about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement) [Archive]

max

August 24th 08, 05:48 PM

In article <6Mfsk.640$w51.227@trnddc01>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

> max wrote:
>
> > yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
> > directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
> > alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
> > through that intersection. As i sat there, eating my greek salad and
> > broody maly, I couldn't help thinking that "victimhood" carries with it
> > a certain ethic/moral component and that this guy wasn't a victim.
> > Casualty, yes, but victim?
>
> From what I've read, not even the other alley cat racers considered him
> a victim. I guess you interpret the ghost bike as some sort of implicit
> victimhood claim, but you could just as easily consider it a reminder to
> the alley cats and others that riding like that carries fatal risks.

i disagree, emphatically.
>
> > I walked that intersection after lunch and
> > scoped the sightlines. I was soo tempted to make a sign that said
> > DUMBASS for the ghost bike, although barb restrained me. But her
> > message "stupid people die in stupid ways" would have taken too much
> > foamboard.
>
> I can't imagine any life that hasn't included some really stupid
> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
> for you?

i made it pretty clear: these bikes little shrines need to have some
kind of context. this one is so far away from the intersection (and on
the wrong side of the street) that it looks like the guy got splattered
coming out of a Starbucks.

in the context of the trib story, it's that plenty of the city's
cyclists think he _is_ a victim. I can find you about a dozen in the
apt. building next door who think the Lincoln/Irving park bike
represents some biker who got splattered by YA inattentive cager. they
have no. clue.

Without context it becomes whatever treacly legend one's mind comes up
with.

More generally, i'm not real keen on memorializing every location in the
city where someone dies. Chicago has a lot of people. They die. What
makes one person's stupid death on the sidewalk/street more deserving of
memorialization than another's? Will there be a ribbon for the cop that
shot himself at Milwaukee and Logan this week?

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

smr

August 24th 08, 08:28 PM

On 2008-08-24, max > wrote:
> In article >,
> Geoff Gass > wrote:
>
>> max > wrote:
>> > Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
>> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
>> > 2,0,3716423.story>
>> >
>> > Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
>> > tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
>> > lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors.
>> > Out rage us.
>> >
>> > I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
>> > lights, but only about 2% for stop signs.
>>
>> I get not stopping at stop signs when there's noone around or timing
>> them so you hit the sign at the same time a car going your direction is
>> going so you don't have to stop. Technically illegal, sure, but not
>> unsafe.
>
> ya. i don't get too cranked-up about that.
>
>> What I don't get is the ****ers like the guy I almost hit by
>> DePaul who blasted the stop sign as I'm already in the middle of the
>> intersection, so I had to panic stop not to hit him and then flipped me
>> off.
>
> agreed. this lighting stuf (no lights + ironic hipster blaque) really
> annoys me.
>
>> That guy deserves to get hit, but the person who will hit him
>> doesn't deserve to go through that. That kind of Critical Masshole
>> needs to get a damned clue.
>
> yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
> directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
> alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
> through that intersection. As i sat there, eating my greek salad and
> broody maly, I couldn't help thinking that "victimhood" carries with it
> a certain ethic/moral component and that this guy wasn't a victim.
> Casualty, yes, but victim? I walked that intersection after lunch and
> scoped the sightlines. I was soo tempted to make a sign that said
> DUMBASS for the ghost bike, although barb restrained me. But her
> message "stupid people die in stupid ways" would have taken too much
> foamboard.
>
> .max
>

Shoulda posted. I live about 2 minutes' walk from the Lincoln. Not the
best diner in the 'hood, but passable.

--
smr

Geoff Gass

August 24th 08, 10:48 PM

Leo Lichtman > wrote:
> "Geoff Gass" wrote: I get not stopping at stop signs when there's noone
> around or timing
>> them so you hit the sign at the same time a car going your direction is
>> going so you don't have to stop. Technically illegal, sure, but not
>> unsafe. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Actually SAFER than stopping and waiting for the next opportunity, AND less
> disruptive to traffic.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, you could argue (at the illogical extreme) that it would be safer
to wait for a real break in traffic, but at some intersections, that
could be a long time. You're absolutely right about less disruptive to
traffic. A lot of cyclists I see are pretty good at it. A little coast
as you approach the intersection to read the cars, then zoom through
with one.

> (clip) Critical Masshole (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I love it :-)))

I take no credit, that's mercilessly stolen from some other poster.

Geoff Gass

August 24th 08, 11:03 PM

Peter Cole > wrote:
> max wrote:
>> yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
>> directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
>> alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
>> through that intersection. As i sat there, eating my greek salad and
>> broody maly, I couldn't help thinking that "victimhood" carries with it
>> a certain ethic/moral component and that this guy wasn't a victim.
>> Casualty, yes, but victim?
>
> From what I've read, not even the other alley cat racers considered him
> a victim. I guess you interpret the ghost bike as some sort of implicit
> victimhood claim, but you could just as easily consider it a reminder to
> the alley cats and others that riding like that carries fatal risks.

There was at least one guy quoted in the press saying that the dead
guy was a victim.

<http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5986557>

> I can't imagine any life that hasn't included some really stupid
> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
> for you?

That's not his point at all. His point is that the guy shouldn't be
memorialized as a victim of car culture or whatever such BS is being put
out with this ghost bike. Try giving that kind of treatment to people
who deserve it, like Thomas McBride. (I know I'm going back a couple
years on that, but that was a big case for cyclists here).

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 24th 08, 11:26 PM

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
> some really stupid
>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
>> you?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
> learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
> cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
> "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
> us stay alive.
>
>

If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 24th 08, 11:41 PM

max wrote:
> In article <6Mfsk.640$w51.227@trnddc01>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> max wrote:
>>
>>> yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
>>> directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
>>> alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
>>> through that intersection. As i sat there, eating my greek salad and
>>> broody maly, I couldn't help thinking that "victimhood" carries with it
>>> a certain ethic/moral component and that this guy wasn't a victim.
>>> Casualty, yes, but victim?
>> From what I've read, not even the other alley cat racers considered him
>> a victim. I guess you interpret the ghost bike as some sort of implicit
>> victimhood claim, but you could just as easily consider it a reminder to
>> the alley cats and others that riding like that carries fatal risks.
>
> i disagree, emphatically.
>> > I walked that intersection after lunch and
>> > scoped the sightlines. I was soo tempted to make a sign that said
>> > DUMBASS for the ghost bike, although barb restrained me. But her
>> > message "stupid people die in stupid ways" would have taken too much
>> > foamboard.
>>
>> I can't imagine any life that hasn't included some really stupid
>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
>> for you?
>
> i made it pretty clear: these bikes little shrines need to have some
> kind of context. this one is so far away from the intersection (and on
> the wrong side of the street) that it looks like the guy got splattered
> coming out of a Starbucks.

It wasn't clear to me, you wrote:

"yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
through that intersection. "

> in the context of the trib story, it's that plenty of the city's
> cyclists think he _is_ a victim.

Which Trib story? The one you cited didn't mention the incident.

> I can find you about a dozen in the
> apt. building next door who think the Lincoln/Irving park bike
> represents some biker who got splattered by YA inattentive cager. they
> have no. clue.

Perhaps not. I'm sure most people don't know what a white painted bike
means, either.

> Without context it becomes whatever treacly legend one's mind comes up
> with.

I'm sure it wouldn't to the 50 or so participants in the race he was in.

> More generally, i'm not real keen on memorializing every location in the
> city where someone dies. Chicago has a lot of people. They die. What
> makes one person's stupid death on the sidewalk/street more deserving of
> memorialization than another's? Will there be a ribbon for the cop that
> shot himself at Milwaukee and Logan this week?

It's a free country (more or less). If some citizen (or group of
citizens) wants to put up white painted bikes at the site of cyclist
fatalities I guess it's their business.

Cydrome Leader

August 24th 08, 11:48 PM

In chi.general smr > wrote:
> On 2008-08-24, max > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Geoff Gass > wrote:
>>
>>> max > wrote:
>>> > Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
>>> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
>>> > 2,0,3716423.story>
>>> >
>>> > Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
>>> > tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
>>> > lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors.
>>> > Out rage us.
>>> >
>>> > I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
>>> > lights, but only about 2% for stop signs.
>>>
>>> I get not stopping at stop signs when there's noone around or timing
>>> them so you hit the sign at the same time a car going your direction is
>>> going so you don't have to stop. Technically illegal, sure, but not
>>> unsafe.
>>
>> ya. i don't get too cranked-up about that.
>>
>>> What I don't get is the ****ers like the guy I almost hit by
>>> DePaul who blasted the stop sign as I'm already in the middle of the
>>> intersection, so I had to panic stop not to hit him and then flipped me
>>> off.
>>
>> agreed. this lighting stuf (no lights + ironic hipster blaque) really
>> annoys me.
>>
>>> That guy deserves to get hit, but the person who will hit him
>>> doesn't deserve to go through that. That kind of Critical Masshole
>>> needs to get a damned clue.
>>
>> yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
>> directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
>> alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
>> through that intersection. As i sat there, eating my greek salad and
>> broody maly, I couldn't help thinking that "victimhood" carries with it
>> a certain ethic/moral component and that this guy wasn't a victim.
>> Casualty, yes, but victim? I walked that intersection after lunch and
>> scoped the sightlines. I was soo tempted to make a sign that said
>> DUMBASS for the ghost bike, although barb restrained me. But her
>> message "stupid people die in stupid ways" would have taken too much
>> foamboard.
>>
>> .max
>>
>
> Shoulda posted. I live about 2 minutes' walk from the Lincoln. Not the
> best diner in the 'hood, but passable.

there's some weird vibes in that place, but the food seemed ok.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 01:16 AM

Geoff Gass wrote:
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>> max wrote:
>>> yesterday we were at the Lincoln restaurant at Lincoln and Irving Park,
>>> directly across the street from the ghost bike they erekted for that
>>> alley cat dude (Manger Lynch??) that got splattered during a "race"
>>> through that intersection. As i sat there, eating my greek salad and
>>> broody maly, I couldn't help thinking that "victimhood" carries with it
>>> a certain ethic/moral component and that this guy wasn't a victim.
>>> Casualty, yes, but victim?
>> From what I've read, not even the other alley cat racers considered him
>> a victim. I guess you interpret the ghost bike as some sort of implicit
>> victimhood claim, but you could just as easily consider it a reminder to
>> the alley cats and others that riding like that carries fatal risks.
>
> There was at least one guy quoted in the press saying that the dead
> guy was a victim.
>
> <http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5986557>

Yeah, it was the guy's friend & organizer of the event. He went off on
some anti-car rant -- film at 11:00.

>> I can't imagine any life that hasn't included some really stupid
>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
>> for you?
>
> That's not his point at all. His point is that the guy shouldn't be
> memorialized as a victim of car culture or whatever such BS is being put
> out with this ghost bike. Try giving that kind of treatment to people
> who deserve it, like Thomas McBride. (I know I'm going back a couple
> years on that, but that was a big case for cyclists here).

Ghost bikes are hardly like Nobel prizes or Congressional Medals of
Honor, there's no committee. Anybody can paint a bike white & chain it
to a street post.

ZBicyclist

August 25th 08, 03:03 AM

"max" > wrote in message
...
> Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
> 2,0,3716423.story>
>
> Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and
> 11
> tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind
> of
> lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have
> reflectors.
> Out rage us.
>
> I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80%
> for
> lights, but only about 2% for stop signs.
>
[writing from r.b.m., but living in Chicago. Is chi.general worth
reading again, or it is still low in information content?]

A little education never hurt nobody. This year there are a lot of
newby's out there, and also cyclists who haven't been on a bicycle
much since they got their driver's license. There's a lot of bad
cycling behavior to be seen, and if giving people a traffic fine
will maybe save their lives, I'm all for it.

Based on my riding down Elston, I'd estimate lights at about 40%.
But that's a major commuter route, and a lot of the cyclists there
are regulars. If you observed 20 cyclists in Logan Square and 18
didn't have lighting, I wouldn't be surprised.

Motorist compliance at stop signs (4 way stop type of intersections,
in the absence of cross-traffic) isn't that far above 2% in terms of
coming to a complete stop. There's a lot of "rolling through while
looking" on the motorist side as well. The sight lines on a bicycle
are much better than in a car (because you don't have an engine in
front of you), so it makes some sense that cyclists would roll
through more.

sticks

August 25th 08, 03:32 AM

ZBicyclist wrote:
> "max" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
>> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
>> 2,0,3716423.story>
>>
>> Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and
>> 11
>> tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind
>> of
>> lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have
>> reflectors.
>> Out rage us.
>>
>> I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80%
>> for
>> lights, but only about 2% for stop signs.
>>
> [writing from r.b.m., but living in Chicago. Is chi.general worth
> reading again, or it is still low in information content?]

we're in the middle of a name change proposition
chi.jon.nelson.general

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 04:31 AM

barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> Ghost bikes are hardly like Nobel prizes or Congressional Medals of
>> Honor, there's no committee. Anybody can paint a bike white & chain it
>> to a street post.
>
> You sure about that?
> I saw an email address posted, that said something like "for more info
> on this Ghost Bike, contact soandso@whatever.
>
> My impression is that there is a core group that erects these, and they
> get a group together for the "installation" and so forth. I'll have to
> google it, but I think it's not just some random white bike erected by
> an anonymous mourner.

Trib article from May:
http://www.ghostbikes.org/press/ethereal-reminders-roads-risks-across-chicago-streams-bicyclists-pay-tribute-ghostly-white-bik

They didn't say who put up the bike for Matthew Manger-Lynch, but in the
latest Chicago fatality mentioned, Tyler Fabeck, the article says it was
friends and family:

"Starting with a junked frame, several friends and Tyler's brother Jason
took turns stripping the handlebars, welding on wheels and pedals and
spray-painting the final, assembled product."

I don't get all the nastiness.

Leo Lichtman

August 25th 08, 04:38 AM

"Peter Cole" wrote: If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a
ghost bike?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see your point.

spamtrap1888@gmail.com

August 25th 08, 07:00 AM

On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
> > "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
> > some really stupid
> >> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
> >> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
> >> you?
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
> > learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
> > cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
> > "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
> > us stay alive.
>
> If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?

How about "He was dead wrong"?

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 01:30 PM

wrote:
> On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>>> "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
>>> some really stupid
>>>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
>>>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
>>>> you?
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
>>> learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
>>> cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
>>> "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
>>> us stay alive.
>> If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?
>
> How about "He was dead wrong"?

I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

Geoff Gass

August 25th 08, 02:00 PM

Peter Cole > wrote:
> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
> his friends and family.

Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
a red when traffic's already going the other way.

Brent P

August 25th 08, 02:56 PM

On 2008-08-25, Geoff Gass > wrote:
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>> his friends and family.
>
> Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
> understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
> onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
> a red when traffic's already going the other way.

It's nothing when it's a right on red and you slowed down to 0.00001 mph
or some other low speed that would be aproximately zero to make sure it
was clear and make the turn. Congalining through when the signal turns
red can be just as bad result wise as going through at the middle of the
signal. Someone in cross traffic could be at speed and have the green
timed perfectly. Recently I was waiting at a light and guy went across
the line in the last half second of red because his timing was off, he
was just a wee bit early.

What I find odd is that the very same drivers who will risk killing a
bicyclist for no gain at all suddenly find it horrible when someone on a
bicycle puts himself at risk of being killed by doing something stupid
(like run a red light, that actually has a gain for the bicycle rider).
Is because these drivers are in control of the offing of the bicycle
rider when they clip him with a side mirror or right hook him or cut
him off and slam on the brakes or pull out in front of him or any other
number of selfish and disrespectful actions?

They can brush pass a bicyclist intentionally, missing him by only a few
inches but if a bicycle rider goes through a red and they miss him by a
few inches there's now a 'trauma' of nearly hiting someone? Now it's a
problem? They don't have a problem risking making a hood decoration out
of a legal operating bicyclist that is 'in their way', so why have a
problem with one operating illegally by running a red signal?

I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
bicycle riders behave as such?

Brent P

August 25th 08, 04:54 PM

On 2008-08-25, barbie gee > wrote:

> "Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
> is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
> is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
> the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
> conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
> that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable". Yielding to
> the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
> a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."

> Um, how about we ALL own the road, and we ALL share and have a
> responsibility to follow the rules of the road, respect the protocols and
> behave in a predictable fashion while on those roads?

Because this is no longer a culture that cares for individual liberty.
It's about gaining power through the political process. About using the
force of government to take from others for your own benefit. That's
why. Why should these people be any different about their particular
topic of interest than any one else with theirs? Their view is typical
of most people in the US these days, that's it's fine to take from
everyone else through the political process.

> We give a few groups special emphasis,

Right there is the recipe for failure. Group think.

> by pointing out their existence,
> like children (school warnings), deaf, seniors. But these signs are there
> to show they are a special group of poeple who may not be able to respond
> in a predictable way to traffic around them. If cyclist wish to be
> treated as incapable of navigating traffic like the rest of us, then they
> ought to get their own special roads, somewhere very safe, away from
> traffic. Special treatment, I suppose.

The vast majority of drivers do not want legally operating bicyclists
that they have to respect as other vehicle operators. I learned to ride
in the 'stay out of the way of cars' school. This school of thought
means one rides to avoid conflict with motor vehicle traffic. The
problem is that by trying to do so one has more conflicts with drivers.
Running red signals actually can reduce your interaction with motor
vehicle traffic in many situations BTW. Sure the conflicts when they
happen are killers, but there is less interaction over all.

