>>>> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
>>>>> affected by the movement.
>>>>> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
>>>>> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
>>>>> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
>>>>> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
>>>>> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
>>>>> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
>>>>> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
>>>>> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
>>>>> Highways Code.
>>>>> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
>>>>> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
>>>>> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
>>>>> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>>>>>
>>>> [Yawn]
>>> [Facts appear to bore him]
>>>
>> I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
>> California, but it does happen).
>
> Then stay out of a discussion about traffic conditions in a small city
> in California.
>
>>>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>>>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>>>> us live in California!!!
>
>>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
>>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
>>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
>>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
>>> relevant.
>>>
>> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
>
> If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
> subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
>
Done.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Jens Müller > writes:
>
>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>> one's
>>> vehicle's mass.
>> And under California street law?
>
> What's that?
>
Street law is what happens in real life. It is equally illegal to pull
out in front of a cyclist and a dump truck that have the right of way.
However, cagers will frequently cut off the cyclist, since there are
usually no consequences. The same cagers will not cut off the dump
truck, since it can squash them like a bug underfoot.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
>>>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
>>>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
>>>>> engineering matter....
>>>> >
>>>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
>>>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
>>>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
>>>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
>>>> space.
>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>> one's
>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>
>> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
>> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
>> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
>>
>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>> and immediate.
>
> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>
Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?

Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.

On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Dan Connelly]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
> controlled access freeways).

Look: Bike lanes no more limit bike position than car pool lanes limit the position of car poolers. Legally, ALL they do is exclude vehicles. Any misconceptions to the contrary can be dealt with in other ways.

For example, with your suggested retesting, EXCEPT let's spend $0 on the retesting, and charge the driver the cost, instead. No reason to subsidize driving even more than the obscene amount it's subsidized already.

Dan

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Dan Connelly wrote with longer than standard text wrapping:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
>> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
>> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
>> controlled access freeways).
>
> Look: Bike lanes no more limit bike position than car pool lanes limit the position of car poolers. Legally, ALL they do is exclude vehicles. Any misconceptions to the contrary can be dealt with in other ways.
>
Well, if you can educate the average cager that bicycle lanes are not
ghettos that cyclists are not supposed to leave, more power to you. I
will not be holding my breath.

> For example, with your suggested retesting, EXCEPT let's spend $0 on the retesting, and charge the driver the cost, instead. No reason to subsidize driving even more than the obscene amount it's subsidized already.
>
That is a minor point. Politically, it is not going to happen.

Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
that cyclists can be confined to.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Dan Connelly]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
> that cyclists can be confined to.

So when you unpaint the lanes, they'll invite the cyclists into their newly widened domain with open arms.

Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes. Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious. But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.

Dan

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
>> that cyclists can be confined to.
>
> So when you unpaint the lanes, they'll invite the cyclists into their newly widened domain with open arms.
>
> Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes.
>
Yes, if one is going to spend money on "cycling facilities", an extra
wide lane with "sharrows" is the way to go.

> Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious. But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.
>
I go out of my way to avoid roads with painted bicycle lanes and/or
parallel paths.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

Dan Connelly schrieb:

> Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes. Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious.

That's why German road building guidelines and administrative
regulations discourage stripes in the middle of the carriageway (to
separate bidirectional traffic) ("Leitlinien") on inner-city roads with
only one lane per direction. They are _forbidden_ in 30 km/h zones.

> But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes.

Cyclicts or "also-cyclists" ("I'm also a cyclist, sometimes." ?
[i]
> If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.

The safest would be lots of cyclists on the carriageway, i.e. the normal
lanes for vehicles.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly >
wrote:
>
> "But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible."

I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
bike lanes.

I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
idea.

I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
there are problems with separate bike lanes."

He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
"Well, understand, this is just an example..."

To a certain degree, this is a matter of education. Public ignorance
regarding an issue is a bad reason for acceding to public desires.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" > writes:
> >
> >> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not
> >> just Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the
> >> rec.bicycles.misc newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to
> >> ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of interest primarily to those in Northern
> >> California and likely familiar with Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut
> >> Tom a bit of slack.
> > I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
> > previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
> > a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
> > think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
> > situations.
> >
> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
> controlled access freeways).

The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
"mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
road".

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Jens Müller > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>> one's
> >>> vehicle's mass.
> >> And under California street law?
> > What's that?
> >
> Street law is what happens in real life.

You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

> It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
> truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
> cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
> same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
> them like a bug underfoot.

That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.

The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of way
and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> >>>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> >>>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> >>>>> engineering matter....
> >>>> >
> >>>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
> >>>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
> >>>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
> >>>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
> >>>> space.
> >>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>> one's
> >>> vehicle's mass.
> >>>
> >> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
> >> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
> >> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> >> and immediate.
> > See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> > a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
> >
> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?

Accidents can have witnesses.
>
> Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
> SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.
>
> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.

Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
bus driver was not at fault.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >>>>>
> >>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
> >>>> driven (pun intended) by emotion. > >>> Actually, you really
> >>>> had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I > >>> recall. Am
> >>>> I confusing you with someone else?
> >> >
> >> That possibility does exist.
> > So it was you as I remembered.
> >
> That response is illogical.

No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English would
refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".

> >>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
> >>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
> >>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
> >>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
> >>> relevant.
> >>>
> >> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
> > If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
> > subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
> >
> Done.

??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > writes:
>>>
>>>> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not
>>>> just Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the
>>>> rec.bicycles.misc newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to
>>>> ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of interest primarily to those in Northern
>>>> California and likely familiar with Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut
>>>> Tom a bit of slack.
>>> I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
>>> previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
>>> a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
>>> think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
>>> situations.
>> >
>> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
>> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
>> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
>> controlled access freeways).
>
> The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
> "mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
> your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
> on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
> getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
> road".
>
Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
>>>>>> driven (pun intended) by emotion. > >>> Actually, you really
>>>>>> had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I > >>> recall. Am
>>>>>> I confusing you with someone else?
>>>> >
>>>> That possibility does exist.
>>> So it was you as I remembered.
>> >
>> That response is illogical.
>
> No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English would
> refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
> someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".
>
Logically, my response should be taken as it is indeed possible that
Bill Zaumen was confusing me with someone else.

>>>>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
>>>>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
>>>>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
>>>>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
>>> If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
>>> subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
>>>
>> Done.
>
> ??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.
>
So?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Jens Müller > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>> one's
>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>> And under California street law?
>>> What's that?
>>>
>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>
> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>
No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle" or
"other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".

>> It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
>> truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
>> cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
>> same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
>> them like a bug underfoot.
>
> That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
> when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
> level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
> train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
> realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.
>
> The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of way
> and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
> clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
> cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?
>
That is due to poor processing of relative closing speeds.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
>>>>>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
>>>>>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
>>>>>>> engineering matter....
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
>>>>>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
>>>>>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
>>>>>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
>>>>>> space.
>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>> one's
>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>
>>>> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
>>>> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
>>>> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>> and immediate.
>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>
>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>
> Accidents can have witnesses.
>
And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.

>> Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
>> SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.
>>
>> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
>> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
>
> Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
> bus driver was not at fault.
>
No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> >
> >> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
> >> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
> >> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
> >> controlled access freeways).
> > The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
> > "mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
> > your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
> > on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
> > getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
> > road".
> >
> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".

Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
<http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).

Since drivers spend most of their time between intersections and
relatively little time changing lanes or otherwise turning, it isn't
surprising that speeding is well represented in the traffic-citation
statistics, but it is not by a long shot the only thing for which
citations are written.

If you think they know the "rules of the road" and ignore them
anyway, then your proposal for frequent testing regarding the
"rules of the road" would be rather pointless.

There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
continually get all the facts wrong.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Jens Müller > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>>>> one's
> >>>>> vehicle's mass.
> >>>> And under California street law?
> >>> What's that?
> >>>
> >> Street law is what happens in real life.
> > You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
> >
> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".

You can't be serious.


> >> It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
> >> truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
> >> cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
> >> same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
> >> them like a bug underfoot.
> > That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
> > when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
> > level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
> > train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
> > realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.
> > The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of
> > way
> > and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
> > clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
> > cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?
> >
> That is due to poor processing of relative closing speeds.

Nope.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> >>>> and immediate.
> >>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> >>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
> >>>
> >> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
> > Accidents can have witnesses.
> >
> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.

Conspiracy theory.

> >> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
> >> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
> > Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which
> > the
> > bus driver was not at fault.
> >
> No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
> bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.

Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
> >>>>>> driven (pun intended) by emotion. > >>> Actually, you really
> >>>>>> had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I > >>> recall. Am
> >>>>>> I confusing you with someone else?
> >>>> >
> >>>> That possibility does exist.
> >>> So it was you as I remembered.
> >> >
> >> That response is illogical.
> > No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English
> > would
> > refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
> > someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".
> >
> Logically, my response should be taken as it is indeed possible that
> Bill Zaumen was confusing me with someone else.
>
> >>>>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
> >>>>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
> >>>>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
> >>>>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
> >>>>> relevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
> >>> If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
> >>> subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
> >>>
> >> Done.
> > ??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.
> >
> So?

So why did you bother posting anything if you had nothing to say?

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
>>>> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
>>>> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
>>>> controlled access freeways).
>>> The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
>>> "mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
>>> your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
>>> on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
>>> getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
>>> road".
>>>
>> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
>> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
>> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
>
> Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
> besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
> <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
> a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
> government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
> of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
> citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
> non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
> moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
>
How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals for
speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is Florida
representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do not tell
the whole story.