Most drivers do not have any problems with these near deadly conflicts
from sidewalk riding, wrong way riding, etc that put bicycle riders in
places no traffic should be. The idea that they are 'staying out of the
way of cars', defering to the power of the automobile means it's 'okay'.

After moving to an area where there were no good options for 'staying
out of the way of cars' and having daily near-misses I made a conversion
to total, 100% vehicular bicycling. Instead of nearly being killed by
friendly motorists I was getting hostile angry motorists yelling at me
for merely using the road.

I found that the average driver would rather have a bicycle rider use
the side walk and then jump to the road and run a red signal than
to be behind a bicyclist waiting in a queue at that same red signal.

I don't know what happened to things like the film 'Drive your bike' on
archive.org, but somewhere things changed. Bicycle riders were supposed
to stay out of the way and that was most important, not the rules of
right of way or anything like that.

When drivers as a whole started believing that bicycle riders were not
vehicle operators, when someone got out of their car on and on to a
bicycle he didn't behave as a vehicle operator. It's the same mentality
on both ends. When kids are taught to 'stay out of the way of cars' they
end up believing that people should ride that way once they are driving.
They then practice it while riding. But what of the conflicts?

What's their decision in this culture of taking through the political
process when there is a problem with the method of riding they learned
as kids? Re-examine the method? surely not. It's to have drivers yield
to their brand of riding. Who's 'right' isn't decided by simple logical
rules of 'right of way', it's decided by political power. It's 'us' vs.
'them'.

max

August 25th 08, 05:17 PM

In article <XBxsk.722$UX.560@trnddc03>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> >> Leo Lichtman wrote:
> >>> "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't
> >>> included
> >>> some really stupid
> >>>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
> >>>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
> >>>> for
> >>>> you?
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did
> >>> not
> >>> learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him
> >>> and
> >>> cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
> >>> "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest
> >>> of
> >>> us stay alive.
> >> If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?
> >
> > How about "He was dead wrong"?
>
> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
> his friends and family.

scond point first. since you can't figure it out, i was being rhetorical
about putting a DUMBASS sign on the bike. Anyone with the IQ of frozen
yogurt should have been able to figure that out, yet you've made it made
it necessary for me to point it out explicitly.

As far as friends and family, no one has insulted his family. But,
since you opened the door, let's talk about his friends: they did a
real good job of stepping up to the plate on this. They helped create
the conditions that killed him, they encouraged his behavior and
supported him in killing himself and went on to lionize his behavior pos
humously. <golf clap> way to go, pals! Thanks for mentioning it.

If you want to be concerned about someone's feelings, how about that
poor woman who has to live the rest of her life with the memory of
having killed him? I can't remember,, did she have kids in the car?

Now. RE-RE-Stating the obvious: Not 1 in 100 people who pass that
particular bike have an inkling of its ontogeny. There's no context.
Nothing. As a cautionary tale it's three times more useful than a 3"x5"
sticker on a light pole proclaiming bikes are people too. Virtually
nobody who sees it will think -- "oh ya, that alley cat dude". They're
more likely to think "some cager stopping at starbuks squashed a biker".

What makes a bicyclist's death more tragic or important than anyone
else's? What about suicides? Murders? DUI victims? J-walkers? Stumbling
drunks? Children who ran into traffic? If we memorialize every
senseless or tragic or wrongful death on the streets of the City that
Worsks, (and it's a very big city), soon our sidewalks will be
completely impassable.

Do we really want our streets to be miles-long mausoleums?

..max

It doesn't send a truthful message, communicates victimhood.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

spamtrap1888@gmail.com

August 25th 08, 05:22 PM

On Aug 25, 5:30 am, Peter Cole > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> >> Leo Lichtman wrote:
> >>> "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
> >>> some really stupid
> >>>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
> >>>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
> >>>> you?
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
> >>> learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
> >>> cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
> >>> "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
> >>> us stay alive.
> >> If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?
>
> > How about "He was dead wrong"?
>
> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
> his friends and family.

His friends and family created a memorial at the place of his death. A
memorial in such a public place is meant to make the passersby think.
If the circumstances of his death are not explained, the implication
is that he was the innocent victim of a crazed motorist, when instead
he was the victim of his own bad judgment. Leaving this out makes the
memorial dishonest. Explaining the circumstances would make the
memorial educational for cyclists. The ghost bike would be like the
smashed-up car exhibits MADD hauls from high school to high school to
encourage prom-goers and new graduates not to drink and drive.

If the memorial were just for the friends and family, they could have
incorporated a bike in his grave stone. Instead they chose to inflict
it on the public.

max

August 25th 08, 05:33 PM

In article z>,
barbie gee > wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Geoff Gass wrote:
>
> > Peter Cole > wrote:
> >> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
> >> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
> >> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
> >> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
> >> his friends and family.
> >
> > Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
> > understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
> > onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
> > a red when traffic's already going the other way.
> >
>
> It's pretty clear there's a subculture that believes stuff like this:
>
> "Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
> is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
> is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
> the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
> conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
> that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable".

talk about wallowing in victimhood!

"conversation". That's pomo pocket-picking language attempting to
legitimize an illigitimate position. It's kind of like those people who
complained about all the money they invested in McDonalds and KFC (by
buying burgers)

> Yielding to
> the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
> a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."

y'know.... based on watching the car-bike interactions in the city the
last few times i've been there, i'd say that on average, car drivers are
_more_ than doing their part to protect cyclists on the road from
cyclist's behavior. Extraordinarily so.

While i see plenty of basically RotR-abiding cyclists (except for the
lighting thing!), i saw waaay waaaay more madly reckless cyclist who
seemed to be daring someone to squash them flat.

I think it's amazing there aren't several bike fatalities every night on
the north side.

Its truly pathetic that Chicago's cycling advocacy dweebs and critical
massholes don't recognize their willful contributions to aggravating
car-bike confrontations.

Which, to bring it around to the article i linked at the beginning of
this thread, means that there's lots of room for enforcement of bike
rules in chicago.

For the clueless, or out of towners, traffic enforcement in chicago
means money for the city. A nice revenue source is about to be tapped.
This one will actually have the side benefit of making the city safer.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 25th 08, 05:58 PM

In chi.general max > wrote:
>Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
>2,0,3716423.story>

>Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
>tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
>lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors.
>Out rage us.

>I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
>lights, but only about 2% for stop signs.

>Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in
>Chicago. I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more
>car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great
>deal of the credit goes to car drivers.

Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars...

I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet.

I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).

I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of
Pulaski...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 25th 08, 06:06 PM

In chi.general Peter Cole > wrote:
<snip>
>Ghost bikes are hardly like Nobel prizes or Congressional Medals of
>Honor, there's no committee. Anybody can paint a bike white & chain it
>to a street post.

So is there a law that covers abandon bikes... if a car is left in the same
spot for 7 days you call the city, they tag it and if it doesn't move in
another 7 they tow it...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 25th 08, 06:16 PM

On Aug 25, 12:58*pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general max > wrote:
>
> >Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
> >2,0,3716423.story>
> >Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
> >tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
> >lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors. *
> >Out rage us. * *
> >I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
> >lights, *but only about 2% for stop signs. *
> >Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in
> >Chicago. *I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more
> >car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great
> >deal of the credit goes to car drivers.
>
> Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars....
>
> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet. *
>
> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).
>
> I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of
> Pulaski...
>
> --
> John Nelson
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--
> * * * * * * * * * * * Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
> * * * *http://www.chicagopaddling.org*http://www.chicagofishing..org
> *(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area
have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red
blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing
white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is
kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My
headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I
need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the
road bike that's unlikely.

Brent P

August 25th 08, 06:19 PM

On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:

>
> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet.
>
> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).

MFFY + they seem to think all bicycle riders are going 5mph.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 08:24 PM

Geoff Gass wrote:
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>> his friends and family.
>
> Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
> understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
> onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
> a red when traffic's already going the other way.

It's still a misdemeanor. A $25 fine I believe in Chicago. People aren't
that stupid, the punishment fits the crime, that's a basic legal
principle. Trying to portray the alleycats as some sort of major
criminals is just silly. If you think red light running should be a
capital offense then you're way out there.

Cydrome Leader

August 25th 08, 08:27 PM

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 08:34 PM

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
> In chi.general Peter Cole > wrote:
> <snip>
>> Ghost bikes are hardly like Nobel prizes or Congressional Medals of
>> Honor, there's no committee. Anybody can paint a bike white & chain it
>> to a street post.
>
> So is there a law that covers abandon bikes... if a car is left in the same
> spot for 7 days you call the city, they tag it and if it doesn't move in
> another 7 they tow it...
>

If you go to the trouble to read up on it you'll see that sometimes
bikes are removed almost immediately, sometimes they linger for years,
about what you'd expect. These are not official monuments.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 08:42 PM

wrote:
> On Aug 25, 5:30 am, Peter Cole > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
>>>>> some really stupid
>>>>>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
>>>>>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
>>>>>> you?
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
>>>>> learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
>>>>> cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
>>>>> "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
>>>>> us stay alive.
>>>> If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?
>>> How about "He was dead wrong"?
>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>> his friends and family.
>
> His friends and family created a memorial at the place of his death. A
> memorial in such a public place is meant to make the passersby think.
> If the circumstances of his death are not explained, the implication
> is that he was the innocent victim of a crazed motorist, when instead
> he was the victim of his own bad judgment. Leaving this out makes the
> memorial dishonest. Explaining the circumstances would make the
> memorial educational for cyclists. The ghost bike would be like the
> smashed-up car exhibits MADD hauls from high school to high school to
> encourage prom-goers and new graduates not to drink and drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Bikes:

"Ghost Bikes are memorials to cyclists who are killed or injured while
on the street, primarily erected by other cyclists.[1] While the purpose
is to memorialize the rider, it also serves as a striking reminder to
both cyclists and drivers to conduct themselves carefully on the
road.[2] Ghost bikes are painted white and locked to an object such as a
street lamp or stop sign, near the site where the cyclist was killed."

http://www.ghostbikes.org/:

"Ghost Bikes are small and somber memorials for bicyclists who are
killed or hit on the street. A bicycle is painted all white and locked
to a street sign near the crash site, accompanied by a small plaque.
They serve as reminders of the tragedy that took place on an otherwise
anonymous street corner, and as quiet statements in support of cyclists'
right to safe travel."

> If the memorial were just for the friends and family, they could have
> incorporated a bike in his grave stone. Instead they chose to inflict
> it on the public.

It's a transient thing. I don't get all the bunched panties. If the
"public" doesn't like it, they'll remove it -- they usually are removed
from what I gather. If it offends you so much go paint it red.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 25th 08, 08:43 PM

In chi.general > wrote:
>On Aug 25, 12:58?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>> In chi.general max > wrote:
>>
>> >Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
>> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
>> >2,0,3716423.story>
>> >Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
>> >tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
>> >lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors. ?
>> >Out rage us. ? ?
>> >I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
>> >lights, ?but only about 2% for stop signs. ?
>> >Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in
>> >Chicago. ?I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more
>> >car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great
>> >deal of the credit goes to car drivers.
>>
>> Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars...
>>
>> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
>> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
>> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet. ?
>>
>> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
>> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
>> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).
>>
>> I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of
>> Pulaski...

<snip sig>

>What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area
>have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red
>blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing
>white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is
>kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My
>headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I
>need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the
>road bike that's unlikely.

The intensity of bike lights isn't that great compared to bright amber
overhead lights we have on Chicago streets. In a burb they are great, but
you need something to catch the attention of cars when it's quite bright
on a major street with so many overhead lights. I added the second lights
(the blinkys) in each direction after many close calls however they don't
seem to have reduced the number...

What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 08:44 PM

barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:

>> They didn't say who put up the bike for Matthew Manger-Lynch, but in
>> the latest Chicago fatality mentioned, Tyler Fabeck, the article says
>> it was friends and family:
>>
>> "Starting with a junked frame, several friends and Tyler's brother
>> Jason took turns stripping the handlebars, welding on wheels and
>> pedals and spray-painting the final, assembled product."
>>
>> I don't get all the nastiness.
>>
>
> not nasty, just annoyed, at least for me.

You have a very low threshold for annoyance.

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 25th 08, 08:49 PM

On Aug 25, 3:43 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 25, 12:58?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> >> In chi.general max > wrote:
>
> >> >Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
> >> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
> >> >2,0,3716423.story>
> >> >Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
> >> >tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
> >> >lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors. ?
> >> >Out rage us. ? ?
> >> >I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
> >> >lights, ?but only about 2% for stop signs. ?
> >> >Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in
> >> >Chicago. ?I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more
> >> >car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great
> >> >deal of the credit goes to car drivers.
>
> >> Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars...
>
> >> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
> >> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
> >> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet. ?
>
> >> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
> >> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
> >> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).
>
> >> I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of
> >> Pulaski...
>
> <snip sig>
>
> >What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area
> >have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red
> >blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing
> >white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is
> >kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My
> >headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I
> >need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the
> >road bike that's unlikely.
>
> The intensity of bike lights isn't that great compared to bright amber
> overhead lights we have on Chicago streets.

Good bicycle lights are as bright as some car and motorcycle lights.

> In a burb they are great, but
> you need something to catch the attention of cars when it's quite bright
> on a major street with so many overhead lights.

Much of my riding has been in Boston, where I lived for a while.
Never found the need for strobes, which are illegal, annoying and
cause blinding/disorientation to other road users.

> I added the second lights
> (the blinkys) in each direction after many close calls however they don't
> seem to have reduced the number...

There you have it - they are not effective in what you are trying to
do. Why continue to use them and annoy/blind/endanger other road
users (including other cyclists) with them?

> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> fearing I was a semi...

Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your
thinking works there. Road users shouldn’t be using blinding lights.
This should be common sense.

> (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)

So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you
recently brought up blinding spotlights, again?

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 08:54 PM

barbie gee wrote:

> Um, how about we ALL own the road, and we ALL share and have a
> responsibility to follow the rules of the road, respect the protocols
> and behave in a predictable fashion while on those roads?
>
> We give a few groups special emphasis, by pointing out their existence,
> like children (school warnings), deaf, seniors. But these signs are
> there to show they are a special group of poeple who may not be able to
> respond in a predictable way to traffic around them. If cyclist wish to
> be treated as incapable of navigating traffic like the rest of us, then
> they ought to get their own special roads, somewhere very safe, away
> from traffic. Special treatment, I suppose.

Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
minimum age and visual acuity. Driving is a privilege than can be
revoked. That's just for car drivers, there are many more stringent
requirements for other driving categories. Driving violations have much
larger penalties.

All of this is true everywhere in the world -- it's only common sense.
Drivers are much more dangerous than cyclists -- to themselves, their
passengers and to cyclists and pedestrians.

A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
self-righteous cranks.

>

Kristian M Zoerhoff

August 25th 08, 08:55 PM

On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)

Or just buy a real light from Busch & Müller. They're pricey, but mine makes
me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Brent P

August 25th 08, 09:09 PM

On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:

> The intensity of bike lights isn't that great compared to bright amber
> overhead lights we have on Chicago streets. In a burb they are great, but
> you need something to catch the attention of cars when it's quite bright
> on a major street with so many overhead lights. I added the second lights
> (the blinkys) in each direction after many close calls however they don't
> seem to have reduced the number...

From what I've read on vehicle lighting, having a constantly blinking
light or blinking break lamps, etc tend to cause confusion or delay in
interepetation.

I have one halogen headlamp ($150 rechargable type) and two red tail
lamps. All are solid on. The taillamps have blink modes but I do not use
them.

Geoff Gass

August 25th 08, 09:20 PM

Peter Cole > wrote:
> barbie gee wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> They didn't say who put up the bike for Matthew Manger-Lynch, but in
>>> the latest Chicago fatality mentioned, Tyler Fabeck, the article says
>>> it was friends and family:
>>>
>>> "Starting with a junked frame, several friends and Tyler's brother
>>> Jason took turns stripping the handlebars, welding on wheels and
>>> pedals and spray-painting the final, assembled product."
>>>
>>> I don't get all the nastiness.
>>
>> not nasty, just annoyed, at least for me.
>
> You have a very low threshold for annoyance.

those on RBM don't realize this is a statement of the glaringly
obvious...

Brent P

August 25th 08, 09:21 PM

On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:

> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
> minimum age and visual acuity.

No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL.
Most of the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
taxes and all for government control.

> Driving is a privilege than can be revoked.

If you want to believe what government tells you. It's more of
a right that is restricted by laws (for the lack of a
better way to put it) such that one person does not interfere with
another. 'your rights end where mine begin' type thing.

Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you!

> That's just for car drivers, there are many more stringent
> requirements for other driving categories. Driving violations have much
> larger penalties.

And that gets into politics being used as an economic weapon .

> All of this is true everywhere in the world -- it's only common sense.
> Drivers are much more dangerous than cyclists -- to themselves, their
> passengers and to cyclists and pedestrians.

> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
> same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
> generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
> cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
> self-righteous cranks.

A good number of those cranks are cops and they see violations where
there are none.

Geoff Gass

August 25th 08, 09:25 PM

Peter Cole > wrote:
> Geoff Gass wrote:
>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>>> his friends and family.
>>
>> Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
>> understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
>> onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
>> a red when traffic's already going the other way.
>
> It's still a misdemeanor. A $25 fine I believe in Chicago. People aren't
> that stupid, the punishment fits the crime, that's a basic legal
> principle. Trying to portray the alleycats as some sort of major
> criminals is just silly. If you think red light running should be a
> capital offense then you're way out there.

I have *never* portrayed alleycats as major criminals. More like major
idiots. Unless bike fines are lower then car, the ticket for a red
light is a hell of a lot more then $25. I've gotten one in a car and
it was the same as a 0-15 speeding, like $75.

max

August 25th 08, 09:27 PM

In article <f6Esk.659$p72.48@trnddc05>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
> same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
> generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
> cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
> self-righteous cranks.

Actually, it occurred to me after watching numerous instance of cars
forced to panic slolom into oncoming lanes and chirp their brakes in
order to avoid chaoticly maneuvering cyclists. Like the red light
runners.

Run a red light, you get killed and all your problems are over. The
person who has to live with it is the poor person who found your
crushed, bleeding skull in her windshield.

Your attitude seems awfully selfish an inconsiderate. A lot like the
cyclists in the trib story who see no need to educate bikers on traffic
safety.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 09:27 PM

max wrote:
> In article <XBxsk.722$UX.560@trnddc03>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't
>>>>> included
>>>>> some really stupid
>>>>>> moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
>>>>>> misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> you?
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did
>>>>> not
>>>>> learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him
>>>>> and
>>>>> cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
>>>>> "really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest
>>>>> of
>>>>> us stay alive.
>>>> If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?
>>> How about "He was dead wrong"?
>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>> his friends and family.
>
> scond point first. since you can't figure it out, i was being rhetorical
> about putting a DUMBASS sign on the bike. Anyone with the IQ of frozen
> yogurt should have been able to figure that out, yet you've made it made
> it necessary for me to point it out explicitly.

Whatever gave you the idea that I thought your remark was anything but
hot air? I never seriously considered you'd have the balls to do
something like that, although you seem petty enough.

FWIW, my comment to Leo, that you found so offensive, was, by
definition, rhetorical, yogurt.

> As far as friends and family, no one has insulted his family. But,
> since you opened the door, let's talk about his friends: they did a
> real good job of stepping up to the plate on this. They helped create
> the conditions that killed him, they encouraged his behavior and
> supported him in killing himself and went on to lionize his behavior pos
> humously. <golf clap> way to go, pals! Thanks for mentioning it.

This is all speculation produced by your tiny, petty brain. Maybe
they're just really sad that he's dead and they miss him. It sounds like
he was a really great guy.

> If you want to be concerned about someone's feelings, how about that
> poor woman who has to live the rest of her life with the memory of
> having killed him? I can't remember,, did she have kids in the car?

Add that has *what* to do a memorial? The guy's dead, that should be
enough schadenfreude even for you, give it a rest.

> Now. RE-RE-Stating the obvious: Not 1 in 100 people who pass that
> particular bike have an inkling of its ontogeny. There's no context.
> Nothing. As a cautionary tale it's three times more useful than a 3"x5"
> sticker on a light pole proclaiming bikes are people too. Virtually
> nobody who sees it will think -- "oh ya, that alley cat dude". They're
> more likely to think "some cager stopping at starbuks squashed a biker".

You read minds, too? Nice.

> What makes a bicyclist's death more tragic or important than anyone
> else's? What about suicides? Murders? DUI victims? J-walkers? Stumbling
> drunks? Children who ran into traffic? If we memorialize every
> senseless or tragic or wrongful death on the streets of the City that
> Worsks, (and it's a very big city), soon our sidewalks will be
> completely impassable.

Do you live in a cave? Grieving people put up memorials all the time.
Drive-by murders, children in the street, accident victims, etc. Common
items include votive candles, ribbons, flowers, stuffed animals, cards,
placards, etc. It's a human thing (you could read up on it). Yes, people
even put up memorials where the deceased may not have been entirely
innocent in their own death -- these memorials are about the grieving
survivors, not the dead. It's a human thing.

> Do we really want our streets to be miles-long mausoleums?
If they day comes that ghost bikes line the streets, then yes, I think
that would be the minimum people should do. As there have been only four
cycling deaths this year in Chicago (as of May), I think you've gone
beyond hyperbole to lunacy. Good luck with that.

> It doesn't send a truthful message, communicates victimhood.
Only in your mean spirited little mind.

Geoff Gass

August 25th 08, 09:28 PM

Brent P > wrote:
> I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
> other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
> bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
> bicycle riders behave as such?

try to keep up, blennie. we're not talking about a guy who tacked on
the end of a red light or conga lined, we're talking about a guy who
completely ignored a red light. stop putting up straw men.

max

August 25th 08, 09:30 PM

In article <f6Esk.659$p72.48@trnddc05>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
> minimum age and visual acuity. Driving is a privilege than can be
> revoked. That's just for car drivers, there are many more stringent
> requirements for other driving categories. Driving violations have much
> larger penalties.

This doesn't help you as much as you think it does. Bascally you're
arguing that car drivers are by law, more competent.

You and a great many cycling advocates, make a point of stressing that
there is no statutory qualification or required comptency to ride a
bike.

It shows.

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 09:32 PM

wrote:

> What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area
> have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red
> blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing
> white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is
> kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My
> headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I
> need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the
> road bike that's unlikely.

Red blinkies in the front are a bad idea. Other traffic literally can't
tell whether you're coming or going.

I despise the new bright white front blinkies, the old ones were
innocuous, the new ones are glaring even in daylight.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 09:37 PM

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
>> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
>> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
>> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet.
>>
>> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
>> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
>> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).
>
> MFFY + they seem to think all bicycle riders are going 5mph.
>

It's hard to know how much is malice, how much is incompetence and how
much is biology. When drivers don't see bikes very often they don't
develop much skill at predicting them -- they also just don't see them
at all. Of course when one honks or shouts during a drive-by brush back,
there's little doubt about the category.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 09:51 PM

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
>> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
>> minimum age and visual acuity.
>
> No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL.
> Most of the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
> taxes and all for government control.

We have safety inspections in MA in addition to emissions. I think
that's pretty standard (and sensible).

>> Driving is a privilege than can be revoked.
>
> If you want to believe what government tells you. It's more of
> a right that is restricted by laws (for the lack of a
> better way to put it) such that one person does not interfere with
> another. 'your rights end where mine begin' type thing.

Nope.

>
> Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
> because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
> have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
> good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you!
>
>> That's just for car drivers, there are many more stringent
>> requirements for other driving categories. Driving violations have much
>> larger penalties.
>
> And that gets into politics being used as an economic weapon .

Sorry, not interested in lunatic fringe discussions (anti-government
rants, etc.)

>
>> All of this is true everywhere in the world -- it's only common sense.
>> Drivers are much more dangerous than cyclists -- to themselves, their
>> passengers and to cyclists and pedestrians.
>
>> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
>> same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
>> generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
>> cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
>> self-righteous cranks.
>
> A good number of those cranks are cops and they see violations where
> there are none.

Perhaps. I'll pay my $25 then.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 09:53 PM

Geoff Gass wrote:
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>> Geoff Gass wrote:
>>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>>>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>>>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>>>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>>>> his friends and family.
>>> Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
>>> understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
>>> onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
>>> a red when traffic's already going the other way.
>> It's still a misdemeanor. A $25 fine I believe in Chicago. People aren't
>> that stupid, the punishment fits the crime, that's a basic legal
>> principle. Trying to portray the alleycats as some sort of major
>> criminals is just silly. If you think red light running should be a
>> capital offense then you're way out there.
>
> I have *never* portrayed alleycats as major criminals. More like major
> idiots. Unless bike fines are lower then car, the ticket for a red
> light is a hell of a lot more then $25.

Haven't you been paying attention? If you want to participate in this
thread in any meaningful way you'll need at least a shallow
understanding of the realities.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 09:59 PM

max wrote:
> In article <f6Esk.659$p72.48@trnddc05>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
>> same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
>> generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
>> cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
>> self-righteous cranks.
>
>
> Actually, it occurred to me after watching numerous instance of cars
> forced to panic slolom into oncoming lanes and chirp their brakes in
> order to avoid chaoticly maneuvering cyclists. Like the red light
> runners.

You have a vivid imagination.

>
> Run a red light, you get killed and all your problems are over. The
> person who has to live with it is the poor person who found your
> crushed, bleeding skull in her windshield.

You have a vivid and grotesque imagination. Or perhaps it's wishful
thinking?

> Your attitude seems awfully selfish an inconsiderate. A lot like the
> cyclists in the trib story who see no need to educate bikers on traffic
> safety.

My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 10:00 PM

Geoff Gass wrote:
> Brent P > wrote:
>> I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
>> other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
>> bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
>> bicycle riders behave as such?
>
> try to keep up, blennie. we're not talking about a guy who tacked on
> the end of a red light or conga lined, we're talking about a guy who
> completely ignored a red light. stop putting up straw men.

What's the difference? The law makes no distinction. Even a rolling stop
will get you cited most places.

max

August 25th 08, 10:02 PM

In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

>
> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.

How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 10:03 PM

max wrote:
> In article <f6Esk.659$p72.48@trnddc05>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
>> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
>> minimum age and visual acuity. Driving is a privilege than can be
>> revoked. That's just for car drivers, there are many more stringent
>> requirements for other driving categories. Driving violations have much
>> larger penalties.
>
> This doesn't help you as much as you think it does. Bascally you're
> arguing that car drivers are by law, more competent.

No, I'm in agreement (with the spirit and intent of the law) that
motorists and their vehicles have to be held to much higher standards,
both for competence and behavior.

> You and a great many cycling advocates, make a point of stressing that
> there is no statutory qualification or required comptency to ride a
> bike.

There's a very simple reason for that, and it's recognized around the
world. Get with the program.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 10:33 PM

max wrote:
> In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
>> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
>> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.
>
> How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.
>

Do you have a point to make?

max

August 25th 08, 10:53 PM

In article <gBEsk.784$lf2.375@trnddc07>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

> > Now. RE-RE-Stating the obvious: Not 1 in 100 people who pass that
> > particular bike have an inkling of its ontogeny. There's no context.
> > Nothing. As a cautionary tale it's three times more useful than a 3"x5"
> > sticker on a light pole proclaiming bikes are people too. Virtually
> > nobody who sees it will think -- "oh ya, that alley cat dude". They're
> > more likely to think "some cager stopping at starbuks squashed a biker".
>
> You read minds, too? Nice.

You probably ought to rereread the part where i mentioned i ate lunch
directly across the street from it. I spent an hour+ observing
passersby interacting with it, their surroundings and each other.

So, ya., i do.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

max

August 25th 08, 10:56 PM

In article <9zFsk.774$w51.583@trnddc01>,
Peter Cole > wrote:

> max wrote:
> > In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
> > Peter Cole > wrote:
> >
> >> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
> >> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
> >> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.
> >
> > How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.
> >
>
> Do you have a point to make?

i guess it must be that running a red light on a bike is far more
significant than a small misdemeanor, particularly in context of this
thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
light.

short term memory bothering you?

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 11:07 PM

max wrote:
> In article <gBEsk.784$lf2.375@trnddc07>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>>> Now. RE-RE-Stating the obvious: Not 1 in 100 people who pass that
>>> particular bike have an inkling of its ontogeny. There's no context.
>>> Nothing. As a cautionary tale it's three times more useful than a 3"x5"
>>> sticker on a light pole proclaiming bikes are people too. Virtually
>>> nobody who sees it will think -- "oh ya, that alley cat dude". They're
>>> more likely to think "some cager stopping at starbuks squashed a biker".
>> You read minds, too? Nice.
>
> You probably ought to rereread the part where i mentioned i ate lunch
> directly across the street from it. I spent an hour+ observing
> passersby interacting with it, their surroundings and each other.
>
> So, ya., i do.
>

You should set up a Vegas act.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 25th 08, 11:15 PM

max wrote:
> In article <9zFsk.774$w51.583@trnddc01>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> max wrote:
>>> In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
>>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>
>>>> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
>>>> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
>>>> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.
>>> How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.
>>>
>> Do you have a point to make?
>
> i guess it must be that running a red light on a bike is far more
> significant than a small misdemeanor, particularly in context of this
> thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
> light.
>
> short term memory bothering you?
>

Significant to whom? Under the (criminal) law -- the same law for
everyone -- even you, it's a minor misdemeanor. It carries much lower
penalties for cyclists than motorists. Apparently this man died while
committing a minor misdemeanor. If he had survived, he might have been
fined $25. So what? How is that different than jaywalking? The law deals
with consequences to society, not friends and family. If the driver was
traumatized, she/he can sue the estate for damages, that's civil law.
It's a free country, you can contribute to the driver's legal fund if
you wish.

John Rappe

August 25th 08, 11:36 PM

wrote:
>
>Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your
>thinking works there. Road users shouldn=92t be using blinding lights.
>This should be common sense.
[...]
>So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you
>recently brought up blinding spotlights, again?

For the record, "chicago paddling and fishing" is a blithering idiot.
Don't expect any logic in his thinking.

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 25th 08, 11:43 PM

On Aug 25, 6:36*pm, (John Rappe) wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your
> >thinking works there. *Road users shouldn=92t be using blinding lights.
> >This should be common sense.
> [...]
> >So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you
> >recently brought up blinding spotlights, again?
>
> For the record, "chicago paddling and fishing" is a blithering idiot.
> Don't expect any logic in his thinking.

That explains quite a bit. Here I was taking the post seriously.
Thanks for the heads up.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 12:24 AM

On 2008-08-25, Geoff Gass > wrote:
> Brent P > wrote:
>> I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
>> other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
>> bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
>> bicycle riders behave as such?
>
> try to keep up, blennie. we're not talking about a guy who tacked on
> the end of a red light or conga lined, we're talking about a guy who
> completely ignored a red light. stop putting up straw men.

Why don't you keep the up gass bag? A post I responding too brought up
congalining. DUH.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 12:28 AM

On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>>> Driving is a privilege than can be revoked.
>>
>> If you want to believe what government tells you. It's more of
>> a right that is restricted by laws (for the lack of a
>> better way to put it) such that one person does not interfere with
>> another. 'your rights end where mine begin' type thing.

> Nope.

Yes. But that would require you doing a little leg work and see how
driver's licensing developed and how it effectively became a privilege.
REpeat a lie enough and people will believe it.

>> Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
>> because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
>> have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
>> good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you!
>>
>>> That's just for car drivers, there are many more stringent
>>> requirements for other driving categories. Driving violations have much
>>> larger penalties.
>>
>> And that gets into politics being used as an economic weapon .

> Sorry, not interested in lunatic fringe discussions (anti-government
> rants, etc.)

I'm sorry you don't understand the full subject. Licensing of
business activities is often based in economic reasons and the
competitive nature of the market. 'Public Safety' merely the excuse.

>>> All of this is true everywhere in the world -- it's only common sense.
>>> Drivers are much more dangerous than cyclists -- to themselves, their
>>> passengers and to cyclists and pedestrians.

>>> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
>>> same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
>>> generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
>>> cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
>>> self-righteous cranks.

>> A good number of those cranks are cops and they see violations where
>> there are none.

> Perhaps. I'll pay my $25 then.

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 26th 08, 01:12 AM

Brent P? wrote:
> On 2008-08-25, barbie gee > wrote:
>
>> "Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
>> is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
>> is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
>> the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
>> conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
>> that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable". Yielding to
>> the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
>> a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."
>
>> Um, how about we ALL own the road, and we ALL share and have a
>> responsibility to follow the rules of the road, respect the protocols and
>> behave in a predictable fashion while on those roads?
>
> Because this is no longer a culture that cares for individual liberty.
> It's about gaining power through the political process. About using the
> force of government to take from others for your own benefit. That's
> why. Why should these people be any different about their particular
> topic of interest than any one else with theirs? Their view is typical
> of most people in the US these days, that's it's fine to take from
> everyone else through the political process.
>
>> We give a few groups special emphasis,
>
> Right there is the recipe for failure. Group think.
>
>> by pointing out their existence,
>> like children (school warnings), deaf, seniors. But these signs are there
>> to show they are a special group of poeple who may not be able to respond
>> in a predictable way to traffic around them. If cyclist wish to be
>> treated as incapable of navigating traffic like the rest of us, then they
>> ought to get their own special roads, somewhere very safe, away from
>> traffic. Special treatment, I suppose.
>
> The vast majority of drivers do not want legally operating bicyclists
> that they have to respect as other vehicle operators. I learned to ride
> in the 'stay out of the way of cars' school. This school of thought
> means one rides to avoid conflict with motor vehicle traffic. The
> problem is that by trying to do so one has more conflicts with drivers.
> Running red signals actually can reduce your interaction with motor
> vehicle traffic in many situations BTW. Sure the conflicts when they
> happen are killers, but there is less interaction over all.
>
> Most drivers do not have any problems with these near deadly conflicts
> from sidewalk riding, wrong way riding, etc that put bicycle riders in
> places no traffic should be. The idea that they are 'staying out of the
> way of cars', defering to the power of the automobile means it's 'okay'.
>
> After moving to an area where there were no good options for 'staying
> out of the way of cars' and having daily near-misses I made a conversion
> to total, 100% vehicular bicycling. Instead of nearly being killed by
> friendly motorists I was getting hostile angry motorists yelling at me
> for merely using the road.
>
> I found that the average driver would rather have a bicycle rider use
> the side walk and then jump to the road and run a red signal than
> to be behind a bicyclist waiting in a queue at that same red signal.
>
> I don't know what happened to things like the film 'Drive your bike' on
> archive.org, but somewhere things changed. Bicycle riders were supposed
> to stay out of the way and that was most important, not the rules of
> right of way or anything like that.
>
> When drivers as a whole started believing that bicycle riders were not
> vehicle operators, when someone got out of their car on and on to a
> bicycle he didn't behave as a vehicle operator. It's the same mentality
> on both ends. When kids are taught to 'stay out of the way of cars' they
> end up believing that people should ride that way once they are driving.
> They then practice it while riding. But what of the conflicts?
>
> What's their decision in this culture of taking through the political
> process when there is a problem with the method of riding they learned
> as kids? Re-examine the method? surely not. It's to have drivers yield
> to their brand of riding. Who's 'right' isn't decided by simple logical
> rules of 'right of way', it's decided by political power. It's 'us' vs.
> 'them'.
>
The US has a society that all too often admires bullies and approves of
bullying.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 01:22 AM

Brent P wrote:

> Yes. But that would require you doing a little leg work and see how
> driver's licensing developed and how it effectively became a privilege.
> REpeat a lie enough and people will believe it.
>
> I'm sorry you don't understand the full subject. Licensing of
> business activities is often based in economic reasons and the
> competitive nature of the market. 'Public Safety' merely the excuse.