> Since drivers spend most of their time between intersections and
> relatively little time changing lanes or otherwise turning, it isn't
> surprising that speeding is well represented in the traffic-citation
> statistics, but it is not by a long shot the only thing for which
> citations are written.
>
> If you think they know the "rules of the road" and ignore them
> anyway, then your proposal for frequent testing regarding the
> "rules of the road" would be rather pointless.
>
> There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
> continually get all the facts wrong.
>
Which facts?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>
>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>
>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>
> You can't be serious....
>
Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>>>> and immediate.
>>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>>>
>>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>>> Accidents can have witnesses.
>> >
>> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
>
> Conspiracy theory.
>
Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the population
as a whole.

>>>> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
>>>> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
>>> Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which
>>> the
>>> bus driver was not at fault.
>>>
>> No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
>> bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.
>
> Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
> accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
> much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.
>
Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
get away with it is common.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>
>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>
>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>
>> You can't be serious....
>>
> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> especially in the larger cities.
>

Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason that
they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit "anything",
they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a Honda runs a
red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa and pity the
Honda driver.

Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to muscle
me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in driving
aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
>
> >> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
> >> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
> >> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
> > Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
> > besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
> > <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
> > a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
> > government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
> > of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
> > citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
> > non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
> > moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
> >
> How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
> stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
> for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
> Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
> not tell the whole story.

Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
"questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
of BS.

The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".

I might add that some of the "DWB" complaints are bogus - there were
some complaints of racial profiling in San Jose a few years ago due to
an unsusually large number of Hispanics being cited, and when the
statistics were carefully checked, they found that officers were
ticketing fairly: what happened is that the police department was
spending more time patrolling high crime areas, where a lot of
disadvantaged Hispanics live, and they ended up getting more traffic
tickets because the police were around more trying to protect them
from serious crimes. Regardless of how you want to handle the
increased number of citations, the citations were in fact legitimate.
It's not that people were being cited for something they didn't do.

> > There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
> > continually get all the facts wrong.
> >
> Which facts?

The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
sveral examples above.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>>>>>> one's
> >>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
> >>>>>> And under California street law?
> >>>>> What's that?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
> >>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
> >>>
> >> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
> >> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
> > You can't be serious....
> >
> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> especially in the larger cities.

Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
seriously.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> >>>>>> and immediate.
> >>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> >>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
> >>> Accidents can have witnesses.
> >> >
> >> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
> > Conspiracy theory.
> >
> Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the
> population as a whole.

Conspiracy theory.
<snip>

> > Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
> > accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
> > much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.
> >
> Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
> deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
> get away with it is common.

Is that your way of deflecting attention from the fact that you make
your thing about buses up? You claimed people did not violate a
bus' right of way because it was so much bigger. I pointed out that
at they do things like cutting off buses, mostly due to inattentiveness
(it's not like they think they'll come out OK in an accident, so
inattentiveness is the most reaonable explanation).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Matt O'Toole]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:39:33 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> You describe the situations almost perfectly. The City Manager sent me a
> document that detailed the entire process, from initial complaints
> through meetings through surveys and votes and then finally this.

I'm impressed that they have all this documented, even if it's just a CYA.

> And you're
> right, this is an experiment to see it if will work. Our hope is to
> dramatically shorten the length of that experiment.

What's their metric that it works? Are they monitoring motor vehicle
speeds?

Matt O.

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>
>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on
>>>>>>>> who can
>>>>>>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
>>>>>>>> engineering matter....
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury
>>>>>>> SUV
>>>>>>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
>>>>>>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around
>>>>>>> (sometimes
>>>>>>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>> one's
>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
>>>>> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
>>>>> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>>> and immediate.
>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>>
>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>>
>> Accidents can have witnesses.
> >
> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the
> police.
>
>>> Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
>>> SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
>>> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
>>
>> Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
>> bus driver was not at fault.
>>
> No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
> bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.
>

Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide, I
see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more
populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told).

Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless
rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up on
appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning their
appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago.

Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On Friday, I
asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case number?" they
asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said that there was
no case because no one had been arrested and no charges had been filed.
I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going on because this one is a
slam-dunk conviction.

It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
can get things going.

[vey]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>>
>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>> You can't be serious....
>>>
>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>> especially in the larger cities.
>
> Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
> seriously.
>
>
>

Yeah, Bill. I'm making up things, too.

[Bill Z.]

vey > writes:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
> >>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
> >>>>
> >>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
> >>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
> >>
> >> You can't be serious....
> >>
> > Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> > especially in the larger cities.
> >
>
> Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
> that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
> "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
> Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
> and pity the Honda driver.

They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.

> Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
> muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
> driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.

> If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
> telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
large onea.

I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
elusive parking space.

Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[vey]

Bill Z. wrote:
> vey > writes:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>>> You can't be serious....
>>>>
>>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>>> especially in the larger cities.
>>>
>> Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
>> that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
>> "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
>> Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
>> and pity the Honda driver.
>
> They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
> justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
> given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
> may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
> what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
> owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.
>
>> Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
>> muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
>> driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.
>
> Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
> to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.
>
>> If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
>> telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.
>
> Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
> The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
> large onea.
>
> I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
> compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
> elusive parking space.
>
> Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.
>

Bill, I've been to SF. I rode a bicycle and I walked a lot there during
the late '80's and early 90's in the three months I was there trying
to catch a ship to the far east. You have no idea how bad it can be.
Until I moved back here, I had no idea it can be.

Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.

http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html

I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with one
foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the rear. Didn't even
slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do you think I am
making this up?

Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas, what
exactly do you think they mean?

[Bill Z.]

vey > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>>>>>>>> one's
> >>>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
> >>>>>>>> And under California street law?
> >>>>>>> What's that?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
> >>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
> >>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
> >>> You can't be serious....
> >>>
> >> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> >> especially in the larger cities.
> > Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
> > seriously.
> >
>
> Yeah, Bill. I'm making up things, too.

Where were you quoted in any of the text above? It sounds to me like
you want to start an argument.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[vey]

Bill Z. wrote:

>
> Where were you quoted in any of the text above? It sounds to me like
> you want to start an argument.

I don't want to argue. I have to work on a Ghost Bike. Do you have any
tips as to how to keep the Gov't workers from removing it?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
> talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
> presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
> hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
> group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
> said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
> there are problems with separate bike lanes."

I will put this as simply as possible.

Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to
ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights
to the road.

You can argue all you want about how a bike lane encourages someone to think
a bike doesn't belong anywhere else, but the truth is, I doubt such people
think bikes belong on the roads AT ALL. I don't think they look at a bike
line as a "separate but unequal" piece of property they grudgingly give to
cyclists. Rather, those cagers who don't like bikes see it as one more thing
done to encourage something that shouldn't be encouraged.

Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't
hear people clamoring to get rid of them. Are they just too dumb over there
to recognize the dangers? They're drinking the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid
unwittingly?

At some point we have to look at the INTENT of the accomodation, and
recognize that if the intent is favorable (to cyclists), people are going to
be working hard to make sure that favorable intent actually happens. If, on
the other hand, you have a municipality that wants to "deal" with a
situation (getting cyclists off the dang road!), the outcome will likely be
quite different.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA



> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly >
> wrote:
>>
>> "But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If
>> this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but
>> additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total
>> injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more
>> experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many
>> comfortable being on the roads as possible."
>
> I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
> And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
> bike lanes.
>
> I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
> the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
> they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
> idea.
>
> I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
> talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
> presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
> hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
> group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
> said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
> there are problems with separate bike lanes."
>
> He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
> details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
> never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
> in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
> "Well, understand, this is just an example..."
>
> To a certain degree, this is a matter of education. Public ignorance
> regarding an issue is a bad reason for acceding to public desires.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> You describe the situations almost perfectly. The City Manager sent me a
>> document that detailed the entire process, from initial complaints
>> through meetings through surveys and votes and then finally this.
>
> I'm impressed that they have all this documented, even if it's just a CYA.

Yes, I may post it on our website, pending the outcome of a bike committee
meeting Thursday evening. If there aren't yet definite plans for removal,
we'll take it "public" on the website and send out an email to our e-list
letting people know, as well as contact a few "friendlies" at local papers
and TV stations.

>> And you're
>> right, this is an experiment to see it if will work. Our hope is to
>> dramatically shorten the length of that experiment.
>
> What's their metric that it works? Are they monitoring motor vehicle
> speeds?

Yes, they're monitoring car speeds, and have even loaned a speed gun to
residents (who took a class where they learned how to use it).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
g...
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:39:33 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> You describe the situations almost perfectly. The City Manager sent me a
>> document that detailed the entire process, from initial complaints
>> through meetings through surveys and votes and then finally this.
>
> I'm impressed that they have all this documented, even if it's just a CYA.
>
>> And you're
>> right, this is an experiment to see it if will work. Our hope is to
>> dramatically shorten the length of that experiment.
>
> What's their metric that it works? Are they monitoring motor vehicle
> speeds?
>
> Matt O.

[Bill Z.]

vey > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > vey > writes:
> >
> > Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
> > The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
> > large onea.
> > I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
> > compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
> > elusive parking space.
> > Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.
> >
>
> Bill, I've been to SF. I rode a bicycle and I walked a lot there
> during the late '80's and early 90's in the three months I was there
> trying to catch a ship to the far east. You have no idea how bad it
> can be. Until I moved back here, I had no idea it can be.

Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people
run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.

> Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
> have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
> saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.
>
> http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html

And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.

> I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
> one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
> rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
> you think I am making this up?

Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
car versus small car/bicycle" thing.


> Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
> what exactly do you think they mean?

That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.

I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

writes:

> On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly >
> wrote:
> >
> > "But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible."
>
> I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
> And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
> bike lanes.
>
> I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
> the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
> they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
> idea.
>
> I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
> talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
> presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
> hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
> group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
> said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
> there are problems with separate bike lanes."
>
> He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
> details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
> never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
> in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
> "Well, understand, this is just an example..."

My spin detector just went off. What *really* happened at this
meeting?

[vey]

Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people
> run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
> after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
> you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
> lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
> it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.

See, here it's all about SUV's because they out number cars two-to-one.
Bicyclists aren't even counted as running lights because they would
amount to .001 of one percent of the traffic. And the only way
pedestrians have a hope of crossing is to "jay walk" between
intersections because to try and cross at an intersection is stupid.
When you press the button here, the light changes (eventually) and cars
are making right and left turns in the crossing zone. So most people
don't bother. They dash for the middle and dash again. That's what I do.
>
>> Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
>> have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
>> saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.
>>
>> http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html
>
> And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
> running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.

Not so. They ruled out the first five seconds. But you would know that
had you bothered to read the article.


>
>> I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
>> one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
>> rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
>> you think I am making this up?
>
> Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
> car versus small car/bicycle" thing.

So you think that people *do not* buy SUV's to feel safer?
>
>
>> Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
>> what exactly do you think they mean?
>
> That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
> to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.

Bill, the California sun has gotten to your brain and cooked it. Are you
sure you don't live in So. Ca, cause you sure sound like it.
>
> I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
> Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
> in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
> want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.

Oh. Okay, what do I know? I just report the news, I don't make it.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>>
>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>>
>>> You can't be serious....
>>>
>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>> especially in the larger cities.
>>
>
> Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason that
> they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit "anything",
> they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a Honda runs a
> red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa and pity the
> Honda driver.
>
> Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to muscle
> me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in driving
> aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.
>
> If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
> telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.
>
Yes, a lot of people will try to close gaps to prevent lane changes as
soon as they see a turn signal. If they do this to someone in a 1 to 1½
ton car, what will they do to a 0.1 ton cyclist and bicycle?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> vey > writes:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>>> You can't be serious....
>>>>
>>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>>> especially in the larger cities.
>>>
>> Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
>> that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
>> "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
>> Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
>> and pity the Honda driver.
>
> They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
> justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
> given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
> may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
> what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
> owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.
>
>> Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
>> muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
>> driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.
>
> Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
> to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.
>
>> If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
>> telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.
>
> Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
> The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
> large onea.
>
Ever drive in Chicago?

> I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
> compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
> elusive parking space.
>
> Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.
>
Mmmm..., lunch.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> vey > writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> vey > writes:
>>>
>>> Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
>>> The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
>>> large onea.
>>> I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
>>> compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
>>> elusive parking space.
>>> Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.
>>>
>> Bill, I've been to SF. I rode a bicycle and I walked a lot there
>> during the late '80's and early 90's in the three months I was there
>> trying to catch a ship to the far east. You have no idea how bad it
>> can be. Until I moved back here, I had no idea it can be.
>
> Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people
> run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
> after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
> you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
> lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
> it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.
>
>> Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
>> have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
>> saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.
>>
>> http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html
>
> And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
> running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.
>
>> I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
>> one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
>> rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
>> you think I am making this up?
>
> Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
> car versus small car/bicycle" thing.
>
I think Zaumen is making things up now. I was comparing the relative
relationship of cyclists and buses to passenger motor vehicles. That
comparison is valid in any place where there is a curb lane marked for
"Bicycles and Buses Only".

>> Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
>> what exactly do you think they mean?
>
> That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
> to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.
>
> I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
> Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
> in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
> want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.
>
No, because they know that cyclists will get out of their way (unless
the cyclist has a death wish). Wanting to hit cyclists is a totally
different matter than just wanting to intimidate them with mass.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Eric Vey wrote:
> ...
> See, here it's all about SUV's because they out number cars two-to-one.
> Bicyclists aren't even counted as running lights because they would
> amount to .001 of one percent of the traffic. And the only way
> pedestrians have a hope of crossing is to "jay walk" between
> intersections because to try and cross at an intersection is stupid.
> When you press the button here, the light changes (eventually) and cars
> are making right and left turns in the crossing zone. So most people
> don't bother. They dash for the middle and dash again. That's what I do.
> ...
Note to self - do not move to Orlando. That makes Chicago sound civilized.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Jens Müller > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>>
>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>> You can't be serious....
>>>
>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>> especially in the larger cities.
>
> Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
> seriously.
>
What have I made up?

Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER, EVER
MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>>>>>> and immediate.
>>>>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>>>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>>>>> Accidents can have witnesses.
>>>> >
>>>> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
>>> Conspiracy theory.
>>>
>> Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the
>> population as a whole.
>
> Conspiracy theory.
> <snip>
>
>>> Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
>>> accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
>>> much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.
>>>
>> Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
>> deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
>> get away with it is common.
>
> Is that your way of deflecting attention from the fact that you make
> your thing about buses up? You claimed people did not violate a
> bus' right of way because it was so much bigger. I pointed out that
> at they do things like cutting off buses, mostly due to inattentiveness
> (it's not like they think they'll come out OK in an accident, so
> inattentiveness is the most reaonable explanation).
>
Does honking the horn and "flipping the bird" at the cyclist also come
from inattentiveness after cutting off the cyclist?

Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
consequences?

Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Eric Vey wrote:
>
> Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide, I
> see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more
> populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told).
>
> Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
> Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless
> rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up on
> appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning their
> appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago.
>
> Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On Friday, I
> asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case number?" they
> asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said that there was
> no case because no one had been arrested and no charges had been filed.
> I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going on because this one is a
> slam-dunk conviction.
>
> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
> can get things going.
>
Well, it is reported that the tactic of pressuring DA's to prosecute at
fault automobile drivers worked for motorcycle organizations [1], so it
appears that bicyclists need to adopt the same tactic.

[1] At least the 99%ers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 10:31 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
wrote:
> >
>
> I will put this as simply as possible.

No need. I handle complexity pretty well.

>
> Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling.

I agree.

> The get people thinking that
> bikes are part of the transportation system,

Yes, a separated part.

> and both encourage people to ride,

I agree.

> as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights
> to the road.

I disagree. I believe they let cagers "know" that cyclists have a
right to the bike lane, not to the rest of the road. Obviously, this
is one of the kernels of our disagreement.
[...]

> Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't
> hear people clamoring to get rid of them. Are they just too dumb over there
> to recognize the dangers? They're drinking the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid
> unwittingly?

I'm certainly aware of Europeans who seriously dislike bike lanes (as
well as separate bike paths). The concerns I've stated are the same
ones they've stated. As one example, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4789146.stm

And regarding the Kool-Aid, let me give a related story. In our local
metropolitan park, we have what one of the most inept designs of bike
lanes I've ever seen. It's a two-way bike lane on the left side of a
one-way-for-autos road, that "features" many bollards IN THE CENTER of
the bike lane, as well as at its sides. These are serious collision
hazards, especially where they pop up on semi-blind curves and steep
downhills. Our bike club has tried unsuccessfully for years to have
the hazards removed. I've communicated with at least four nationally
recognized cycling facilities experts, and all (even the most pro-
facilities guy) agreed that the design is a serious hazard and needs
to be changed. I think even you will agree with that assessment.

But despite this, there are local cyclists who say they like it. As
one told me, "It's not perfect, but at least they're doing something
for us."

So, yes, I think there is some Kool-Aid being consumed. Any time a
large group accepts a "safety" measure imposed on them, despite
documented problems with that measure, and despite evidence that the
measure does not increase safety, Kool-Aid is a reasonable
supposition.

Or to put it more briefly: There are many people who are not
competent to judge.

> At some point we have to look at the INTENT of the accomodation, and
> recognize that if the intent is favorable (to cyclists), people are going to
> be working hard to make sure that favorable intent actually happens. If, on
> the other hand, you have a municipality that wants to "deal" with a
> situation (getting cyclists off the dang road!), the outcome will likely be
> quite different.

I'm sorry, but I can't be content with bad facilities, even if they're
installed with the best of intentions. What's the bike lane to hell
paved with?

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 10:59 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
> My spin detector just went off. What *really* happened at this
> meeting?

You need a new spin detector. What happened was exactly what I
described.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
>> talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
>> presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
>> hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
>> group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
>> said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
>> there are problems with separate bike lanes."
>
> I will put this as simply as possible.
>
> Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
> bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to
> ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights
> to the road....
>
Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[[email protected]]

On Feb 4, 12:28 am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >
>
> > Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
> > bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to
> > ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights
> > to the road....
>
> Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs?

.... and questions on drivers' tests? And public service
announcements? And drivers' training instructions? And billboards?

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
>>>> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
>>>> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
>>> Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
>>> besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
>>> <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
>>> a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
>>> government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
>>> of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
>>> citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
>>> non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
>>> moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
>>>
>> How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
>> stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
>> for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
>> Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
>> not tell the whole story.
>
> Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
> hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
> a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
> simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
> "questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
> of BS.
>
I see that there are no answers to my questions.