I know better than to argue with conspiracy theorists. Let me put it a
different way. The current licensing policies strike me as fair and
rational, with the exception that senior drivers should be tested more
frequently and perhaps the minimum age should be raised to 18. Those are
my personal beliefs, and the fact that they are congruent with policy
gives me no motive to look under beds. I don't care how the current laws
came to be, I'm OK with them.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 01:30 AM

max wrote:

> particularly in context of this
> thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
> light.

The man wasn't memorialized for "running a red light". He was
memorialized for living. You seem confused. A ghost bike is not like the
Nobel Prize, it's not an honor.

Gregory Morrow[_3_]

August 26th 08, 01:53 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Brent P? wrote:
> > On 2008-08-25, barbie gee > wrote:
> >
> >> "Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
> >> is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
> >> is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
> >> the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
> >> conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
> >> that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable". Yielding to
> >> the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
> >> a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."
> >
> >> Um, how about we ALL own the road, and we ALL share and have a
> >> responsibility to follow the rules of the road, respect the protocols
and
> >> behave in a predictable fashion while on those roads?
> >
> > Because this is no longer a culture that cares for individual liberty.
> > It's about gaining power through the political process. About using the
> > force of government to take from others for your own benefit. That's
> > why. Why should these people be any different about their particular
> > topic of interest than any one else with theirs? Their view is typical
> > of most people in the US these days, that's it's fine to take from
> > everyone else through the political process.
> >
> >> We give a few groups special emphasis,
> >
> > Right there is the recipe for failure. Group think.
> >
> >> by pointing out their existence,
> >> like children (school warnings), deaf, seniors. But these signs are
there
> >> to show they are a special group of poeple who may not be able to
respond
> >> in a predictable way to traffic around them. If cyclist wish to be
> >> treated as incapable of navigating traffic like the rest of us, then
they
> >> ought to get their own special roads, somewhere very safe, away from
> >> traffic. Special treatment, I suppose.
> >
> > The vast majority of drivers do not want legally operating bicyclists
> > that they have to respect as other vehicle operators. I learned to ride
> > in the 'stay out of the way of cars' school. This school of thought
> > means one rides to avoid conflict with motor vehicle traffic. The
> > problem is that by trying to do so one has more conflicts with drivers.
> > Running red signals actually can reduce your interaction with motor
> > vehicle traffic in many situations BTW. Sure the conflicts when they
> > happen are killers, but there is less interaction over all.
> >
> > Most drivers do not have any problems with these near deadly conflicts
> > from sidewalk riding, wrong way riding, etc that put bicycle riders in
> > places no traffic should be. The idea that they are 'staying out of the
> > way of cars', defering to the power of the automobile means it's 'okay'.
> >
> > After moving to an area where there were no good options for 'staying
> > out of the way of cars' and having daily near-misses I made a conversion
> > to total, 100% vehicular bicycling. Instead of nearly being killed by
> > friendly motorists I was getting hostile angry motorists yelling at me
> > for merely using the road.
> >
> > I found that the average driver would rather have a bicycle rider use
> > the side walk and then jump to the road and run a red signal than
> > to be behind a bicyclist waiting in a queue at that same red signal.
> >
> > I don't know what happened to things like the film 'Drive your bike' on
> > archive.org, but somewhere things changed. Bicycle riders were supposed
> > to stay out of the way and that was most important, not the rules of
> > right of way or anything like that.
> >
> > When drivers as a whole started believing that bicycle riders were not
> > vehicle operators, when someone got out of their car on and on to a
> > bicycle he didn't behave as a vehicle operator. It's the same mentality
> > on both ends. When kids are taught to 'stay out of the way of cars' they
> > end up believing that people should ride that way once they are driving.
> > They then practice it while riding. But what of the conflicts?
> >
> > What's their decision in this culture of taking through the political
> > process when there is a problem with the method of riding they learned
> > as kids? Re-examine the method? surely not. It's to have drivers yield
> > to their brand of riding. Who's 'right' isn't decided by simple logical
> > rules of 'right of way', it's decided by political power. It's 'us' vs.
> > 'them'.
> >
> The US has a society that all too often admires bullies and approves of
> bullying.

Bumper sticker seen:

"The Best Place For A Bike Is Under A Car"...

:-)
--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

Brent P

August 26th 08, 02:43 AM

On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Yes. But that would require you doing a little leg work and see how
>> driver's licensing developed and how it effectively became a privilege.
>> REpeat a lie enough and people will believe it.
>>
>> I'm sorry you don't understand the full subject. Licensing of
>> business activities is often based in economic reasons and the
>> competitive nature of the market. 'Public Safety' merely the excuse.
>
> I know better than to argue with conspiracy theorists.

In other words you're not going to look into anything yourself, not
going to question what you are told, and anyone who has you're going to
call a 'conspiracy theorist'.

According to what I've read, In the late 19th century the city of
chicago had a law that required an annual fee for all wheeled vehicles
powered by horses or the rider. Yes, an annual tax on bicycles. It was
found unconstitutional. Shortly there after Chicago began driver's
licensing. For decades in many states there was no examination for a
driver's license. And by many decades, some states stayed that way into
the 1950s. It's rather possible that there still may be drivers on the
road that were *never* tested unless those states started testing
existing license holders.

There's no conspiracy theory about such things, in fact it used to be
common knowledge that many older people driving had never been tested as
they were grandfathered in when no testing was required. Many had been
driving since they 12 years old or younger. But hey, the TV tells you
what to believe and everything else is 'conspiracy theory' right?

> Let me put it a
> different way. The current licensing policies strike me as fair and
> rational, with the exception that senior drivers should be tested more
> frequently and perhaps the minimum age should be raised to 18. Those are
> my personal beliefs, and the fact that they are congruent with policy
> gives me no motive to look under beds. I don't care how the current laws
> came to be, I'm OK with them.

There is nothing fair nor rational about present policy if your goal is
smooth traffic flow and public safety. A dead cat could probably pass
both the written and driving tests, so long as the cat remembers that
the BAC level 0.08 and that the drinking age is 21 along with a bunch of
other nonsense and doesn't manage to crash the car. If the cat has cash
and goes to the right office the cat would pass automatically and get a
CDL too. Raising the minimum age does nothing but make for older
inexperienced drivers.

Geoff Gass

August 26th 08, 04:03 AM

Peter Cole > wrote:
> Geoff Gass wrote:
>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>> Geoff Gass wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>>>>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>>>>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>>>>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>>>>> his friends and family.
>>>> Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
>>>> understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
>>>> onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
>>>> a red when traffic's already going the other way.
>>> It's still a misdemeanor. A $25 fine I believe in Chicago. People aren't
>>> that stupid, the punishment fits the crime, that's a basic legal
>>> principle. Trying to portray the alleycats as some sort of major
>>> criminals is just silly. If you think red light running should be a
>>> capital offense then you're way out there.
>>
>> I have *never* portrayed alleycats as major criminals. More like major
>> idiots. Unless bike fines are lower then car, the ticket for a red
>> light is a hell of a lot more then $25.
>
> Haven't you been paying attention? If you want to participate in this
> thread in any meaningful way you'll need at least a shallow
> understanding of the realities.

to the fact that you're a jackass? that much is clear.

Geoff Gass

August 26th 08, 04:04 AM

Peter Cole > wrote:
> Geoff Gass wrote:
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>> I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
>>> other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
>>> bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
>>> bicycle riders behave as such?
>>
>> try to keep up, blennie. we're not talking about a guy who tacked on
>> the end of a red light or conga lined, we're talking about a guy who
>> completely ignored a red light. stop putting up straw men.
>
> What's the difference? The law makes no distinction. Even a rolling stop
> will get you cited most places.

We're not talking most places, we're talking Chicago. If you're cited
for a rolling stop in Chicago, you ****ed the cop off.

Geoff Gass

August 26th 08, 04:06 AM

Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-08-25, Geoff Gass > wrote:
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>> I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
>>> other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
>>> bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
>>> bicycle riders behave as such?
>>
>> try to keep up, blennie. we're not talking about a guy who tacked on
>> the end of a red light or conga lined, we're talking about a guy who
>> completely ignored a red light. stop putting up straw men.
>
> Why don't you keep the up gass bag? A post I responding too brought up
> congalining. DUH.

No, it didn't. You responded to my post that didn't bring that up at
all.

spamtrap1888@gmail.com

August 26th 08, 04:13 AM

On Aug 25, 6:40 pm, barbie gee > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> >>> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
> >>> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
> >>> minimum age and visual acuity.
>
> >> No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL. Most of
> >> the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
> >> taxes and all for government control.
>
> > We have safety inspections in MA in addition to emissions. I think that's
> > pretty standard (and sensible).
>
> "MA"? This explains much.
>
> like you have any clue what cycling in Chicago proper is like?

Cyclists in Mass are brutal. An ex-girlfriend of mine moved to do a
post-doc at MIT, and while crossing a street in Cambridge was down by
a bicyclist, who broke her arm.

spamtrap1888@gmail.com

August 26th 08, 04:17 AM

On Aug 25, 5:30 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> max wrote:
> > particularly in context of this
> > thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
> > light.
>
> The man wasn't memorialized for "running a red light". He was
> memorialized for living. You seem confused. A ghost bike is not like the
> Nobel Prize, it's not an honor.

I see. Any implication that he was an innocent victim is entirely in
my own mind; instead the ghost bike is a testament to his lack of
judgment. I will look at all other roadside shrines the same way in
future -- "It was their own damn fault."

spamtrap1888@gmail.com

August 26th 08, 04:21 AM

On Aug 25, 3:15 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> max wrote:
> > In article <9zFsk.774$w51.583@trnddc01>,
> > Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> >> max wrote:
> >>> In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
> >>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> >>>> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
> >>>> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
> >>>> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.
> >>> How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.
>
> >> Do you have a point to make?
>
> > i guess it must be that running a red light on a bike is far more
> > significant than a small misdemeanor, particularly in context of this
> > thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
> > light.
>
> > short term memory bothering you?
>
> Significant to whom? Under the (criminal) law -- the same law for
> everyone -- even you, it's a minor misdemeanor. It carries much lower
> penalties for cyclists than motorists. Apparently this man died while
> committing a minor misdemeanor. If he had survived, he might have been
> fined $25. So what? How is that different than jaywalking? The law deals
> with consequences to society, not friends and family.

So traffic fines in Mass are proportional to the kinetic energy of the
vehicle? Sounds interesting but unworkable. Semis > Delivery trucks >
Suburbans > Minivans > SUVs > full size cars > economy cars >
motorcycles > scooters > mopeds > bicycles.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 04:31 AM

On 2008-08-26, Geoff Gass > wrote:
> Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-08-25, Geoff Gass > wrote:
>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>> I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
>>>> other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
>>>> bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
>>>> bicycle riders behave as such?
>>>
>>> try to keep up, blennie. we're not talking about a guy who tacked on
>>> the end of a red light or conga lined, we're talking about a guy who
>>> completely ignored a red light. stop putting up straw men.
>>
>> Why don't you keep the up gass bag? A post I responding too brought up
>> congalining. DUH.
>
> No, it didn't. You responded to my post that didn't bring that up at
> all.

LOL. You don't even know what you write:

From: Geoff Gass >
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:00:47 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: >

Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
onto the end.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 01:31 PM

Brent P wrote:

> There is nothing fair nor rational about present policy if your goal is
> smooth traffic flow and public safety. A dead cat could probably pass
> both the written and driving tests, so long as the cat remembers that
> the BAC level 0.08 and that the drinking age is 21 along with a bunch of
> other nonsense and doesn't manage to crash the car. If the cat has cash
> and goes to the right office the cat would pass automatically and get a
> CDL too. Raising the minimum age does nothing but make for older
> inexperienced drivers.

So, I'm guessing that you favor much more stringent driving exams? Is
that it? More stringent enforcement? I don't get the connection between
that & driving as a privilege or right question.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 01:34 PM

barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
>>>> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles,
>>>> must be minimum age and visual acuity.
>>>
>>> No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL.
>>> Most of the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
>>> taxes and all for government control.
>>
>> We have safety inspections in MA in addition to emissions. I think
>> that's pretty standard (and sensible).
>
> "MA"? This explains much.
>
> like you have any clue what cycling in Chicago proper is like?
>

I don't know what you're getting at. I haven't ridden a bike in Chicago,
I have driven there. It didn't strike me as very different than any
other major city, the streets were wider and straighter than Boston, but
that was about it for my impressions.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 01:41 PM

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> In message <XBxsk.722$UX.560@trnddc03>, Peter Cole
> > wrote:
>
>> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
>> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
>> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
>> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
>> his friends and family.
>
> How is pointing out the truth an "insult" to anyone?

If you think this man's life should be summed up by "DUMBASS", I feel
sorry for you.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 01:54 PM

On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> There is nothing fair nor rational about present policy if your goal is
>> smooth traffic flow and public safety. A dead cat could probably pass
>> both the written and driving tests, so long as the cat remembers that
>> the BAC level 0.08 and that the drinking age is 21 along with a bunch of
>> other nonsense and doesn't manage to crash the car. If the cat has cash
>> and goes to the right office the cat would pass automatically and get a
>> CDL too. Raising the minimum age does nothing but make for older
>> inexperienced drivers.
>
> So, I'm guessing that you favor much more stringent driving exams? Is
> that it? More stringent enforcement? I don't get the connection between
> that & driving as a privilege or right question.

I'm telling you the way it is.

On privilege, once something becomes a government granted privilege it
can take it away from you for *ANY* reason it decides. Government has
decided to attach non driving issues to having a DL already. What does
being paid up on child support have to do with safe driving? It's like a
parent who doesn't let his teenage kid use the car because he didn't do
the assigned chores. As a privilege there is no reason the government
couldn't decide to strip the privilege of driving from people who were
critical of government policies. Privileges can have *any* conditions
attached to them.

It's much like having a king, where the king grants people permission to
do things. You need permission to use the king's roads. If you've
opposed the king you're probably not going to get permission. That's how
a privilege works. It's government permission to do something that would
be illegal otherwise.

kenji

August 26th 08, 02:01 PM

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:

> What does
> being paid up on child support have to do with safe driving?

When you find a new job the company needs your social sec # and your DL.
It's another way to track down and make slobs who don't pay child
support pay up through their employer.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 02:05 PM

wrote:
> On Aug 25, 6:40 pm, barbie gee > wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>>> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
>>>>> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
>>>>> minimum age and visual acuity.
>>>> No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL. Most of
>>>> the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
>>>> taxes and all for government control.
>>> We have safety inspections in MA in addition to emissions. I think that's
>>> pretty standard (and sensible).
>> "MA"? This explains much.
>>
>> like you have any clue what cycling in Chicago proper is like?
>
> Cyclists in Mass are brutal. An ex-girlfriend of mine moved to do a
> post-doc at MIT, and while crossing a street in Cambridge was down by
> a bicyclist, who broke her arm.

I doubt that Boston is much different than any other major Eastern US
city. FWIW, Boston drivers have been long claimed to be the worst in the
US. I take all that with a grain of salt.

Some stats for NY:
http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter17/table17.html

Show bike-ped vs. car-ped collision rate in NYC at roughly 1:50 ratio,
fatalities 1:300. That about sums it up.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 02:08 PM

wrote:
> On Aug 25, 5:30 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>> max wrote:
>>> particularly in context of this
>>> thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
>>> light.
>> The man wasn't memorialized for "running a red light". He was
>> memorialized for living. You seem confused. A ghost bike is not like the
>> Nobel Prize, it's not an honor.
>
> I see. Any implication that he was an innocent victim is entirely in
> my own mind; instead the ghost bike is a testament to his lack of
> judgment. I will look at all other roadside shrines the same way in
> future -- "It was their own damn fault."

Your choice, but none of the ghost bike info I've seen makes the claim
of innocence, so I have to call that presumption based on ignorance.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 02:15 PM

wrote:
> On Aug 25, 3:15 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>> max wrote:
>>> In article <9zFsk.774$w51.583@trnddc01>,
>>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>> max wrote:
>>>>> In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
>>>>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>>>> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
>>>>>> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
>>>>>> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.
>>>>> How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.
>>>> Do you have a point to make?
>>> i guess it must be that running a red light on a bike is far more
>>> significant than a small misdemeanor, particularly in context of this
>>> thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
>>> light.
>>> short term memory bothering you?
>> Significant to whom? Under the (criminal) law -- the same law for
>> everyone -- even you, it's a minor misdemeanor. It carries much lower
>> penalties for cyclists than motorists. Apparently this man died while
>> committing a minor misdemeanor. If he had survived, he might have been
>> fined $25. So what? How is that different than jaywalking? The law deals
>> with consequences to society, not friends and family.
>
> So traffic fines in Mass are proportional to the kinetic energy of the
> vehicle? Sounds interesting but unworkable. Semis > Delivery trucks >
> Suburbans > Minivans > SUVs > full size cars > economy cars >
> motorcycles > scooters > mopeds > bicycles.

No, who said that? There are categories of license, I assume the same
thing applies in Chicago, it seems similar around the country/world.
Bikes require no license, scooters & mopeds the same if the engine size
is small enough, although there's an age restriction, commercial
vehicles have a variety of additional restrictions/requirements. This is
all very reasonable, based on risk -- both to other road users and
possible passengers (cabs, buses, etc.). I suppose there's some
recognition of vehicle mass and potential speed in the equation, but
it's not that simple.

But I think you must know all that already.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 02:58 PM

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:

>> So, I'm guessing that you favor much more stringent driving exams? Is
>> that it? More stringent enforcement? I don't get the connection between
>> that & driving as a privilege or right question.
>
> I'm telling you the way it is.
>
> On privilege, once something becomes a government granted privilege it
> can take it away from you for *ANY* reason it decides. Government has
> decided to attach non driving issues to having a DL already. What does
> being paid up on child support have to do with safe driving?

There seems to be two separate issues here: driving as a (revoke-able)
privilege and the conditions of revocation. I'm no legal scholar, but it
seems reasonable to me that driving be treated as a revoke-able
privilege (on public safety grounds), although linking that privilege to
non-driving issues (like child support) seems overly intrusive. On the
other hand, as you'd expect, this practice has been challenged in court
(e.g.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2004_app/529102maj&invol=3)
and has been found to be constitutionally legal.

In addition to the debate over coupling driving to non-driving issues,
there's a general debate over privacy, to which I'm much more sympathetic:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14924leg19980917.html

Cydrome Leader

August 26th 08, 04:08 PM

In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>
>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>
> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.

and looking like a motorcycle does?

Kristian M Zoerhoff

August 26th 08, 04:26 PM

On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>
>>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
>>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
>>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
>>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
>>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>>
>> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
>> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>
> and looking like a motorcycle does?

Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
every road I ride.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Brent P

August 26th 08, 04:30 PM

On 2008-08-26, kenji > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>
>> What does
>> being paid up on child support have to do with safe driving?
>
> When you find a new job the company needs your social sec # and your DL.
> It's another way to track down and make slobs who don't pay child
> support pay up through their employer.

They actually suspend the DL in some states for those who owe back child
support. It's not just a tracking mechanism.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 04:53 PM

On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>>> So, I'm guessing that you favor much more stringent driving exams? Is
>>> that it? More stringent enforcement? I don't get the connection between
>>> that & driving as a privilege or right question.
>>
>> I'm telling you the way it is.
>>
>> On privilege, once something becomes a government granted privilege it
>> can take it away from you for *ANY* reason it decides. Government has
>> decided to attach non driving issues to having a DL already. What does
>> being paid up on child support have to do with safe driving?
>
> There seems to be two separate issues here: driving as a (revoke-able)
> privilege and the conditions of revocation. I'm no legal scholar, but it
> seems reasonable to me that driving be treated as a revoke-able
> privilege (on public safety grounds), although linking that privilege to
> non-driving issues (like child support) seems overly intrusive.

A privilege is something that is granted. The person or body granting a
privilege may impose any requirements it likes. In this case is the
grantor is the government. If the state IL wants to force us to take a
loyalty oath to Blago to issue a DL, there is nothing stopping it under
the concept of driving being a government granted privilege. If the
federal government wants to blackmail states (using highway funds) into
a loyalty oath to GWB, there is nothing stopping it under the privilege
concept. If there is something to stop it besides just another part of
the government saying 'we don't like that', then driving isn't a
privilege.

When you decide that something is too intrusive, wrong, improper, etc as
a requirement, then you aren't talking about a privilege any longer.
Privileges are extras, bonuses, things that are granted. Say your
employer grants you the privilege of a reserved parking place for your
vehicle. It can decide to take that away at any time or not grant it to
you in the first place.

Government granted privilege is something that goes against the concept
of individual liberty. Kings granted privileges to certain people. If
driving is really a government granted privilege, the rulers of the
various state governments and the federal government through them by
means of funding blackmail can change the system from one of where the
privilege is granted easily to one where you need to be related to a
federal government office holder to get it. That's just what privilege
is. Whatever the rulers decide is required for the privilege is.
Senators have a privileged retirement program, we the people don't get
to participate in it. They can decide to include us or not.

Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and privilege
isn't a part of it.

> On the
> other hand, as you'd expect, this practice has been challenged in court
> (e.g.
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2004_app/529102maj&invol=3)
> and has been found to be constitutionally legal.

What the council of nine says is irrelevant to my argument. I could go
into how we weren't supposed to be ruled by a council of 9 persons as
interpeters of the constitution, but that is going pretty far afield.

> In addition to the debate over coupling driving to non-driving issues,
> there's a general debate over privacy, to which I'm much more sympathetic:
> http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14924leg19980917.html

Again, once you declare something a government granted privilege,
government may put any requirement it wishes on it. Government wants us
to believe driving is a privilege so that it can take greater and
greater power and impose more and more restrictions and requirements
that have nothing to do with operating a vehicle safely. Back door
national ID cards (real ID act) are just part of what government wants
to require for the privilege of driving. Maybe it's better that we have
the right to use the public roads and may do so with any vehicle we can
operate without harming someone else or another's property?

Brent P

August 26th 08, 05:12 PM

On 2008-08-26, Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
>>>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
>>>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
>>>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
>>>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>>>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>>>
>>> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
>>> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>>
>> and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
> Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
> front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
> but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
> every road I ride.

Maybe that's another reason I find it so much easier to bike at night.

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 26th 08, 05:27 PM

On Aug 26, 11:26*am, Kristian M Zoerhoff >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>
> > In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
> >> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> >>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> >>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> >>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> >>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> >>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> >>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>
> >> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
> >> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>
> > and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
> Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
> front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
> but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
> every road I ride.

Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least,
that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
ridden.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 06:17 PM

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:

> A privilege is something that is granted. The person or body granting a
> privilege may impose any requirements it likes. In this case is the
> grantor is the government. If the state IL wants to force us to take a
> loyalty oath to Blago to issue a DL, there is nothing stopping it under
> the concept of driving being a government granted privilege.

I don't think that's true. We have a judicial system to prevent this
abuse of power.

> Government granted privilege is something that goes against the concept
> of individual liberty.

Yes, but the list of liberties is short, it by no means includes all or
most social activities. There are no absolutes as to where the line is
drawn. It's a dynamic consensus.

> Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
> whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and privilege
> isn't a part of it.

Sure, but what exactly are "natural rights"? I don't think they extend
to the operation of dangerous machinery on public property.

>> In addition to the debate over coupling driving to non-driving issues,
>> there's a general debate over privacy, to which I'm much more sympathetic:
>> http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14924leg19980917.html
>
> Again, once you declare something a government granted privilege,
> government may put any requirement it wishes on it. Government wants us
> to believe driving is a privilege so that it can take greater and
> greater power and impose more and more restrictions and requirements
> that have nothing to do with operating a vehicle safely.

Sure, power gets abused, but not without the tacit agreement of the
majority. I find the tone and premise of this thread to be highly
knee-jerk authoritarian, and that's the kind of attitude that supports
abuse of power. You question the legitimacy of regulating and
controlling motor vehicles, I would first ask the same question of
bicycles. I certainly don't want vehicular equivalence.

DennisTheBald

August 26th 08, 06:53 PM

On Aug 25, 11:33 am, max > wrote:
> In article z>,
> barbie gee > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Geoff Gass wrote:
>
> > > Peter Cole > wrote:
> > >> I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
> > >> received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
> > >> delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
> > >> case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
> > >> his friends and family.
>
> > > Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
> > > understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
> > > onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
> > > a red when traffic's already going the other way.
>
> > It's pretty clear there's a subculture that believes stuff like this:
>
> > "Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
> > is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
> > is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
> > the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
> > conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
> > that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable".
>
> talk about wallowing in victimhood!
>
> "conversation". That's pomo pocket-picking language attempting to
> legitimize an illigitimate position. It's kind of like those people who
> complained about all the money they invested in McDonalds and KFC (by
> buying burgers)
>
> > Yielding to
> > the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
> > a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."
>
> y'know.... based on watching the car-bike interactions in the city the
> last few times i've been there, i'd say that on average, car drivers are
> _more_ than doing their part to protect cyclists on the road from
> cyclist's behavior. Extraordinarily so.
>
> While i see plenty of basically RotR-abiding cyclists (except for the
> lighting thing!), i saw waaay waaaay more madly reckless cyclist who
> seemed to be daring someone to squash them flat.
>
> I think it's amazing there aren't several bike fatalities every night on
> the north side.
>
> Its truly pathetic that Chicago's cycling advocacy dweebs and critical
> massholes don't recognize their willful contributions to aggravating
> car-bike confrontations.
>
> Which, to bring it around to the article i linked at the beginning of
> this thread, means that there's lots of room for enforcement of bike
> rules in chicago.
>
> For the clueless, or out of towners, traffic enforcement in chicago
> means money for the city. A nice revenue source is about to be tapped.
> This one will actually have the side benefit of making the city safer.
>
> --
> This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
> their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

It sounds like you're saying that when cyclists follow the rules you
don't see them and that reckless behavior improves a cylcist's
visibility.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 06:55 PM

On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>> A privilege is something that is granted. The person or body granting a
>> privilege may impose any requirements it likes. In this case is the
>> grantor is the government. If the state IL wants to force us to take a
>> loyalty oath to Blago to issue a DL, there is nothing stopping it under
>> the concept of driving being a government granted privilege.
>
> I don't think that's true. We have a judicial system to prevent this
> abuse of power.

Abuse of power means you've given the government the power. Government
is the grantor and can do as it pleases and you rely on another wing of
government, the courts, to keep the rest of it from 'abusing' the power
it has. What that really means is that today maybe the men on the courts
think that constant tracking of your where-abouts as a DL condition is
unreasonable. A couple of tragic events occur and then it's not
unreasonable in their view any longer and it's done. That's the system
of government granting privilege, you rely on government being fair and
reasonable. Two things it often is not.

>> Government granted privilege is something that goes against the concept
>> of individual liberty.

> Yes, but the list of liberties is short, it by no means includes all or
> most social activities. There are no absolutes as to where the line is
> drawn. It's a dynamic consensus.

The list of liberties, of rights, is infinite. The founders made that
understanding clear in the Bill of Rights. Government doesn't grant
rights either. The line is where the rights of others begin. The
non-aggression principle, etc.

>> Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
>> whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and privilege
>> isn't a part of it.

> Sure, but what exactly are "natural rights"? I don't think they extend
> to the operation of dangerous machinery on public property.

A bicycle can be characterized as a dangerous machine. Especially if
you're on foot on a sidewalk and some bike messenger comes along at
30mph. Yet bicycling isn't a privilege granted by government. Neither
was operating a horse, which is a large dangerous animal if it gets out
of control.

>>> In addition to the debate over coupling driving to non-driving issues,
>>> there's a general debate over privacy, to which I'm much more sympathetic:
>>> http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14924leg19980917.html

>> Again, once you declare something a government granted privilege,
>> government may put any requirement it wishes on it. Government wants us
>> to believe driving is a privilege so that it can take greater and
>> greater power and impose more and more restrictions and requirements
>> that have nothing to do with operating a vehicle safely.

> Sure, power gets abused, but not without the tacit agreement of the
> majority.

The rulers have moved beyond the agreement of the majority, but
anyway.... Why is tyranny of the majority any better than tyranny of the
king? The majority might decide people with dark skin shouldn't drive.
That doesn't make it acceptable.

> I find the tone and premise of this thread to be highly
> knee-jerk authoritarian, and that's the kind of attitude that supports
> abuse of power.

What do you think government does with power? It expands it, it abuses
it. That's the nature of government. That's why saying it is the grantor
of the privilege to drive is handing it a great deal of power.
Government has slowly expanded its demands for the privilege to drive
over time. It will continue to expand them. It's difficult to resist the
national ID provisions logically once you've decided driving is a
privilege that government grants upon meeting its conditions.

> You question the legitimacy of regulating and
> controlling motor vehicles, I would first ask the same question of
> bicycles. I certainly don't want vehicular equivalence.

I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
fact doesn't make either a privilege.

DennisTheBald

August 26th 08, 07:09 PM

On Aug 25, 10:21 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 25, 3:15 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>
>
> > max wrote:
> > > In article <9zFsk.774$w51.583@trnddc01>,
> > > Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> > >> max wrote:
> > >>> In article <T2Fsk.792$lf2.570@trnddc07>,
> > >>> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> > >>>> My attitude (like most of the world, thankfully) is pragmatic. Yours is
> > >>>> wildly imbalanced. Red light running (by cyclists) is a small
> > >>>> misdemeanor. There's a reason for that. Give it some thought.
> > >>> How did that alleycat dude get killed again? i forgot or somethign.
>
> > >> Do you have a point to make?
>
> > > i guess it must be that running a red light on a bike is far more
> > > significant than a small misdemeanor, particularly in context of this
> > > thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
> > > light.
>
> > > short term memory bothering you?
>
> > Significant to whom? Under the (criminal) law -- the same law for
> > everyone -- even you, it's a minor misdemeanor. It carries much lower
> > penalties for cyclists than motorists. Apparently this man died while
> > committing a minor misdemeanor. If he had survived, he might have been
> > fined $25. So what? How is that different than jaywalking? The law deals
> > with consequences to society, not friends and family.
>
> So traffic fines in Mass are proportional to the kinetic energy of the
> vehicle? Sounds interesting but unworkable. Semis > Delivery trucks >
> Suburbans > Minivans > SUVs > full size cars > economy cars >
> motorcycles > scooters > mopeds > bicycles.

Similar logic is followed in the case of most crimes; assault is
generally less serious that when committed with a deadly weapon,
robbery less than armed robbery. Once we determine that there is a
weapon we seldom seem to be concerned if it was a gun or a knife, if
the knife was sharp or dull. Same with a motor, having one is the
deterministic criteria, not how big nor how smelly it is.

DennisTheBald

August 26th 08, 07:26 PM

On Aug 26, 8:08 am, Peter Cole > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 5:30 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> >> max wrote:
> >>> particularly in context of this
> >>> thread, which is about a guy who was memorialized for running a red
> >>> light.
> >> The man wasn't memorialized for "running a red light". He was
> >> memorialized for living. You seem confused. A ghost bike is not like the
> >> Nobel Prize, it's not an honor.
>
> > I see. Any implication that he was an innocent victim is entirely in
> > my own mind; instead the ghost bike is a testament to his lack of
> > judgment. I will look at all other roadside shrines the same way in
> > future -- "It was their own damn fault."
>
> Your choice, but none of the ghost bike info I've seen makes the claim
> of innocence, so I have to call that presumption based on ignorance.

Guilt, innocence... how can we use these words in the context of
traffic regulations?
Let he who is without violation cast the first stone.

Yes sometimes people on bikes run into pedestrians and break their
bones (well some times it the cyclists bones too - but usually the
person moving faster has less inclination to fall and it's often the
contact with the ground that does the damage).

Much more frequently people in cars run into people not in cars and
kill them. Even more frequently people in cars run into other people
in cars and kill them, or run their cars into things that don't move
and kill themselves. (This number went down this year, blame high gas
prices?-)Still more than 40,000 people killed by cars in the USofA
alone. Most of this situations were not precipitated by a bicycle
doing something unpredictable, motor cars are just dangerous.

There are a lot of people that maintain that these situations are just
accidents, and can't be avoided. Others assert that by careful
operation of your motor vehicle you can be assured that you won't run
down and kill anybody. Either way, if you don't drive one of those
nasty things your chances of killing yourself of someone else goes way
down. Maybe running over and killing AlleyCat will cure that one gal
of her oil habit. Maybe seeing a ghost bike will help cure some other
gas junkie.

DennisTheBald

August 26th 08, 07:53 PM

On Aug 26, 11:12 am, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
> >> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
> >>> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> >>>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> >>>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> >>>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> >>>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> >>>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> >>>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>
> >>> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
> >>> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>
> >> and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
> > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
> > front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
> > but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
> > every road I ride.
>
> Maybe that's another reason I find it so much easier to bike at night.

I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
facing lights just the same though.

DennisTheBald

August 26th 08, 07:54 PM

On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>
> > > In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
> > >> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> > >>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> > >>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> > >>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> > >>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> > >>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> > >>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>
> > >> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
> > >> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>
> > > and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
> > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
> > front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
> > but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
> > every road I ride.
>
> Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
> pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least,
> that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
> ridden.

Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
the front of yer scooter.