> The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
> maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
> talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".
>
Citation?

> I might add that some of the "DWB" complaints are bogus - there were
> some complaints of racial profiling in San Jose a few years ago due to
> an unsusually large number of Hispanics being cited, and when the
> statistics were carefully checked, they found that officers were
> ticketing fairly: what happened is that the police department was
> spending more time patrolling high crime areas, where a lot of
> disadvantaged Hispanics live, and they ended up getting more traffic
> tickets because the police were around more trying to protect them
> from serious crimes. Regardless of how you want to handle the
> increased number of citations, the citations were in fact legitimate.
> It's not that people were being cited for something they didn't do.
>
>>> There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
>>> continually get all the facts wrong.
>>>
>> Which facts?
>
> The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
> sveral examples above.
>
Where?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Bill Z.]

vey > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> >
> > Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of
> > people
> > run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
> > after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
> > you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
> > lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
> > it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.
>
> See, here it's all about SUV's because they out number cars
> two-to-one. Bicyclists aren't even counted as running lights because
> they would amount to .001 of one percent of the traffic.

That's a statistic you just made up:

<http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/SF.html> (this is a bit old - around 1990 - and
for the Bay Area):

"Bicycle mode shares range from 0.9 percent of non-home-based
trips to 4.2 percent of home-based school trips. The
home-based work bicycle share is 1.3 percent. Walk mode
shares range from 3.0 percent of home-based work trips to 21.5
percent of home-based school trips."

Quite a bit diffent than your 0.001 percent (and bicycle use is much
higher in San Francisco due to the relatively short distances coupled
with the difficulty of finding parking and the cost of parking).

> And the only way pedestrians have a hope of crossing is to "jay
> walk" between intersections because to try and cross at an
> intersection is stupid.

Wrong.

> >> http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html
> > And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
> > running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.
>
> Not so. They ruled out the first five seconds. But you would know that
> had you bothered to read the article.

Now you are reduced to lying. At no point in the artile you quoted do
they say anything about ruling out "the first five seconds". You just
made that up.

> So you think that people *do not* buy SUV's to feel safer?
> >
> >> Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
> >> what exactly do you think they mean?
> > That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
> > to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.
>
> Bill, the California sun has gotten to your brain and cooked it. Are
> you sure you don't live in So. Ca, cause you sure sound like it.

You know, for someone as ignorant as you are (see the numbers you
fabricated above and your lie about what was in a news article),
you really shoudn't go around taking about cooked brains.

> > I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
> > Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
> > in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
> > want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.
>
> Oh. Okay, what do I know? I just report the news, I don't make it.

What you seem to know is next to nothing given how bogus your numbers
are (see above). And your ability to report the news is, shall we
say, highly suspect (see above for that too).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > vey > writes:
> >
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
> >>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
> >>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
> >>>> You can't be serious....
> >>>>
> >>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> >>> especially in the larger cities.
> >>>
> >> Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
> >> that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
> >> "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
> >> Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
> >> and pity the Honda driver.
> > They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
> > justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
> > given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
> > may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
> > what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
> > owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.
> >
> >> Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
> >> muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
> >> driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.
> > Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
> > to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.
> >
> >> If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
> >> telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.
> > Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
> > The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
> > large onea.
> >
> Ever drive in Chicago?

Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the pits).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
>> bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to
>> ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with
>> rights to the road....
>>
> Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs?

No, because most potential cyclists are intimidated by the idea of sharing
space with a car. Oh sure, I know, the problem is entirely education! Right.
Good luck with that. It's far easier to get people to change by altering the
environment than to get them to take a leap of faith and believe in what
they're told. Telling people smoking causes cancer and will kill them was
far less successful at reducing smoking than taking away places they're
allowed to smoke.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
>>> talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
>>> presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
>>> hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
>>> group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
>>> said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
>>> there are problems with separate bike lanes."
>>
>> I will put this as simply as possible.
>>
>> Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
>> bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to
>> ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with
>> rights to the road....
>>
> Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> vey > writes:
>>>
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>>>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>>>>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>>>>> You can't be serious....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>>>>> especially in the larger cities.
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
>>>> that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
>>>> "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
>>>> Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
>>>> and pity the Honda driver.
>>> They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
>>> justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
>>> given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
>>> may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
>>> what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
>>> owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.
>>>
>>>> Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
>>>> muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
>>>> driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.
>>> Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
>>> to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.
>>>
>>>> If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
>>>> telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.
>>> Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
>>> The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
>>> large onea.
>>>
>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>
> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the pits).
>
Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers are
like.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Eric Vey wrote:
>>
>> Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide, I
>> see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more
>> populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told).
>>
>> Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
>> Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless
>> rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up
>> on appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning
>> their appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago.
>>
>> Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On Friday,
>> I asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case number?"
>> they asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said that
>> there was no case because no one had been arrested and no charges had
>> been filed. I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going on because
>> this one is a slam-dunk conviction.
>>
>> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
>> can get things going.
> >
> Well, it is reported that the tactic of pressuring DA's to prosecute at
> fault automobile drivers worked for motorcycle organizations [1], so it
> appears that bicyclists need to adopt the same tactic.
>
> [1] At least the 99%ers.
>

People keep telling me to "let the professionals do their job." Well, it
ain't working.

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Ever drive in Chicago?

I have. I was in the Navy and I was the "duty driver" so I drove on duty
days. Didn't matter what country we were in, left or right hand drive, I
drove and I was licensed to drive buses and trucks in the US, too.

People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown. Hah! My
Orlando skills stood me in good stead there. People kept complaining
about how AWFUL traffic was and I would just shrug. That's why I avoid
where the tourists drive around here. Too dangerous.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Eric Vey wrote:
>>>
>>> Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide,
>>> I see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more
>>> populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told).
>>>
>>> Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
>>> Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless
>>> rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up
>>> on appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning
>>> their appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago.
>>>
>>> Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On
>>> Friday, I asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case
>>> number?" they asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said
>>> that there was no case because no one had been arrested and no
>>> charges had been filed. I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going
>>> on because this one is a slam-dunk conviction.
>>>
>>> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one
>>> that can get things going.
>> >
>> Well, it is reported that the tactic of pressuring DA's to prosecute
>> at fault automobile drivers worked for motorcycle organizations [1],
>> so it appears that bicyclists need to adopt the same tactic.
>>
>> [1] At least the 99%ers.
>>
>
> People keep telling me to "let the professionals do their job." Well, it
> ain't working.
>
Is the DA an elected official, and does not he/she have a duty to listen
to his/her constituents?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Eric Vey wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Eric Vey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide,
>>>> I see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the
>>>> more populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have
>>>> been told).
>>>>
>>>> Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
>>>> Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as
>>>> careless rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking
>>>> those cases up on appeal and, once again, in more populous areas,
>>>> have been winning their appeals. This would not have happened even
>>>> five years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On
>>>> Friday, I asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case
>>>> number?" they asked me. I gave them a quick description and they
>>>> said that there was no case because no one had been arrested and no
>>>> charges had been filed. I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going
>>>> on because this one is a slam-dunk conviction.
>>>>
>>>> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one
>>>> that can get things going.
>>> >
>>> Well, it is reported that the tactic of pressuring DA's to prosecute
>>> at fault automobile drivers worked for motorcycle organizations [1],
>>> so it appears that bicyclists need to adopt the same tactic.
>>>
>>> [1] At least the 99%ers.
>>>
>>
>> People keep telling me to "let the professionals do their job." Well,
>> it ain't working.
> >
> Is the DA an elected official, and does not he/she have a duty to listen
> to his/her constituents?
>

(sigh) So it is said. Truly though, as of two years ago, it isn't the
DA, but the elected judges that are at fault. They have a higher bar as
to "willful and wanton disregard" than the public seated as a as jury does.

The good news is that the district court of appeals is signaling to the
local judges that they can slack up a bit. I dunno if the local
judges are listening, though.

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > vey > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Z. wrote:
> >>> vey > writes:

> >> http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html
> > And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
> > running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.
> >
> >> I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
> >> one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
> >> rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
> >> you think I am making this up?
> > Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
> > car versus small car/bicycle" thing.
> >
> I think Zaumen is making things up now. I was comparing the relative
> relationship of cyclists and buses to passenger motor vehicles. That
> comparison is valid in any place where there is a curb lane marked for
> "Bicycles and Buses Only".

Actually, you were merely babbling incoherently.
<snip>

>
> >> Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
> >> what exactly do you think they mean?
> > That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
> > to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.
> > I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
> > Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
> > in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
> > want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.
> >
> No, because they know that cyclists will get out of their way (unless
> the cyclist has a death wish). Wanting to hit cyclists is a totally
> different matter than just wanting to intimidate them with mass.

No, you really don't have a clue.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>> You can't be serious....
> >>>
> >> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> >> especially in the larger cities.
> > Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
> > seriously.
> >
> What have I made up?

Just about everything you posted.

> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.