Brent P

August 26th 08, 08:11 PM

On 2008-08-26, DennisTheBald > wrote:

>> >> and looking like a motorcycle does?
>>
>> > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
>> > front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
>> > but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
>> > every road I ride.
>>
>> Maybe that's another reason I find it so much easier to bike at night.
>
> I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
> the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
> a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
> weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
> the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
> in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
> facing lights just the same though.

The headlamp on my bicycle is 10,15 or 25W depending on the setting.
Normally I can run on 10W. A couple weeks ago some kid when I got close
enough to him said 'I thought you were a car'.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 08:13 PM

Brent P wrote:

> I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
> concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
> defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
> than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
> upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
> fact doesn't make either a privilege.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or
compelling.

smr

August 26th 08, 08:21 PM

On 2008-08-26, Brent P > wrote:
> Again, once you declare something a government granted privilege,
> government may put any requirement it wishes on it. Government wants us
> to believe driving is a privilege so that it can take greater and
> greater power and impose more and more restrictions and requirements
> that have nothing to do with operating a vehicle safely. Back door
> national ID cards (real ID act) are just part of what government wants
> to require for the privilege of driving. Maybe it's better that we have
> the right to use the public roads and may do so with any vehicle we can
> operate without harming someone else or another's property?
>

I am going to regret the **** out of this, but...

what is the proper scope of government regulation to you?

--
smr

Brent P

August 26th 08, 08:21 PM

On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
>> concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
>> defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
>> than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
>> upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
>> fact doesn't make either a privilege.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or
> compelling.

Ahh, the 'I'm not satisified'. well, let me know when you can present
some sort of compeling argument for driving being a privilege that
accounts for the various downsides of that condition nor can be applied
to other forms of travel.

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 26th 08, 08:25 PM

On Aug 26, 2:54*pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>
> > > > In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
> > > >> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> > > >>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> > > >>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> > > >>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> > > >>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> > > >>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> > > >>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way....)
>
> > > >> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
> > > >> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>
> > > > and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
> > > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
> > > front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
> > > but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
> > > every road I ride.
>
> > Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
> > pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. *At least,
> > that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
> > ridden.
>
> Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
> the front of yer scooter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

While I belive my bicycle headlight is more than 3W, it's not
motorycle bright, and I don't notice any more of the cutting off we're
discussing on my pedal bike than I did on my motorcycles. The bike
light is a Planet Bike 5 Beamer, and I got it after psasing someone
using one in my truck. I spun back around, pulled alongside and asked
what he was using, since I was so impressed with it's beam. He told
me, I got oen and I've been happy with it since. Perhaps the speed is
just more noticable on a crotch rocket, which has been known to move
along at a pretty good clip from time to time.

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

August 26th 08, 08:43 PM

On Aug 26, 2:54*pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
>
>
> > Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
> > pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. *At least,
> > that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
> > ridden.
>
> Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
> the front of yer scooter.

I'm a bicyclist and a motorcyclist, both for well over 30 years. Far
more miles on the bicycles, but still:

3 W lights on a motorcycle would be insufficient. But 30+ W lights on
a bicycle are almost always overkill. For one thing, my motorcycle
routinely hits 65 mph. My bike, never.

Bike lights perform two functions: lighting the road, and making the
cyclist sufficiently conspicuous to others. 3 W bicycle lights (with
good optics) are fine for seeing the road up to about 25 mph, in my
experience. I'd have to be doing 30 mph pretty regularly to want
more. And as I've said before, I'm already more conspicuous at night
than in daylight. That's good enough for me.

Your night vision, your fear of traffic, and in general YMMV, I
suppose.

- Frank Krygowski

Brent P

August 26th 08, 08:54 PM

On 2008-08-26, smr > wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Brent P > wrote:
>> Again, once you declare something a government granted privilege,
>> government may put any requirement it wishes on it. Government wants us
>> to believe driving is a privilege so that it can take greater and
>> greater power and impose more and more restrictions and requirements
>> that have nothing to do with operating a vehicle safely. Back door
>> national ID cards (real ID act) are just part of what government wants
>> to require for the privilege of driving. Maybe it's better that we have
>> the right to use the public roads and may do so with any vehicle we can
>> operate without harming someone else or another's property?
>>
>
> I am going to regret the **** out of this, but...
>
> what is the proper scope of government regulation to you?

I think I've already answered that in this thread. To be as simple as
possible, if we are going to have government roads (because it changes
somewhat for private roads) then government's regulation would be to
formalize a set of agreed upon rules of right of way and establish basic
equipment standards. Although the later probably could be achieved
without government involvement. Also some real test of driving ability
and knowledge of those agreed upon rules of right of way would be in
order. Think of it more like a test of equipment rather than a
licensing or granting of a privilege. There is a set standard for
vehicle operation and it must be met like a headlamp putting the light
where it belongs or a brake lamp being red and visible from X feet away.
The rest would be regulation ON government to insure the roads were
designed properly, signed properly, etc.

This gets off the point I want to make which is why I've kept it in the
background. None of this makes driving a privilege granted by the
government. What does is being repeatedly told it is and most everyone
behaving as it were. It's really a pretty good'1984' style trick that's
been pulled to tell everyone it's a privilege.

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

August 26th 08, 08:57 PM

On Aug 26, 3:21*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> > Brent P wrote:
>
> >> I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
> >> concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
> >> defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
> >> than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
> >> upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
> >> fact doesn't make either a privilege.
>
> > We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or
> > compelling.
>
> Ahh, the 'I'm not satisified'. well, let me know when you can present
> some sort of compeling argument for driving being a privilege that
> accounts for the various downsides of that condition nor can be applied
> to other forms of travel.

I think that's been done well enough and often enoug to satisfy most
rational people. But here it is again:

Cars and trucks cause tremendous carnage. They are the leading cause
of death of people younger than 30. They cause further problems due
to noise, pollution, and by giving power and anonymity to people who
are too psychologically immature to handle them. Their use needs to
be regulated to maintain a semblance of civilized society.

In another post, you referred to an imaginary "natural right... to
travel by
whatever means they wish..." as if anyone should be free to buy an
Abrams tank for cruising around the neighborhood, or use a cigarette
racing boat to run around Yellowstone Lake. But there is no such
"natural right," and AFAIK no society has ever agreed on such a silly
idea.

It takes only a few thousand fatalities, serious injuries, near misses
and instances of general obnoxiousness before most societies figure
out that driving must be treated as a privilege. That happened long
ago in America - although there will always be a few who are slow to
catch on.

- Frank Krygowski

Brent P

August 26th 08, 09:41 PM

On 2008-08-26, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 3:21*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>
>> > Brent P wrote:
>>
>> >> I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
>> >> concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
>> >> defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
>> >> than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
>> >> upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
>> >> fact doesn't make either a privilege.
>>
>> > We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or
>> > compelling.
>>
>> Ahh, the 'I'm not satisified'. well, let me know when you can present
>> some sort of compeling argument for driving being a privilege that
>> accounts for the various downsides of that condition nor can be applied
>> to other forms of travel.
>
> I think that's been done well enough and often enoug to satisfy most
> rational people. But here it is again:

Most people want government tying *anything* to being allowed to drive?
The REAL ID has created a condition where I have to submit to government
in a way that has NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVING in order to drive. That's
the problem with making it a privilege. It's open to have anything the
government wants as a condition be attached to it.

> Cars and trucks cause tremendous carnage. They are the leading cause
> of death of people younger than 30. They cause further problems due
> to noise, pollution, and by giving power and anonymity to people who
> are too psychologically immature to handle them. Their use needs to
> be regulated to maintain a semblance of civilized society.

And this means the government gets to create a national ID card and tie
child support payments and anything else it wants to driving exactly
how? Why should I have to submit to carrying the federal government's
back-door national ID just to drive? How does that lead to road safety?
How does that keep 'immature' drivers off the road. (really,
government's privilege system does nothing to keep the "psychologically
immature" from driving, it screens them out after they've been driving
for a while, which no licenseing coupled with enforcement and punishment
could do just as well)

> In another post, you referred to an imaginary "natural right... to
> travel by
> whatever means they wish..." as if anyone should be free to buy an
> Abrams tank for cruising around the neighborhood, or use a cigarette
> racing boat to run around Yellowstone Lake. But there is no such
> "natural right," and AFAIK no society has ever agreed on such a silly
> idea.

I see you remain as dishonest as always Frank. No such thing is implied.
I stated nothing about removing laws on equipment permitted on the
roadway or anywhere else.

BTW, if you want to have a bicyclist paradise, private roads would
be the answer for your village. That way you could ban motor vehicle
travel entirely.

> It takes only a few thousand fatalities, serious injuries, near misses
> and instances of general obnoxiousness before most societies figure
> out that driving must be treated as a privilege. That happened long
> ago in America - although there will always be a few who are slow to
> catch on.

Not only are you as dishonest as ever, you are as insulting as ever too.
Well Frank, some day you're going to be faced with submission to
government on some issue that has nothing to do with driving to keep
your driver's license. We all will. Those of us who say 'forget about
it' and stop driving and use a bicycle will soon find that bicycling on
the government roads has become a privilege too. It's quite clear that
you don't understand what a privilege really is. Driving is called a
privilege in a '1984' style word play. It conditions people in to
believing the government can require whatever it wants to require for
a person to drive. If you disagree that government cannot require
anything it wants, including absurd things such as loyalty oaths,
surrendering of rights, etc and so forth, then you'll be agreeing that
driving is not a privilege.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=privilege
Noun

* S: (n) privilege (a special advantage or immunity or benefit not
enjoyed by all)
* S: (n) prerogative, privilege, perquisite, exclusive right (a
right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a
hereditary or official right)) "suffrage was the prerogative of white
adult males"
* S: (n) privilege ((law) the right to refuse to divulge information
obtained in a confidential relationship)

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 26th 08, 10:12 PM

Brent P wrote:

> This gets off the point I want to make which is why I've kept it in the
> background. None of this makes driving a privilege granted by the
> government. What does is being repeatedly told it is and most everyone
> behaving as it were. It's really a pretty good'1984' style trick that's
> been pulled to tell everyone it's a privilege.

Here in Boston there was an incident where a bike courier (off duty)
struck and seriously injured a (jaywalking) pedestrian. The response was
to require licensing and insurance (with displayed registration
numbers). Essentially, that category of bicycling was redefined into a
revoke-able privilege. The reason was public pressure, apparently the
same thing that initiated the first diving licenses (NJ, 1913).

"Right vs. privilege" is kind of a semantic-only distinction. Even
though I don't need a bike license, I'm sure if I was sufficiently
flagrant and considered a hazard, some judge would issue a standing
restraining order to forbid me to ride. Your rights to life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness are all revoke-able if you are convicted of a
serious enough crime.

The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How
else do you punish? Incarceration just makes the cost to society
greater. The same argument applies to national ID & the use of SSN as a
de facto. There are legitimate privacy and abuse concerns, but at the
end of the day you simply have to get the job done. States had a big
problem with child support collections, license suspensions proved very
effective -- expediency, not conspiracy, and a lot of it driven by Joe
Citizen screaming about deadbeat dads (or crazy bike couriers).

Barry Harmon

August 26th 08, 10:40 PM

Peter Cole > wrote in news:1_Tsk.776$5C.224
@trnddc02:

> http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14924leg19980917.html

During the run-up to the Social Security Act, there was a lot of discussion
about the potential of the SSN to become the "national identification
number." The government spokesmen assured the world that the SSN would
never be used as a national identification number and, I believe, language
to this effect was inserted into the Social Security Act.

Well, we all know how THAT little piece of subterfuge worked out.

Barry Harmon

Brent P

August 26th 08, 10:45 PM

On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> This gets off the point I want to make which is why I've kept it in the
>> background. None of this makes driving a privilege granted by the
>> government. What does is being repeatedly told it is and most everyone
>> behaving as it were. It's really a pretty good'1984' style trick that's
>> been pulled to tell everyone it's a privilege.
>
> Here in Boston there was an incident where a bike courier (off duty)
> struck and seriously injured a (jaywalking) pedestrian. The response was
> to require licensing and insurance (with displayed registration
> numbers). Essentially, that category of bicycling was redefined into a
> revoke-able privilege. The reason was public pressure, apparently the
> same thing that initiated the first diving licenses (NJ, 1913).

And you'll see it slowly progress until walking along the public way is
also a government granted privilege. Already government has gained the
power to stop and ID people on foot as it would someone who was driving.

> "Right vs. privilege" is kind of a semantic-only distinction.

If we play like we don't know what words mean.

> Even
> though I don't need a bike license, I'm sure if I was sufficiently
> flagrant and considered a hazard, some judge would issue a standing
> restraining order to forbid me to ride. Your rights to life, liberty and
> pursuit of happiness are all revoke-able if you are convicted of a
> serious enough crime.

It's one thing to be convicted of a crime and then restricted as
punishment, it's quite another to be denied because you wouldn't comply
with a government condition that has nothing to do with the task at
hand. The former requires due process the later does not.

> The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How
> else do you punish?

That's parental government thinking.

> Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater.

It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.

> The same argument applies to national ID & the use of SSN as a
> de facto.

And illegal under the social security act. Another good example of where
the law says one thing but government does another.

> There are legitimate privacy and abuse concerns, but at the
> end of the day you simply have to get the job done. States had a big
> problem with child support collections, license suspensions proved very
> effective -- expediency, not conspiracy, and a lot of it driven by Joe
> Citizen screaming about deadbeat dads (or crazy bike couriers).

The best form of government for 'getting the job done' is corporatism,
aka fascism. Now, we already largely have that in the USA, because
people decided that they rather have rulers that 'take care' of things.
So, if that's how things are going to be, lets stop pretending about
freedom, liberty, etc and so forth and just openly have a
corporatist/fascist government. Also, there's nothing to say that there
cannot be elections in a fascist system or to even replace the leader.
So people can still have the well limited choices they are used to.

If we want to be serious about freedom and liberty, well things are
going to be a little more difficult to manage, sure. But we'll all be
better off for that effort.

Barry Harmon

August 26th 08, 10:55 PM

DennisTheBald > wrote in
:

> On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>>
>> > > In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>
>> > >>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at
>> > >>> Costco a while back, sort of looked like the search becon off a
>> > >>> tug boat... while it might be blinding for many, they probably
>> > >>> wouldn't pull out in front of me fearing I was a semi... (I'm
>> > >>> not planning on getting it... one has to pay attention when
>> > >>> riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>> > >>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your
>> > >>> right-of-way...)
>>
>> > >> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey,
>> > >> but mine makes me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind
>> > >> oncoming traffic in the process.
>>
>> > > and looking like a motorcycle does?
>>
>> > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or
>> > turning) in front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph
>> > descents into the Fox Valley, but I've noticed an almost total
>> > elimination of this behavior on virtually every road I ride.
>>
>> Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
>> pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least,
>> that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
>> ridden.
>
> Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
> the front of yer scooter.

How do these lights show up in urban areas? Is there enough light of a
different nature to make them and the cyclist stand out from the
background clutter of Duncan Donuts and other lights along the road?

Barry Harmon

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 26th 08, 11:13 PM

In chi.general > wrote:
>On Aug 25, 3:43 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>> In chi.general > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 25, 12:58?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>> >> In chi.general max > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
>> >> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
>> >> >2,0,3716423.story>
>> >> >Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
>> >> >tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
>> >> >lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors. ?
>> >> >Out rage us. ? ?
>> >> >I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
>> >> >lights, ?but only about 2% for stop signs. ?
>> >> >Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in
>> >> >Chicago. ?I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more
>> >> >car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great
>> >> >deal of the credit goes to car drivers.
>>
>> >> Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars...
>>
>> >> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
>> >> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
>> >> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet. ?
>>
>> >> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
>> >> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
>> >> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).
>>
>> >> I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of
>> >> Pulaski...
>>
>> <snip sig>
>>
>> >What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area
>> >have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red
>> >blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing
>> >white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is
>> >kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My
>> >headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I
>> >need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the
>> >road bike that's unlikely.
>>
>> The intensity of bike lights isn't that great compared to bright amber
>> overhead lights we have on Chicago streets.

>Good bicycle lights are as bright as some car and motorcycle lights.

All you need to do is ride down a major street like Kedzie or Pulaski at night
to realize how bright it is; I don't need backlighting to read numbers off my
Garmin 305... the lighting is that bright here at night...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CitiesAtNight/ (here you can look at
Chicago and a few other city images from space at night)

A car headlight shows up as a large space of light (6 inch diameter or 6x4
I believe for the retangular bulbs) with a large viewing angle to someone
sitting in a car looking at all the reflections you might see on a Chicago
street. For a bike light to be as noticable, it would need have the same
surface area (similar in size and shape to a motorcycle light). Not wanting to
carry a light that size on my bike, I ride with 2 smaller lights, one that is
on solid all the time and one that's blinking all the time. From a visibility
standpoint, it's very noticable, but that assumes that when I'm on my way home
at midnight, the guy is actually looking for someone else and not just thinking
about getting home after drinking at a bar...

It's very workable when I get into a burb as the lighting isn't nearly as
bright, but on major streets in Chicago, because of the light intensity
they don't show up well, either that or folks just ignore stopsigns and
do quick rolling stops ignore lights that look too small to be a vehicle.

>> In a burb they are great, but
>> you need something to catch the attention of cars when it's quite bright
>> on a major street with so many overhead lights.

>Much of my riding has been in Boston, where I lived for a while.
>Never found the need for strobes, which are illegal, annoying and
>cause blinding/disorientation to other road users.

Not at the intensity these are... only complaint i've had was one friend that
I had stopped to chat with asked me to turn it off before he had a seizure...

>> I added the second lights
>> (the blinkys) in each direction after many close calls however they don't
>> seem to have reduced the number...

>There you have it - they are not effective in what you are trying to
>do. Why continue to use them and annoy/blind/endanger other road
>users (including other cyclists) with them?

I rarely see other cyclists on the routes at times I choose to ride...

>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
>> fearing I was a semi...

>Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your
>thinking works there. Road users shouldn?t be using blinding lights.
>This should be common sense.

It's not so much the brightness they emit down the road that is the issue,
it's the illuminated space that one would see looking at it. Bike lights
are flashlight sized pockets of light... blinking tends to draw someones
attention toward it, but a driver driving home at midnight may have had too
much to drink to pay attention...

>> (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)

>So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you
>recently brought up blinding spotlights, again?

Wider surface area. A laser is very bright, but one doesn't see it unless
it's pointing directly at you... a bike light that shines straight ahead is
useless if it has a bezel that makes it difficult to see from the side...

A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate
the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that
the overhead lights reflect off... ride down a city street at night after
it rains with all the puddles and there are 4 times the number of stray
reflections...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 26th 08, 11:17 PM

In chi.general John Rappe > wrote:
wrote:
>>
>>Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your
>>thinking works there. Road users shouldn=92t be using blinding lights.
>>This should be common sense.
>[...]
>>So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you
>>recently brought up blinding spotlights, again?

>For the record, "chicago paddling and fishing" is a blithering idiot.
>Don't expect any logic in his thinking.

How often do you ride a bike in Chicago at night Mr Suburban guy?

Are you even in a close burb or a way way out burb? On Forest ave in Oak
Park the bike lights I have stand out great, but on a major city street,
the overhead lights drowned out much of the light...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 27th 08, 02:00 AM

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:

>> The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How
>> else do you punish?
>
> That's parental government thinking.
>
>> Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater.
>
> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.

Actually, no. If a parent defaults, the state/federal welfare system has
to pick up the slack. It doesn't work that way for car loans. That's why
non-compliance may be a felony.

The Law Today

Today, a child support violator can be prosecuted under Federal law if
the following facts exists: 1) the violator willfully failed to pay; 2)
a known child support obligation; 3) which has a) remained unpaid for
longer than a year or is greater than $5,000 (misdemeanor), or has b)
remained unpaid for longer than two years or is greater than $10,000
(felony) 4) for a child who resides in another state, or 1) the violator
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; 2) with the intent to evade
a support obligation; 3) if such obligation has remained unpaid for a
period of one year or longer-or is greater than $5,000 (felony). See 18
U.S.C. §228.

> The best form of government for 'getting the job done' is corporatism,
> aka fascism. Now, we already largely have that in the USA, because
> people decided that they rather have rulers that 'take care' of things.

> If we want to be serious about freedom and liberty, well things are
> going to be a little more difficult to manage, sure. But we'll all be
> better off for that effort.

So, which is it? A conspiracy or a lazy populace?

ZBicyclist

August 27th 08, 02:14 AM

wrote:
>
> His friends and family created a memorial at the place of his
> death. A
> memorial in such a public place is meant to make the passersby
> think.
> If the circumstances of his death are not explained, the
> implication
> is that he was the innocent victim of a crazed motorist, when
> instead
> he was the victim of his own bad judgment.

I think the implication is that somebody's dead, and somebody else
is sad about it.

I seem several memorials on rural highways. They are more visible
at 15 mph on a bike than at 60 mph in a car.

When I look at a picture of a dead teenager surrounded by plastic
flowers, my first thought is that the accident involved alcohol,
drugs, and/or improper speed on somebody's part -- maybe the dead
teenager, maybe not -- and that there's a set of distraught parents
somewhere.

Kristian M Zoerhoff

August 27th 08, 02:56 AM

On 2008-08-26, Barry Harmon > wrote:
> DennisTheBald > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
>>> On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>
>>> > >>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at
>>> > >>> Costco a while back, sort of looked like the search becon off a
>>> > >>> tug boat... while it might be blinding for many, they probably
>>> > >>> wouldn't pull out in front of me fearing I was a semi... (I'm
>>> > >>> not planning on getting it... one has to pay attention when
>>> > >>> riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>>> > >>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your
>>> > >>> right-of-way...)
>>>
>>> > >> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey,
>>> > >> but mine makes me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind
>>> > >> oncoming traffic in the process.
>>>
>>> > > and looking like a motorcycle does?
>>>
>>> > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or
>>> > turning) in front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph
>>> > descents into the Fox Valley, but I've noticed an almost total
>>> > elimination of this behavior on virtually every road I ride.
>>>
>>> Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
>>> pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least,
>>> that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
>>> ridden.
>>
>> Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
>> the front of yer scooter.
>
> How do these lights show up in urban areas? Is there enough light of a
> different nature to make them and the cyclist stand out from the
> background clutter of Duncan Donuts and other lights along the road?

Cheap 3W lights? Don't know, I don't run one. I run a B&M Ixon IQ Speed
that puts out 50 lux (lumens/m^2), and it stands out from *everything*.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Kristian M Zoerhoff

August 27th 08, 03:00 AM

On 2008-08-26, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate
> the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that
> the overhead lights reflect off...

This is exactly what I get from my B&M light; you don't need a huge light,
you need proper optics that put out a lot of light, in the right locations.
And you need to be prepared to pay for quality.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Brent P

August 27th 08, 04:43 AM

On 2008-08-27, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>>> The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How
>>> else do you punish?
>>
>> That's parental government thinking.
>>
>>> Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater.
>>
>> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>
> Actually, no. If a parent defaults, the state/federal welfare system has
> to pick up the slack. It doesn't work that way for car loans. That's why
> non-compliance may be a felony.

You cannot legitimize one intrusion with another. Government theft for
the welfare state does not justify calling driving a privilege and
tacking on non-driving requirements.

> So, which is it? A conspiracy or a lazy populace?

*sigh* still on that 'conspiracy theory' bull**** I see. So much for
making rational arguments, just use the shutdown that the TV's talking
heads do to stop the discussion of ideas outside the approved statist
realm.

Brent P

August 27th 08, 04:53 AM

On 2008-08-27, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Peter Cole > considered Tue, 26 Aug 2008
> 19:13:20 GMT the perfect time to write:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
>>> concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
>>> defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
>>> than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
>>> upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
>>> fact doesn't make either a privilege.
>>
>>We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or
>>compelling.
>
> When deciding on the difference between right and privelige, you could
> start by looking at the death toll.

Make driving a privilege, just be prepared to give up a lot to keep
the privilege of driving in the future. What has been given up to have
the "privilege" of flying is just the start IMO.

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 27th 08, 05:47 AM

Peter Cole wrote:
> ...
> The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How
> else do you punish? Incarceration just makes the cost to society
> greater. The same argument applies to national ID & the use of SSN as a
> de facto. There are legitimate privacy and abuse concerns, but at the
> end of the day you simply have to get the job done. States had a big
> problem with child support collections, license suspensions proved very
> effective -- expediency, not conspiracy, and a lot of it driven by Joe
> Citizen screaming about deadbeat dads (or crazy bike couriers).

Enforcing child support is only moral if the parent claims rights to the
child. If the parent(s) turns over all rights to the child's control to
the state, then the parent should be freed of all obligation to care for
the child. And of course, the state has an obligation to care for the
now indigent child.

[flame away]

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 27th 08, 05:52 AM

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>>> The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency.
>>> How else do you punish?
>>
>> That's parental government thinking.
>>> Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater.
>>
>> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>
> Actually, no. If a parent defaults, the state/federal welfare system has
> to pick up the slack. It doesn't work that way for car loans. That's why
> non-compliance may be a felony....

Child support laws are blatantly sexist in the case of unmarried
parents, since the mother can decide to abort or give up the child to
adoption. The biological father has no control over what the mother
decides (and rightfully so), but can be made to support an unwanted
child for 18 years. No control should equal no responsibility.

[flame away]

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 27th 08, 05:54 AM

DennisTheBald wrote:
> ...
> Yes sometimes people on bikes run into pedestrians and break their
> bones (well some times it the cyclists bones too - but usually the
> person moving faster has less inclination to fall and it's often the
> contact with the ground that does the damage)....

This contradicts my experience and observations of cyclist/pedestrian
collisions. Typically, the cyclist gets hurt more, since he/she goes
over the bars and lands on his/her head.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 27th 08, 05:59 AM

DennisTheBald wrote:
> ...
> I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
> the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
> a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
> weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
> the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
> in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
> facing lights just the same though.

What type of battery and charger do you use to power the light?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”Bike

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 27th 08, 06:01 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2:54 pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
>>> pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least,
>>> that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
>>> ridden.
>> Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
>> the front of yer scooter.
>
> I'm a bicyclist and a motorcyclist, both for well over 30 years. Far
> more miles on the bicycles, but still:
>
> 3 W lights on a motorcycle would be insufficient. But 30+ W lights on
> a bicycle are almost always overkill. For one thing, my motorcycle
> routinely hits 65 mph. My bike, never.
>
> Bike lights perform two functions: lighting the road, and making the
> cyclist sufficiently conspicuous to others. 3 W bicycle lights (with
> good optics) are fine for seeing the road up to about 25 mph, in my
> experience. I'd have to be doing 30 mph pretty regularly to want
> more. And as I've said before, I'm already more conspicuous at night
> than in daylight. That's good enough for me.
>
Try a fully-faired recumbent in rolling terrain. You will want the 30W
light, not the 3W light.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

SMS

August 27th 08, 09:14 AM

Peter Cole wrote:

> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about the
> same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and that's
> generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving violations to
> cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small group of
> self-righteous cranks.

Not sure where you're from, but in fact in the U.S. bicycles are subject
to the same moving violations, including, points on your license (at
least in California). The points part of it seems unfair since no
driver's license is required to ride a bicycle.

Peter Cole[_2_]

August 27th 08, 01:24 PM

SMS wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> A cyclist running a stop sign or red light is considered to be about
>> the same danger to society as a jaywalker. That's the reality and
>> that's generally reflected in the laws. Equating motorist moving
>> violations to cycling ones wouldn't occur to anyone except a small
>> group of self-righteous cranks.
>
> Not sure where you're from, but in fact in the U.S. bicycles are subject
> to the same moving violations, including, points on your license (at
> least in California). The points part of it seems unfair since no
> driver's license is required to ride a bicycle.

Are you sure about that? I haven't been able to find anything to
confirm, everything I've read seems to say the opposite:

http://www.velonews.com/article/10023

"What’s interesting to note about this statute is that it appears that
violations by cyclists do not count as points against your driving
record.Most of the point allocations are not applicable to cyclists;
even the one catch-all section which states that “any other traffic
conviction involving the safe operation of a motor vehicle upon the
highway shall be given a value of one point” is only applicable to motor
vehicles. In fact, the only provisions which can conceivably be applied
to cyclists would be point allocations for reckless driving or for “any
traffic accident in which the operator is deemed by the department to be
responsible.”"

I'm from MA, and I can confidently say that there are no point penalties
for cyclists here. Additionally, the fines are capped for cyclists,
currently at $20, but as part of cycling advocacy efforts, there's a
move to increase them to $50.

Brent P

August 27th 08, 01:35 PM

On 2008-08-27, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Brent P > considered Tue, 26 Aug
> 2008 22:53:06 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 2008-08-27, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
>>> Peter Cole > considered Tue, 26 Aug 2008
>>> 19:13:20 GMT the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the
>>>>> concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to
>>>>> defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker
>>>>> than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed
>>>>> upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This
>>>>> fact doesn't make either a privilege.
>>>>
>>>>We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or
>>>>compelling.
>>>
>>> When deciding on the difference between right and privelige, you could
>>> start by looking at the death toll.
>>
>>Make driving a privilege, just be prepared to give up a lot to keep
>>the privilege of driving in the future. What has been given up to have
>>the "privilege" of flying is just the start IMO.
>>
> I don't need to do this - surely it is you who needs to justify
> driving being a "right", as it isn't at present.

I've been arguing that it is not a privilege, not that it is a right.
This should have been clear to any reader. If you wish driving to be a
privilege, expect the government to make more and more conditions on you
to have that privilege it grants. That's the nature of government. Give
it the power to grant privilege and the result will be that those that
are connected will have privileges those who are not will not. If you
make a common task a privilege expect government to put all sorts of
conditions on it that you wouldn't accept otherwise.

After all the idea that driving is a privilege has given us:

Checkpoints where we are forced to produce papers and are subject to
search.

Had driving tied to non-driving issues such as debts and in some states
teenagers have grades tied to driving as I recall. (or maybe the grades
thing did not pass)

Restrictions on where and when some drivers can go and who they can go
with.

Being stopped and having papers demanded at any time.

Being stopped and having blood forcibly drawn or drawn under threat.

The list goes on and on. Expect more and more conditions. More and more
areas where you'll just have to give up rights in exchange for this
government granted privilege to drive.

If that's the sort of country you want to live in, that's fine. Just
don't expect them to leave bicycling alone as people convert to it to
avoid interaction with government employees.

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

August 27th 08, 04:13 PM

On Aug 26, 5:55*pm, Barry Harmon > wrote:
> DennisTheBald > wrote :
>
> > Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
> > the front of yer scooter.
>
> How do these lights show up in urban areas? *Is there enough light of a
> different nature to make them and the cyclist stand out from the
> background clutter of Duncan Donuts and other lights along the road?

I've organized several Night Lighting Workshops for my bike club.
Riders showed up with their normal lights and reflectors on their
bikes, and we had others ride their bikes for them, while the owners
observed from passing cars, etc. We did this from different
directions, in different lighting conditions, but mostly in a suburban
business setting, with lots of distracting lights.

It turns out a 3 Watt bike light is _very_ conspicuous. Even our most
safety fixated, fearful member said "Wow - I never realized how much
my headlight stood out. I don't have to be worried!"

Some bike lights are too dim, but they're few and far between. Unless
their batteries are dying, that is. And certainly, anything that
shows the road surface clearly will spill enough light into the
retinas of a motorist.

Try observing your own bike with a friend's help. It will teach you a
lot about what you look like, and how to improve, if necessary.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

August 27th 08, 04:28 PM

On Aug 26, 4:41*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> > In another post, you referred to an imaginary "natural right... to
> > travel by
> > whatever means they wish..." *as if anyone should be free to buy an
> > Abrams tank for cruising around the neighborhood, or use a cigarette
> > racing boat to run around Yellowstone Lake. *But there is no such
> > "natural right," and AFAIK *no society has ever agreed on such a silly
> > idea.
>
> I see you remain as dishonest as always Frank. No such thing is implied.

Hmm. I guess I misunderstood. When you referred to "a natural right
to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
right to travel by whatever means they wish."

> I stated nothing about removing laws on equipment permitted on the
> roadway or anywhere else.

But you are saying travel by car should be treated as a natural right,
aren't you? Despite the fact that no society I know of has proclaimed
that to be a right.

And regarding your displeasure at drivers' licenses being affected by
non-driving behavior: you should know that all sorts of true rights
get restricted because of a perpetrator's violation of laws. Think
about house arrest, for just one example.

Brent, as always, you are far too emotionally attached to your car and
to driving. You're like a 16-year-old that's just passed his test.

There _is_ no natural right to drive. Get over it.

- Frank Krygowski

Brent P

August 27th 08, 05:13 PM

On 2008-08-27, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 4:41*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>> > In another post, you referred to an imaginary "natural right... to
>> > travel by
>> > whatever means they wish..." *as if anyone should be free to buy an
>> > Abrams tank for cruising around the neighborhood, or use a cigarette
>> > racing boat to run around Yellowstone Lake. *But there is no such
>> > "natural right," and AFAIK *no society has ever agreed on such a silly
>> > idea.
>>
>> I see you remain as dishonest as always Frank. No such thing is implied.
>
> Hmm. I guess I misunderstood. When you referred to "a natural right
> to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
> right to travel by whatever means they wish."

Dishonest frank makes up quotes and asigns them to me. What I wrote was:
"Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and
privilege isn't a part of it."

Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank.

Even isolated, it's "natural rights" AND travel by means of our
choosing. It would be redundant if the second was included in the first.
DUH. If you bother to read the entire post (
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/d5bdd7088a4704ad )
and I know you did, it's quite clear I am talking about concessions made
for a government granted privilege. It means driving is NOT A PRIVILEGE
granted by government. When something is a privilege, the grantor may
put all sorts of conditions on it. Government should not be granting
privileges in a system where man is recognized to have natural rights
and individual liberty. What driving is I leave up for debate. I am
arguing it is *NOT* a privilege, because it cannot be under what is
SUPPOSED to be the principles of this nation. If it is a privilege, well
then, those principles do not hold and we have a much different form of
government than advertised.

You're playing childish absurdity usenet games intentionally wasting
time by pretending to need further explaination.

If you read all of what I've written in this thread, it clearly means
with the vehicles allowed on a particular road. duh. Or do you think
residential streets should have semi-tractor trailer traffic driven by
properly licensed CDL holders? The current licensing scheme and seeing
driving as privilege does nothing to stop that absurity. What stops it
are laws regarding road loads, etc. But you already knew that. You're
just being dishonest, as usual. There are no drivers licensing laws
(besides having one) that stop one from driving a tank on a public
street either. It's all equipment regulation.