How stupid can you be?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> >>>>>>>> and immediate.
> >>>>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> >>>>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
> >>>>> Accidents can have witnesses.
> >>>> >
> >>>> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
> >>> Conspiracy theory.
> >>>
> >> Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the
> >> population as a whole.
> > Conspiracy theory.
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
> >>> accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
> >>> much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.
> >>>
> >> Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
> >> deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
> >> get away with it is common.
> > Is that your way of deflecting attention from the fact that you make
> > your thing about buses up? You claimed people did not violate a
> > bus' right of way because it was so much bigger. I pointed out that
> > at they do things like cutting off buses, mostly due to inattentiveness
> > (it's not like they think they'll come out OK in an accident, so
> > inattentiveness is the most reaonable explanation).
> >
> Does honking the horn and "flipping the bird" at the cyclist also come
> from inattentiveness after cutting off the cyclist?
>
> Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
> consequences?
>
> Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.

Time for you to get a sense of reality, and for you to stop trying to
change the subject to weasel out of an untennable position.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

writes:

> On Feb 3, 10:59 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> >
> > My spin detector just went off. What *really* happened at this
> > meeting?
>
> You need a new spin detector. What happened was exactly what I
> described.

I've seen you post so much spin that I really don't believe anything
you say.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
> >>>> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
> >>>> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
> >>> Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
> >>> besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
> >>> <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
> >>> a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
> >>> government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
> >>> of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
> >>> citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
> >>> non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
> >>> moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
> >>>
> >> How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
> >> stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
> >> for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
> >> Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
> >> not tell the whole story.
> > Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
> > hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
> > a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
> > simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
> > "questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
> > of BS.
> >
> I see that there are no answers to my questions.

They were stupid queestions. Come up with something serious. It was
obvious that you were simply making things up.
>
>
> > The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
> > maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
> > talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".
> >
> Citation?

Good grief. Ask 10 people at your office. "Citation" as a response
to what should be common knowledge is just a rhetorical ploy used when
some usenet clown gets caught making things up.
> >
> >>> There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
> >>> continually get all the facts wrong.
> >>>
> >> Which facts?
> > The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
> > sveral examples above.
> >
> Where?

Read the goddamn post.

---
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >>>
> >> Ever drive in Chicago?
> > Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
> > pits).
> >
> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
> are like.

Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
should I believe you?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>> You can't be serious....
>>>>>
>>>> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
>>>> especially in the larger cities.
>>> Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
>>> seriously.
>>>
>> What have I made up?
>
> Just about everything you posted.
>
>> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
>> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
>
> How stupid can you be?
>
OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>>>>>>>> and immediate.
>>>>>>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>>>>>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>>>>>>> Accidents can have witnesses.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
>>>>> Conspiracy theory.
>>>>>
>>>> Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the
>>>> population as a whole.
>>> Conspiracy theory.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
>>>>> accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
>>>>> much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.
>>>>>
>>>> Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
>>>> deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
>>>> get away with it is common.
>>> Is that your way of deflecting attention from the fact that you make
>>> your thing about buses up? You claimed people did not violate a
>>> bus' right of way because it was so much bigger. I pointed out that
>>> at they do things like cutting off buses, mostly due to inattentiveness
>>> (it's not like they think they'll come out OK in an accident, so
>>> inattentiveness is the most reaonable explanation).
>>>
>> Does honking the horn and "flipping the bird" at the cyclist also come
>> from inattentiveness after cutting off the cyclist?
>>
>> Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
>> consequences?
>>
>> Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.
>
> Time for you to get a sense of reality, and for you to stop trying to
> change the subject to weasel out of an untennable position.
>
Got anything of content to post?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
>>> pits).
>>>
>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
>> are like.
>
> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
> should I believe you?
>
Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> vey > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>> vey > writes:
>
>>>> http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html
>>> And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
>>> running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.
>>>
>>>> I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
>>>> one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
>>>> rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
>>>> you think I am making this up?
>>> Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
>>> car versus small car/bicycle" thing.
>>>
>> I think Zaumen is making things up now. I was comparing the relative
>> relationship of cyclists and buses to passenger motor vehicles. That
>> comparison is valid in any place where there is a curb lane marked for
>> "Bicycles and Buses Only".
>
> Actually, you were merely babbling incoherently.
> <snip>
>
>>>> Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
>>>> what exactly do you think they mean?
>>> That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
>>> to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.
>>> I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
>>> Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
>>> in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
>>> want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.
>>>
>> No, because they know that cyclists will get out of their way (unless
>> the cyclist has a death wish). Wanting to hit cyclists is a totally
>> different matter than just wanting to intimidate them with mass.
>
> No, you really don't have a clue.
>
Get out of Silly Cone Valley and into the rest of the world. I see a
projection of an environment that is atypical of the whole onto the
whole being performed here.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Bill Z.]

vey > writes:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > Ever drive in Chicago?

> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.

Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
have changed.

I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject, though. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
>>>>>> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
>>>>>> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
>>>>> Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
>>>>> besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
>>>>> <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
>>>>> a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
>>>>> government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
>>>>> of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
>>>>> citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
>>>>> non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
>>>>> moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
>>>>>
>>>> How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
>>>> stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
>>>> for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
>>>> Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
>>>> not tell the whole story.
>>> Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
>>> hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
>>> a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
>>> simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
>>> "questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
>>> of BS.
>>>
>> I see that there are no answers to my questions.
>
> They were stupid queestions. Come up with something serious. It was
> obvious that you were simply making things up.
>>
Still no answers.

>>> The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
>>> maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
>>> talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".
>>>
>> Citation?
>
> Good grief. Ask 10 people at your office. "Citation" as a response
> to what should be common knowledge is just a rhetorical ploy used when
> some usenet clown gets caught making things up.
>
What if there are less than 10 people in my office who have received
traffic citations recently?

>>>>> There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
>>>>> continually get all the facts wrong.
>>>>>
>>>> Which facts?
>>> The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
>>> sveral examples above.
>>>
>> Where?
>
> Read the goddamn post.
>
Citation that God has dammed the post?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> vey > writes:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>
>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
>
> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
> have changed.
>
> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject, though. :-)
>
Ever drive in the 'hood?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> different matter than just wanting to intimidate them with mass.
> > No, you really don't have a clue.
> >
> Get out of Silly Cone Valley and into the rest of the world. I see a
> projection of an environment that is atypical of the whole onto the
> whole being performed here.

That's your most cluless comment to date. Come back when you have
something substantive to say.


--

My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
> >> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
> > How stupid can you be?
> >
> OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
> Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.

Are you an adult?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >> Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
> >> consequences?
> >>
> >> Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.
> > Time for you to get a sense of reality, and for you to stop trying to
> > change the subject to weasel out of an untennable position.
> >
> Got anything of content to post?

Let's just say I'm getting tired of having to cross check the stuff
you post just to verify how wrong it is, which I've done several times
in the last two days.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
> >>>>>> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
> >>>>>> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
> >>>>> Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
> >>>>> besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
> >>>>> <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
> >>>>> a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
> >>>>> government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
> >>>>> of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
> >>>>> citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
> >>>>> non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
> >>>>> moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
> >>>>>
> >>>> How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
> >>>> stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
> >>>> for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
> >>>> Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
> >>>> not tell the whole story.
> >>> Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
> >>> hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
> >>> a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
> >>> simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
> >>> "questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
> >>> of BS.
> >>>
> >> I see that there are no answers to my questions.
> > They were stupid queestions. Come up with something serious. It was
> > obvious that you were simply making things up.
> >>
> Still no answers.
>
> >>> The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
> >>> maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
> >>> talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".
> >>>
> >> Citation?
> > Good grief. Ask 10 people at your office. "Citation" as a response
> > to what should be common knowledge is just a rhetorical ploy used when
> > some usenet clown gets caught making things up.
> >
> What if there are less than 10 people in my office who have received
> traffic citations recently?
>
> >>>>> There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
> >>>>> continually get all the facts wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Which facts?
> >>> The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
> >>> sveral examples above.
> >>>
> >> Where?
> > Read the goddamn post.
> >
> Citation that God has dammed the post?

How lame.

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
> >>> pits).
> >>>
> >> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
> >> are like.
> > Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
> > should I believe you?
> >
> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.

Liar.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > vey > writes:
> >
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >
> >> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
> > Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
> > could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
> > anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
> > have changed.
> > I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
> > though. :-)
> >
> Ever drive in the 'hood?

Have you graduated from high school?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:

> Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't
> hear people clamoring to get rid of them.

Then you don't listen carefully.

[Dan Connelly]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Have you graduated from high school?
>


Bill, you truly have too much time on your hands.

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:31:10 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> wrote:

[---]

>Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths.

And they are highly criticised within the European cycling community
as being very dangerous, with ever more demands for their abolition.

>I don't
>hear people clamoring to get rid of them. Are they just too dumb over there
>to recognize the dangers? They're drinking the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid
>unwittingly?

Read the German cycling group <de.rec.fahrrad> for a few days - that
should set you straight.

[Bill Z.]

Dan Connelly > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Have you graduated from high school?
>
> Bill, you truly have too much time on your hands.

Let's just say that I don't have much patience for someone who's
"contribution" to a discussion consists of statements like
"Ever drive in the 'hood?".


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jeremy]

In ba.bicycles Jens M?ller > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:

> > Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't
> > hear people clamoring to get rid of them.

> Then you don't listen carefully.

Me too (or three or four). The bike lanes in Amsterdam pose a variety of
problems from my perspective, although I would guess most users here fail
to notice or think they're better than the alternative.

[Jym Dyer]

> It sounds to me like you want to start an argument.

=v= I never thought I'd see the day when Bill Z was quoting
RicSilver. :^) You forgot to preserve the typos, though.
<_Jym_>

--
"Scew you, Jym, your a moran."
--

[keithv]

On Feb 4, 9:57 pm, Jeremy > wrote:
> In ba.bicycles Jens M?ller > wrote:
>
> > Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:
> > > Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't
> > > hear people clamoring to get rid of them.
> > Then you don't listen carefully.
>
> Me too (or three or four). The bike lanes in Amsterdam pose a variety of
> problems from my perspective, although I would guess most users here fail
> to notice or think they're better than the alternative.

Take a look at this bike path in Amsterdam:
http://www.klimb.org/Images/funny4.jpg

Keith

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> different matter than just wanting to intimidate them with mass.
>>> No, you really don't have a clue.
>>>
>> Get out of Silly Cone Valley and into the rest of the world. I see a
>> projection of an environment that is atypical of the whole onto the
>> whole being performed here.
>
> That's your most cluless comment to date. Come back when you have
> something substantive to say.
>
Sorry, but I observe what happens in the real world, rather than
believing things work according to some vehicle code. Spend some time in
the 'hood - it would be educational to say the least.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
>>>>> pits).
>>>>>
>>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
>>>> are like.
>>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
>>> should I believe you?
>>>
>> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
>
> Liar.
>
Channeling Vandeman?

How can an opinion be a lie?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> vey > writes:
>>>
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
>>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
>>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
>>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
>>> have changed.
>>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
>>> though. :-)
>>>
>> Ever drive in the 'hood?
>
> Have you graduated from high school?
>
Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
teachers, administrators and students.

I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
"Green Book". :)

Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
transportation facility analysis and/or design?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Dan Connelly > writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>> Have you graduated from high school?
>> Bill, you truly have too much time on your hands.
>
> Let's just say that I don't have much patience for someone who's
> "contribution" to a discussion consists of statements like
> "Ever drive in the 'hood?".
>
I see examples every day in the 'hood of people ignoring the vehicle
code and trying to intimidate others with their vehicles. I imagine that
"Silicon Valley" where Zaumen (apparently) lives has quite a different
demographic.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
>>>> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
>>> How stupid can you be?
>>>
>> OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
>> Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.
>
> Are you an adult?
>
Enough to know that looking at someone in the 'hood could be interpreted
as a challenge. Not a smart thing to do to someone who may well be armed
and not care too much about going back to prison for a bit.

I would like to see Zaumen come to the 'hood and pontificate on the
motor vehicle code. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>> Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
>>>> consequences?
>>>>
>>>> Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.
>>> Time for you to get a sense of reality, and for you to stop trying to
>>> change the subject to weasel out of an untennable position.
>>>
>> Got anything of content to post?
>
> Let's just say I'm getting tired of having to cross check the stuff
> you post just to verify how wrong it is, which I've done several times
> in the last two days.
>
Citation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

[Bill Z.]

Jym Dyer > writes:

> > It sounds to me like you want to start an argument.
>
> =v= I never thought I'd see the day when Bill Z was quoting
> RicSilver. :^) You forgot to preserve the typos, though.
> <_Jym_>

Alas, in this case it was true. :-)

> "Scew you, Jym, your a moran."
> --

Yep, that's Ric.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
> >>>>> pits).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
> >>>> are like.
> >>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
> >>> should I believe you?
> >>>
> >> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
> > Liar.
> >
> Channeling Vandeman?
> How can an opinion be a lie?

You made a very clear, false statement about me, and you lied.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> vey > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
> >>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
> >>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
> >>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
> >>> have changed.
> >>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
> >>> though. :-)
> >>>
> >> Ever drive in the 'hood?
> > Have you graduated from high school?
> >
> Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
> teachers, administrators and students.

It shows.

> I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
> however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
> "Green Book". :)
>
> Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
> transportation facility analysis and/or design?

I'm not impressed.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
> >>>> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
> >>> How stupid can you be?
> >>>
> >> OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
> >> Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.
> > Are you an adult?
> >
> Enough to know that looking at someone in the 'hood could be
> interpreted as a challenge. Not a smart thing to do to someone who may
> well be armed and not care too much about going back to prison for a
> bit.
>
> I would like to see Zaumen come to the 'hood and pontificate on the
> motor vehicle code. ;)

Why don't you cut your childish banter and act like an adult? Nobody
is going to get shot at merely for keeping track of the vehicles and
pedestrians around them to avoid hitting someone.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>> Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
> >>>> consequences?
> >>>>
> >>>> Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.
> >>> Time for you to get a sense of reality, and for you to stop trying to
> >>> change the subject to weasel out of an untennable position.
> >>>
> >> Got anything of content to post?
> > Let's just say I'm getting tired of having to cross check the stuff
> > you post just to verify how wrong it is, which I've done several times
> > in the last two days.
> >
> Citation?

Stop playing childish games. You behavior was documented over and over
the last few days.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
>>>>>>> pits).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
>>>>>> are like.
>>>>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
>>>>> should I believe you?
>>>>>
>>>> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
>>> Liar.
>>>
>> Channeling Vandeman?
>> How can an opinion be a lie?
>
> You made a very clear, false statement about me, and you lied.
>
What false statement? How can an opinion be a lie?

If I truly believe that Mr. Zaumen is confusing opinions with facts,
that logically, what I wrote can not be a lie.

What is so hard to comprehend here (other than Zaumen's zealous defense
of "bicycle farcilities" (sic))?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> vey > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
>>>>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
>>>>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
>>>>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
>>>>> have changed.
>>>>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
>>>>> though. :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Ever drive in the 'hood?
>>> Have you graduated from high school?
>>>
>> Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
>> teachers, administrators and students.
>
> It shows.
>
Yes, I was smart enough to get away from incompetent teachers, petty and
vindictive administrators, and ignorant redneck students.

>> I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
>> however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
>> "Green Book". :)
>>
>> Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
>> transportation facility analysis and/or design?
>
> I'm not impressed.
>
Zaumen brought up educational achievement, but to this point has refused
to post how his is relevant to the subject. Will he post his
transportation facility design related credentials, or does he not have any?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
>>>>>> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
>>>>> How stupid can you be?
>>>>>
>>>> OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
>>>> Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.
>>> Are you an adult?
>>>
>> Enough to know that looking at someone in the 'hood could be
>> interpreted as a challenge. Not a smart thing to do to someone who may
>> well be armed and not care too much about going back to prison for a
>> bit.
>>
>> I would like to see Zaumen come to the 'hood and pontificate on the
>> motor vehicle code. ;)
>
> Why don't you cut your childish banter and act like an adult? Nobody
> is going to get shot at merely for keeping track of the vehicles and
> pedestrians around them to avoid hitting someone.
>
One can do that without making eye contact.

Mr. Zaumen would not do well in the 'hood with his attitude.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>> Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
>>>>>> consequences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.
>>>>> Time for you to get a sense of reality, and for you to stop trying to
>>>>> change the subject to weasel out of an untennable position.
>>>>>
>>>> Got anything of content to post?
>>> Let's just say I'm getting tired of having to cross check the stuff
>>> you post just to verify how wrong it is, which I've done several times
>>> in the last two days.
>>>
>> Citation?
>
> Stop playing childish games. You behavior was documented over and over
> the last few days.
>
Citations?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>>>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
> >>>>>>> pits).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
> >>>>>> are like.
> >>>>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
> >>>>> should I believe you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
> >>> Liar.
> >>>
> >> Channeling Vandeman?
> >> How can an opinion be a lie?
> > You made a very clear, false statement about me, and you lied.
> >
> What false statement? How can an opinion be a lie?

It was worded as a statement of fact, not as an opinion.
>
> If I truly believe that Mr. Zaumen is confusing opinions with facts,
> that logically, what I wrote can not be a lie.
> What is so hard to comprehend here (other than Zaumen's zealous
> defense of "bicycle farcilities" (sic))?

Another lie. There was no "zealous defense" of bicycle facilities.
I merely described what the law is.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> vey > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>>>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
> >>>>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
> >>>>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
> >>>>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
> >>>>> have changed.
> >>>>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
> >>>>> though. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Ever drive in the 'hood?
> >>> Have you graduated from high school?
> >>>
> >> Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
> >> teachers, administrators and students.
> > It shows.
> >
> Yes, I was smart enough to get away from incompetent teachers, petty
> and vindictive administrators, and ignorant redneck students.
>
> >> I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
> >> however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
> >> "Green Book". :)
> >>
> >> Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
> >> transportation facility analysis and/or design?
> > I'm not impressed.
> >
> Zaumen brought up educational achievement, but to this point has
> refused to post how his is relevant to the subject. Will he post his
> transportation facility design related credentials, or does he not
> have any?

Another lie - I asked if you had graduated from high school because
of your resmark, "Ever drive in the 'hood". The issue was not your
educational achievement but your level of maturity.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
> >>>>>> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
> >>>>> How stupid can you be?
> >>>>>
> >>>> OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
> >>>> Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.
> >>> Are you an adult?
> >>>
> >> Enough to know that looking at someone in the 'hood could be
> >> interpreted as a challenge. Not a smart thing to do to someone who may
> >> well be armed and not care too much about going back to prison for a
> >> bit.
> >>
> >> I would like to see Zaumen come to the 'hood and pontificate on the
> >> motor vehicle code. ;)
> > Why don't you cut your childish banter and act like an adult? Nobody
> > is going to get shot at merely for keeping track of the vehicles and
> > pedestrians around them to avoid hitting someone.
> >
> One can do that without making eye contact.
>
> Mr. Zaumen would not do well in the 'hood with his attitude.

You are not going to be shot for "making eye contact" while driving
when you are obviously just trying to make sure that someone saw you
or knows that you saw them.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >>>
> >> Citation?
> > Stop playing childish games. You behavior was documented over and
> > over
> > the last few days.
> >
> Citations?

Still playing silly games?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 03 Feb 2008 23:00:30 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
(Bill Z.) wrote:

> I've seen you post so much spin that I really don't believe anything
> you say.
>
PLONK. i don't see why anyone would waste time on your posts. i
certainly won't any more.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>>>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
>>>>>>>>> pits).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
>>>>>>>> are like.
>>>>>>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
>>>>>>> should I believe you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>> Channeling Vandeman?
>>>> How can an opinion be a lie?
>>> You made a very clear, false statement about me, and you lied.
>>>
>> What false statement? How can an opinion be a lie?
>
> It was worded as a statement of fact, not as an opinion.

Nonsense.

>> If I truly believe that Mr. Zaumen is confusing opinions with facts,
>> that logically, what I wrote can not be a lie.
>> What is so hard to comprehend here (other than Zaumen's zealous
>> defense of "bicycle farcilities" (sic))?
>
> Another lie. There was no "zealous defense" of bicycle facilities.
> I merely described what the law is.
>
This discussion would be slightly less unproductive if Mr. Zaumen could
stop confusing statements of opinions with statements of facts.

Mr. Zaumen's posting of "Liar" is reminiscent of Mr. Vandeman's online
posting style, no?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> vey > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>>>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
>>>>>>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
>>>>>>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
>>>>>>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
>>>>>>> have changed.
>>>>>>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
>>>>>>> though. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever drive in the 'hood?
>>>>> Have you graduated from high school?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
>>>> teachers, administrators and students.
>>> It shows.
>>>
>> Yes, I was smart enough to get away from incompetent teachers, petty
>> and vindictive administrators, and ignorant redneck students.
>>
>>>> I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
>>>> however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
>>>> "Green Book". :)
>>>>
>>>> Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
>>>> transportation facility analysis and/or design?
>>> I'm not impressed.
>>>
>> Zaumen brought up educational achievement, but to this point has
>> refused to post how his is relevant to the subject. Will he post his
>> transportation facility design related credentials, or does he not
>> have any?
>
> Another lie - I asked if you had graduated from high school because
> of your resmark, "Ever drive in the 'hood". The issue was not your
> educational achievement but your level of maturity.
>
What is a "resmark"?

I am starting to wonder if Mr. Zaumen even knows what a lie is? Is not
asking if one graduated from high school referencing educational
achievement? And asking a question can not by definition be a lie.

If Mr. Zaumen had ever driven in the 'hood, he would have many
opportunities to observe the behavior I describe. Things may well be
different in "Silicon Valley" for all I know.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>> Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER,
>>>>>>>> EVER MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.
>>>>>>> How stupid can you be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, come to the 'hood and get capped by a gangbanger. This ain't Silly
>>>>>> Cone Valley. Its your funeral (literally), not mine.
>>>>> Are you an adult?
>>>>>
>>>> Enough to know that looking at someone in the 'hood could be
>>>> interpreted as a challenge. Not a smart thing to do to someone who may
>>>> well be armed and not care too much about going back to prison for a
>>>> bit.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see Zaumen come to the 'hood and pontificate on the
>>>> motor vehicle code. ;)
>>> Why don't you cut your childish banter and act like an adult? Nobody
>>> is going to get shot at merely for keeping track of the vehicles and
>>> pedestrians around them to avoid hitting someone.
>>>
>> One can do that without making eye contact.
>>
>> Mr. Zaumen would not do well in the 'hood with his attitude.
>
> You are not going to be shot for "making eye contact" while driving
> when you are obviously just trying to make sure that someone saw you
> or knows that you saw them.
>
Answer the question Zaumen - have you ever spent much time in the 'hood?
Have you ever made acquaintance with anyone who has spent their whole
life living in the 'hood?

The answers to the above seem to be obvious.

Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit it. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Citation?
>>> Stop playing childish games. You behavior was documented over and
>>> over
>>> the last few days.
>>>
>> Citations?
>
> Still playing silly games?
>
If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>>>>>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
> >>>>>>>>> pits).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
> >>>>>>>> are like.
> >>>>>>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
> >>>>>>> should I believe you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
> >>>>> Liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Channeling Vandeman?
> >>>> How can an opinion be a lie?
> >>> You made a very clear, false statement about me, and you lied.
> >>>
> >> What false statement? How can an opinion be a lie?
> > It was worded as a statement of fact, not as an opinion.
>
> Nonsense.

No, I described exactly how you worded it. Lying won't change it.
> This discussion would be slightly less unproductive if Mr. Zaumen
> could stop confusing statements of opinions with statements of facts.
>
> Mr. Zaumen's posting of "Liar" is reminiscent of Mr. Vandeman's online
> posting style, no?

No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
about me that had no basis in fact.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>> vey > writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
> >>>>>>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
> >>>>>>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
> >>>>>>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
> >>>>>>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
> >>>>>>> have changed.
> >>>>>>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
> >>>>>>> though. :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ever drive in the 'hood?
> >>>>> Have you graduated from high school?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
> >>>> teachers, administrators and students.
> >>> It shows.
> >>>
> >> Yes, I was smart enough to get away from incompetent teachers, petty
> >> and vindictive administrators, and ignorant redneck students.
> >>
> >>>> I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
> >>>> however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
> >>>> "Green Book". :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
> >>>> transportation facility analysis and/or design?
> >>> I'm not impressed.
> >>>
> >> Zaumen brought up educational achievement, but to this point has
> >> refused to post how his is relevant to the subject. Will he post his
> >> transportation facility design related credentials, or does he not
> >> have any?
> > Another lie - I asked if you had graduated from high school because
> > of your resmark, "Ever drive in the 'hood". The issue was not your
> > educational achievement but your level of maturity.
> >
> What is a "resmark"?

What you get when your finger isn't positiioned completely over the
'e' and you end up hitting the 's' as well.

<silliness snipped>

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>
> >> Mr. Zaumen would not do well in the 'hood with his attitude.
> > You are not going to be shot for "making eye contact" while driving
> > when you are obviously just trying to make sure that someone saw you
> > or knows that you saw them.
> >
> Answer the question Zaumen - have you ever spent much time in the
> 'hood? Have you ever made acquaintance with anyone who has spent their
> whole life living in the 'hood?
>
> The answers to the above seem to be obvious.
>
> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
> it. ;)

Troll.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Citation?
> >>> Stop playing childish games. You behavior was documented over and
> >>> over
> >>> the last few days.
> >>>
> >> Citations?
> > Still playing silly games?
> >
> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.

Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.





--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the
>>>>>>>>>>> pits).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers
>>>>>>>>>> are like.
>>>>>>>>> Given how factually challenged everything else you posted is, why
>>>>>>>>> should I believe you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr. Zaumen is confusing his opinions with facts.
>>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Channeling Vandeman?
>>>>>> How can an opinion be a lie?
>>>>> You made a very clear, false statement about me, and you lied.
>>>>>
>>>> What false statement? How can an opinion be a lie?
>>> It was worded as a statement of fact, not as an opinion.
>> Nonsense.
>
> No, I described exactly how you worded it. Lying won't change it.
>
How can one explain to Mr. Zaumen what is and what is not a lie?

>> This discussion would be slightly less unproductive if Mr. Zaumen
>> could stop confusing statements of opinions with statements of facts.
>>
>> Mr. Zaumen's posting of "Liar" is reminiscent of Mr. Vandeman's online
>> posting style, no?
>
> No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
> about me that had no basis in fact.
>
How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> vey > writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ever drive in Chicago?
>>>>>>>>>> People told me how awful it was to drive in Boston and Chitown.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I have driven in Boston and ridden a bike there. Now, drivers
>>>>>>>>> could be pretty eratic, but it was random - they weren't targeting
>>>>>>>>> anyone in particular. But that was a while ago, and conditions may
>>>>>>>>> have changed.
>>>>>>>>> I can see why Tom Sherman had to try to change the subject,
>>>>>>>>> though. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ever drive in the 'hood?
>>>>>>> Have you graduated from high school?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I dropped out once from high school, but that was due to crappy
>>>>>> teachers, administrators and students.
>>>>> It shows.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I was smart enough to get away from incompetent teachers, petty
>>>> and vindictive administrators, and ignorant redneck students.
>>>>
>>>>>> I do have a engineering degree in transportation facilities design,
>>>>>> however. I even have both "English" and "Metric" copies of the AASHTO
>>>>>> "Green Book". :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you want to play this game, what are your credentials in
>>>>>> transportation facility analysis and/or design?
>>>>> I'm not impressed.
>>>>>
>>>> Zaumen brought up educational achievement, but to this point has
>>>> refused to post how his is relevant to the subject. Will he post his
>>>> transportation facility design related credentials, or does he not
>>>> have any?
>>> Another lie - I asked if you had graduated from high school because
>>> of your resmark, "Ever drive in the 'hood". The issue was not your
>>> educational achievement but your level of maturity.
>>>
>> What is a "resmark"?
>
> What you get when your finger isn't positiioned completely over the
> 'e' and you end up hitting the 's' as well.
>
> <silliness snipped>

Spell checker not functional?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>> Mr. Zaumen would not do well in the 'hood with his attitude.
>>> You are not going to be shot for "making eye contact" while driving
>>> when you are obviously just trying to make sure that someone saw you
>>> or knows that you saw them.
>>>
>> Answer the question Zaumen - have you ever spent much time in the
>> 'hood? Have you ever made acquaintance with anyone who has spent their
>> whole life living in the 'hood?
>>
>> The answers to the above seem to be obvious.
>>
>> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
>> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
>> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
>> it. ;)
>
> Troll.
>
Troglodyte?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Citation?
>>>>> Stop playing childish games. You behavior was documented over and
>>>>> over
>>>>> the last few days.
>>>>>
>>>> Citations?
>>> Still playing silly games?
>>>
>> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
>> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
>
> Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
>
Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >


> > No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
> > about me that had no basis in fact.
> >
> How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.

In other words, you lied were caught, and are trying to get out of it
by calling your lie an "opinion" when it was in fact a direct
statement about an individual.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >>>
> >> What is a "resmark"?
> > What you get when your finger isn't positiioned completely over the
> > 'e' and you end up hitting the 's' as well.
> > <silliness snipped>
>
> Spell checker not functional?

Do you think responding to you is worth the effort of running it
(particularly when it would try to correct the posts I'm quoting as
well)?



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
> >> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
> >> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
> >> it. ;)
> > Troll.
> >
> Troglodyte?

Grow up.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
> >> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
> > Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
> >
> Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?

Troll.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>
>
>>> No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
>>> about me that had no basis in fact.
>>>
>> How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.
>
> In other words, you lied were caught, and are trying to get out of it
> by calling your lie an "opinion" when it was in fact a direct
> statement about an individual.
>
When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> What is a "resmark"?
>>> What you get when your finger isn't positiioned completely over the
>>> 'e' and you end up hitting the 's' as well.
>>> <silliness snipped>
>> Spell checker not functional?
>
> Do you think responding to you is worth the effort of running it
> (particularly when it would try to correct the posts I'm quoting as
> well)?

Thunderbird only checks new text, unless one highlights the quoted text
before requesting the spell check.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
>>>> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
>>>> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
>>>> it. ;)
>>> Troll.
>>>
>> Troglodyte?
>
> Grow up.

Ogre?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
>>>> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
>>> Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
>>>
>> Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?
>
> Troll.
>
Gnome.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >
> >>> No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
> >>> about me that had no basis in fact.
> >>>
> >> How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.
> > In other words, you lied were caught, and are trying to get out of it
> > by calling your lie an "opinion" when it was in fact a direct
> > statement about an individual.
> >
> When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?

When will you learn to stop spinning, troll?



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> What is a "resmark"?
> >>> What you get when your finger isn't positiioned completely over the
> >>> 'e' and you end up hitting the 's' as well.
> >>> <silliness snipped>
> >> Spell checker not functional?
> > Do you think responding to you is worth the effort of running it
> > (particularly when it would try to correct the posts I'm quoting as
> > well)?
>
> Thunderbird only checks new text, unless one highlights the quoted
> text before requesting the spell check.

I don't use Thunderbird - the program I do use has some other
advantages. While I could reprogram it to just check new text,
I'm really too busy right now to be bothered with that.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
> >>>> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
> >>>> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
> >>>> it. ;)
> >>> Troll.
> >>>
> >> Troglodyte?
> > Grow up.
>
> Ogre?

Grow up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
> >>>> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
> >>> Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
> >>>
> >> Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?
> > Troll.
> >
> Gnome.

Gnome is window manager, troll.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Dan Connelly]

Bill Z. wrote:

>>> Troll.
>>>
>> Gnome.
>
> Gnome is window manager, troll.
>

Please drop ba.bicycles from this thread.

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

vey schrieb:
> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
> can get things going.

It's quite comforting that concerned citizen can get things going.

It shows that the system still works.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
>>>>> about me that had no basis in fact.
>>>>>
>>>> How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.
>>> In other words, you lied were caught, and are trying to get out of it
>>> by calling your lie an "opinion" when it was in fact a direct
>>> statement about an individual.
>>>
>> When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?
>
> When will you learn to stop spinning, troll?
>
When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
>>>>>> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
>>>>>> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
>>>>>> it. ;)
>>>>> Troll.
>>>>>
>>>> Troglodyte?
>>> Grow up.
>> Ogre?
>
> Grow up.
>
Bugbear?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>>> Troll.
>>>>
>>> Gnome.
>> Gnome is window manager, troll.
>>
>
> Please drop ba.bicycles from this thread.

Why?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
>>>>>> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
>>>>> Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
>>>>>
>>>> Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?
>>> Troll.
>>>
>> Gnome.
>
> Gnome is window manager, troll.
>
No, Gnomes are the ones who make ISO 451-mm tires, tubes and rims in
underground caves.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>>>> Troll.
>>>>
>>> Gnome.
>>
>> Gnome is window manager, troll.
>>
>
> Please drop ba.bicycles from this thread.

My fault for bringing it in in the first place. I've felt bad ever since.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Please drop ba.bicycles from this thread.
>
> Why?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

Because ba.bicycles generally has a manageable amount of content that deals
directly with issues in the SF Bay Area. This thread has taken off in
directions that I never intended when I started it (although if I'd thought
it through better, I would have realized it would happen).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA



"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>>> Troll.
>>>>>
>>>> Gnome.
>>> Gnome is window manager, troll.
>>>
>>
>> Please drop ba.bicycles from this thread.
>
> Why?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
>> can get things going.
>
> It's quite comforting that concerned citizen can get things going.
>
> It shows that the system still works.

The system does work. But only for those that spend the time & effort to
work it.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
> >>>>> about me that had no basis in fact.
> >>>>>
> >>>> How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.
> >>> In other words, you lied were caught, and are trying to get out of it
> >>> by calling your lie an "opinion" when it was in fact a direct
> >>> statement about an individual.
> >>>
> >> When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?
> > When will you learn to stop spinning, troll?
> >
> When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?

When will you stop lying?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
> >>>>>> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
> >>>>>> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
> >>>>>> it. ;)
> >>>>> Troll.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Troglodyte?
> >>> Grow up.
> >> Ogre?
> > Grow up.
> >
> Bugbear?

Grow up.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman > writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
> >>>>>> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
> >>>>>> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
> >>>>> Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?
> >>> Troll.
> >>>
> >> Gnome.
> > Gnome is window manager, troll.
> >
> No, Gnomes are the ones who make ISO 451-mm tires, tubes and rims in
> underground caves.

No, troll. Gnome is a window manager. <http://www.gnome.org/>.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No! I complained about what really was a lie - a statement of yours
>>>>>>> about me that had no basis in fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can an opinion be a lie? Only on Planet Zaumen, one supposes.
>>>>> In other words, you lied were caught, and are trying to get out of it
>>>>> by calling your lie an "opinion" when it was in fact a direct
>>>>> statement about an individual.
>>>>>
>>>> When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?
>>> When will you learn to stop spinning, troll?
>>>
>> When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?
>
> When will you stop lying?
>
When will Zaumen learn to distinguish between an opinion and a lie?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, maybe Mr. Zaumen would ward off violence by quoting the
>>>>>>>> appropriate section of the criminal code to the gang-banger. I am sure
>>>>>>>> if the gang-banger knew violence was illegal, he would not commit
>>>>>>>> it. ;)
>>>>>>> Troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Troglodyte?
>>>>> Grow up.
>>>> Ogre?
>>> Grow up.
>>>
>> Bugbear?
>
> Grow up.
>
Goblin?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman > writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman > writes:
>>>>>>>> If my behavior has been documented, then provide a citation for the
>>>>>>>> documentation. That is hardly an unreasonable request.
>>>>>>> Read your posts from the last week on rec.bicycles.soc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the documentation from a recognized authority on silliness?
>>>>> Troll.
>>>>>
>>>> Gnome.
>>> Gnome is window manager, troll.
>>>
>> No, Gnomes are the ones who make ISO 451-mm tires, tubes and rims in
>> underground caves.
>
> No, troll. Gnome is a window manager. <http://www.gnome.org/>.
>
Good luck when you need an ISO 451-mm related item, since the gnomes are
peeved.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:
>>> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
>>> can get things going.
>> It's quite comforting that concerned citizen can get things going.
>>
>> It shows that the system still works.
>
> The system does work. But only for those that spend the time & effort to
> work it.

So, what would you expect instead?

[Eric Vey]

Jens Müller wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:
>>>> It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one
>>>> that can get things going.
>>> It's quite comforting that concerned citizen can get things going.
>>>
>>> It shows that the system still works.
>>
>> The system does work. But only for those that spend the time & effort
>> to work it.
>
> So, what would you expect instead?

In this particular case:
1. That a driver should have their license suspended after being caught
dangerously. (Done.)
2. That after a driver is caught a few times driving without a license,
sterner measures are taken.
3. That once someone has been convicted of a felony and is on probation,
that person shouldn't be allowed to drive without a license.
4. That once someone has been convicted of a felony and is arrested
twice for misdemeanor crimes, probation should be revoked.
5. That when an obvious case of reckless driving is committed and after
the blood test comes back positive for drugs, an arrest is made.
6. Official acknowledgment that some people are such bad drivers that
their fingers around a steering wheel is equivalent to their fingers
around a loaded weapon.

My inquiry to the prosecutors resulted in a new inquiry directed to the
police. No arrest has been forthcoming after 3 1/2 months. I'm waiting
for a reply from them.