>> I stated nothing about removing laws on equipment permitted on the
>> roadway or anywhere else.

> But you are saying travel by car should be treated as a natural right,
> aren't you? Despite the fact that no society I know of has proclaimed
> that to be a right.

Every exchange I have with you shows you to be a bigger ass than I
thought you were from the previous one. In many posts it should be clear
to someone even as thick skulled as you that I am arguing that driving
is NOT a government granted privilege.

> And regarding your displeasure at drivers' licenses being affected by
> non-driving behavior: you should know that all sorts of true rights
> get restricted because of a perpetrator's violation of laws. Think
> about house arrest, for just one example.

1) a debt to another person is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.
2) Punishment upon CONVICTION != restrictions and concessions of rights
in order to be granted a privilege.
3) Same as two, but with arrest.

> Brent, as always, you are far too emotionally attached to your car and
> to driving. You're like a 16-year-old that's just passed his test.

You again prove your only reason for posting is to lie and insult. Why
don't you try growing up instead of being an adult (by numerical age)
child of the government? You're the one who is always thinking that the
government has to be there to play parent. Why are you so affraid to
face the world on your own Frank? Your insults open quite a window into
who you are.

> There _is_ no natural right to drive. Get over it.

I never said there was. I have argued it's not a government granted
privilege, that is if we have the form of government we are told we
have. If it's a privilege, well then the form of government is something
very very different from one where people are equal under the law and
born with unalienable rights where individual liberty is protected.

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 27th 08, 06:48 PM

On Aug 26, 6:13 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 25, 3:43 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> >> In chi.general > wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 25, 12:58?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> >> >> In chi.general max > wrote:
>
> >> >> >Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists
> >> >> ><http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bike-laws-crackdown-webaug2
> >> >> >2,0,3716423.story>
> >> >> >Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11
> >> >> >tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of
> >> >> >lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors.. ?
> >> >> >Out rage us. ? ?
> >> >> >I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for
> >> >> >lights, ?but only about 2% for stop signs. ?
> >> >> >Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in
> >> >> >Chicago. ?I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more
> >> >> >car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great
> >> >> >deal of the credit goes to car drivers.
>
> >> >> Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars...
>
> >> >> I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One
> >> >> blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright
> >> >> colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet.. ?
>
> >> >> I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I
> >> >> ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see
> >> >> me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me).
>
> >> >> I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of
> >> >> Pulaski...
>
> >> <snip sig>
>
> >> >What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area
> >> >have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red
> >> >blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing
> >> >white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is
> >> >kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My
> >> >headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I
> >> >need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the
> >> >road bike that's unlikely.
>
> >> The intensity of bike lights isn't that great compared to bright amber
> >> overhead lights we have on Chicago streets.
> >Good bicycle lights are as bright as some car and motorcycle lights.
>
> All you need to do is ride down a major street like Kedzie or Pulaski at night
> to realize how bright it is; I don't need backlighting to read numbers off my
> Garmin 305... the lighting is that bright here at night...

And it’s dimmer for cars and motorcycles?

> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CitiesAtNight/ (here you can look at
> Chicago and a few other city images from space at night)
>
> A car headlight shows up as a large space of light (6 inch diameter or 6x4
> I believe for the retangular bulbs) with a large viewing angle to someone
> sitting in a car looking at all the reflections you might see on a Chicago
> street.

When did we discuss mimicking car lights? You said motorcycle lights.

> For a bike light to be as noticable, it would need have the same
> surface area (similar in size and shape to a motorcycle light).

False. Spend some time studying optics.

> Not wanting to
> carry a light that size on my bike, I ride with 2 smaller lights, one that is
> on solid all the time and one that's blinking all the time. From a visibility
> standpoint, it's very noticable, but that assumes that when I'm on my way home
> at midnight, the guy is actually looking for someone else and not just thinking
> about getting home after drinking at a bar...

Again, you suggest your lights don’t do what you hoped. Yet they
still annoy and blind other road users. Yet you are still trying to
justify their use.

> It's very workable when I get into a burb as the lighting isn't nearly as
> bright, but on major streets in Chicago, because of the light intensity
> they don't show up well, either that or folks just ignore stopsigns and
> do quick rolling stops ignore lights that look too small to be a vehicle.

Including motorcycles? You’re going to need to ride a MUCH wider bike
to look like a car.

> >> In a burb they are great, but
> >> you need something to catch the attention of cars when it's quite bright
> >> on a major street with so many overhead lights.
> >Much of my riding has been in Boston, where I lived for a while.
> >Never found the need for strobes, which are illegal, annoying and
> >cause blinding/disorientation to other road users.
>
> Not at the intensity these are... only complaint i've had was one friend that
> I had stopped to chat with asked me to turn it off before he had a seizure...

Check your local laws. I don’t think intensity has a thing to do with
it – white strobes are illegal on non-emergency vehicles.

> >> I added the second lights
> >> (the blinkys) in each direction after many close calls however they don't
> >> seem to have reduced the number...
> >There you have it - they are not effective in what you are trying to
> >do. Why continue to use them and annoy/blind/endanger other road
> >users (including other cyclists) with them?
>
> I rarely see other cyclists on the routes at times I choose to ride...

Nice dodge. Why not address the issue I and answer the question?
Further, you seem to think that annoying/blinding/endangering cars is
OK, it would only be an issue if you were to do the same to a
bicyclist. What an A-hole.

> >> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
> >> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
> >> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
> >> fearing I was a semi...
> >Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your
> >thinking works there. Road users shouldn?t be using blinding lights.
> >This should be common sense.
>
> It's not so much the brightness they emit down the road that is the issue,
> it's the illuminated space that one would see looking at it. Bike lights
> are flashlight sized pockets of light... blinking tends to draw someones
> attention toward it, but a driver driving home at midnight may have had too
> much to drink to pay attention...

Funny how other road users get by fine without semi lights, yet you
seem to have trouble even with your obnoxious, illegal lighting. Ever
occur to you the problem may be you?

> >> (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
> >> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> >> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
> >So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you
> >recently brought up blinding spotlights, again?
>
> Wider surface area. A laser is very bright, but one doesn't see it unless
> it's pointing directly at you... a bike light that shines straight ahead is
> useless if it has a bezel that makes it difficult to see from the side...

You can get a wider beam area with a bike light with better optics. A
spotlight, as you suggested, would have a very focused beam, not a
“wider surface are” – whihch by I assume you mean a wider throw.
Again, research optics before making more of a fool of yourself. You
might even learn what type of light would suit you, although it sounds
like a blinking orange vest may be your only hope. Interesting how
many other cyclists in CO get by just fine with bike lights though,
isn’t it?

> A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate
> the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that
> the overhead lights reflect off...

Even if your claim were true, neither a white strobe nor a spotlight
would accomplish this. Do you need me to recommend an optics group?

> ride down a city street at night after
> it rains with all the puddles and there are 4 times the number of stray
> reflections...

I have, and did daily for years. Never had any issues. Never used
white strobes or spotlights either. In fact, the only time I found
spotlights useful in Boston were in the harbor, finding channel
markers. Are you seeking channel markers in open waters, or are you
bicycling in the city?

Fred

August 27th 08, 11:26 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:59:07 -0500, Tom Sherman
> wrote:

>DennisTheBald wrote:
>> ...
>> I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
>> the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
>> a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
>> weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
>> the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
>> in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
>> facing lights just the same though.
>
>What type of battery and charger do you use to power the light?

I used a 20 watt halogen bulb in a lawn light for a couple years of
commuting. Very bright and oncoming cars dimmed their lights. The
taillight was same lawn light with a red lens and 8 watt bulb. Worked
great.

I had a 12 volt 4.3 amp-hour gel cell and kept 1 charger at work and 1
at home. Lead-acid batteries don't like to be run down too much.

But today I'd say to use 3 1-watt red LED's in the back and a 3 watt
LED MR16 bulb in the front using a smaller gel cell. Perhaps 2 bulbs
in the front, it's still just 7 watts worth. (That's what I measured
for draw on them.)

Or go high-tech and use rechargeable lithium-ion cells.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

DennisTheBald

August 28th 08, 12:00 AM

On Aug 27, 5:26 pm, Fred > wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:59:07 -0500, Tom Sherman
>
> > wrote:
> >DennisTheBald wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
> >> the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
> >> a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
> >> weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
> >> the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
> >> in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
> >> facing lights just the same though.
>
> >What type of battery and charger do you use to power the light?
>
> I used a 20 watt halogen bulb in a lawn light for a couple years of
> commuting. Very bright and oncoming cars dimmed their lights. The
> taillight was same lawn light with a red lens and 8 watt bulb. Worked
> great.
>
> I had a 12 volt 4.3 amp-hour gel cell and kept 1 charger at work and 1
> at home. Lead-acid batteries don't like to be run down too much.
>
> But today I'd say to use 3 1-watt red LED's in the back and a 3 watt
> LED MR16 bulb in the front using a smaller gel cell. Perhaps 2 bulbs
> in the front, it's still just 7 watts worth. (That's what I measured
> for draw on them.)
>
> Or go high-tech and use rechargeable lithium-ion cells.
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

yeah, I'm studying on switching to LED this winter. I've got a couple
3W flashlights that seem pretty bright. I have used one mounted with
an inner tube to the handle bars during a primary system failure and
it didn't totally suck. But it didn't throw out that circle of light
onto the pavement either. I don't need lights right now, but in a
month or so I will.

I've been using a slightly larger gel cell, 7.5ah. A deep cycle gel
cell. I'm thinking about switching to nicad if I change to LED from
the halogen. I'd like to go 6V and use a dyno hub to top off the
batteries while I'm driving.

DennisTheBald

August 28th 08, 12:08 AM

On Aug 26, 4:55 pm, Barry Harmon > wrote:
> DennisTheBald > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " > wrote:
> >> On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>
> >> > > In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>
> >> > >>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at
> >> > >>> Costco a while back, sort of looked like the search becon off a
> >> > >>> tug boat... while it might be blinding for many, they probably
> >> > >>> wouldn't pull out in front of me fearing I was a semi... (I'm
> >> > >>> not planning on getting it... one has to pay attention when
> >> > >>> riding at night, just because you're on a main street
> >> > >>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your
> >> > >>> right-of-way...)
>
> >> > >> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey,
> >> > >> but mine makes me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind
> >> > >> oncoming traffic in the process.
>
> >> > > and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
> >> > Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or
> >> > turning) in front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph
> >> > descents into the Fox Valley, but I've noticed an almost total
> >> > elimination of this behavior on virtually every road I ride.
>
> >> Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me
> >> pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least,
> >> that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and
> >> ridden.
>
> > Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on
> > the front of yer scooter.
>
> How do these lights show up in urban areas? Is there enough light of a
> different nature to make them and the cyclist stand out from the
> background clutter of Duncan Donuts and other lights along the road?
>
> Barry Harmon

Yeah, these are the same sort of lights that you see on a lot of car's
bumpers, under the head lights - driving lights, not fog lights. I
went to an auto parts store and bought a kit with two of them for
about $20 a decade or so ago. There are lot's of 'em with that
blueish light, mine aren't.

I have spoken to people I know after they encountered me on the
road... they have said that they mistook me for a one-eyed car, then a
motor cycle, then judged me by my speed to be a tractor. Which was
just the sort of "what the hell is tht?" reaction I would hope for.
Beats the "it's just a squishy bicycle that won't even leave a dent"
action that you get with lesser lights.

DennisTheBald

August 28th 08, 12:14 AM

On Aug 26, 11:54 pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> DennisTheBald wrote:
> > ...
> > Yes sometimes people on bikes run into pedestrians and break their
> > bones (well some times it the cyclists bones too - but usually the
> > person moving faster has less inclination to fall and it's often the
> > contact with the ground that does the damage)....
>
> This contradicts my experience and observations of cyclist/pedestrian
> collisions. Typically, the cyclist gets hurt more, since he/she goes
> over the bars and lands on his/her head.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Personally, I've only had one - a head on with a roller blader - I
guess that wouldn't qualify as a pedestrian tho, never mind.

The bike I ride now has the crankset out in front... whatever I run
into will get greasy.
But even if it was a direct hit from the front of a wedgie, wouldn't
there be a nice soft pedestrian to land on?

DennisTheBald

August 28th 08, 12:21 AM

On Aug 26, 11:59 pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> DennisTheBald wrote:
> > ...
> > I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
> > the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
> > a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
> > weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
> > the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
> > in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
> > facing lights just the same though.
>
> What type of battery and charger do you use to power the light?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”Bike

A deep cycle gel cell. Don't get a motor cycle battery. Head over by
the deer feeders if you have no other idea about where to buy one.
Size it so tht you don't discharge it more than about half way on your
regular route. When I first set it up I was going about an hour, hour
& a quarter each way. It's burning about 3 amps. So I bought a 7.5
amp hour deep cycle gel cell. I use a little 1 amp trickle charge at
home. But on the other end I used a DC transformer from one of the
kids' deprecated toys...you need at least 14V to charge a 12V battery,
this little transformer put out about a third of an amp. 8 or 9 hours
under my desk didn't quite cover what I burned on the hour/hour & a
quarter coming in, but as long as I hit it overnight with the 1 amp
charger I was always good to go. Now my ride is a lot shorter and
that battery can handle a round trip.

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 28th 08, 12:52 AM

DennisTheBald wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:54 pm, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
>> DennisTheBald wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Yes sometimes people on bikes run into pedestrians and break their
>>> bones (well some times it the cyclists bones too - but usually the
>>> person moving faster has less inclination to fall and it's often the
>>> contact with the ground that does the damage)....
>> This contradicts my experience and observations of cyclist/pedestrian
>> collisions. Typically, the cyclist gets hurt more, since he/she goes
>> over the bars and lands on his/her head.
>
> Personally, I've only had one - a head on with a roller blader - I
> guess that wouldn't qualify as a pedestrian tho, never mind.
>
> The bike I ride now has the crankset out in front... whatever I run
> into will get greasy.

That is why I always preferred my RANS Rocket for pedestrian infested
areas such as college campuses.

> But even if it was a direct hit from the front of a wedgie, wouldn't
> there be a nice soft pedestrian to land on?

Not likely that the pedestrian will be in the correct spot to be a cushion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 28th 08, 02:35 AM

Brent P wrote:
> ...
> Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
> honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank....

Well, Bourbon Boy's name for him is "frank the idiot krygowski". [1]

[1] I am "tom the goddamed lightweight" in Bourbon World.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

August 28th 08, 04:11 AM

On Aug 27, 12:13*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-27, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
> > Hmm. *I guess I misunderstood. *When you referred to "a natural right
> > to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
> > right to travel by whatever means they wish."
>
> Dishonest frank makes up quotes and asigns them to me. What I wrote was:
> "Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
> whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and
> privilege isn't a part of it."
>
> Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
> honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank.
>
> Even isolated, it's "natural rights" AND travel by means of our
> choosing. It would be redundant if the second was included in the first.

I think my friends who are writing teachers would be splashing red ink
all over your page! But if you want to retract the idea of driving as
a natural right, or claim that you never meant that at all, that's
fine with me.

> ...I am talking about concessions made
> for a government granted privilege. It means driving is NOT A PRIVILEGE
> granted by government. When something is a privilege, the grantor may
> put all sorts of conditions on it. Government should not be granting
> privileges in a system where man is recognized to have natural rights
> and individual liberty. What driving is I leave up for debate. I am
> arguing it is *NOT* a privilege, because it cannot be under what is
> SUPPOSED to be the principles of this nation.

OK, Brent, I'll admit, it could be just me... but I think you're
making no sense at all.

You _seem_ to be saying that "when something is a privilege, the
[government] may put restrictions on it." And you _seem_ to be saying
that the government does put restrictions on driving. But you're
somehow claiming driving is not a privilege. All the while admitting
you don't know what it is. Pardon me, but that's confusing at best.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving
as a right. All 50 states, plus a couple territories, treat it as a
privilege. So does every country I'm aware of. Is everybody in the
entire world out of step, except for Brent?

> > And regarding your displeasure at drivers' licenses being affected by
> > non-driving behavior: *you should know that all sorts of true rights
> > get restricted because of a perpetrator's violation of laws. *Think
> > about house arrest, for just one example.
>
> 1) a debt to another person is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

You complained about the connection between child support payments and
driving. Here's the quote:

"Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you! "

Failure to pay child support is not merely a private debt, nor a civil
matter. It's violation of the law, in every state I know about. That
makes it a criminal matter.

> > Brent, as always, you are far too emotionally attached to your car and
> > to driving. *You're like a 16-year-old that's just passed his test.
>
> You again prove your only reason for posting is to lie and insult. *

No, I post to discuss, to learn, and to help others learn. But you
and I have been in discussions, on and off, for years, and in most of
them, you've gotten petulant about almost any restriction on your
driving. It reminds me of my son, back in the "no driving until
you've done your homework" days.

> Why don't you try growing up instead of being an adult (by numerical age)
> child of the government? You're the one who is always thinking that the
> government has to be there to play parent.

Hmm. Once again, you're not making sense.

Driving is a privilege. Restrictions are very logically placed on
driving, controlling both who can drive and how they can drive. The
privilege is revokable, and can be revoked for offenses not directly
related to driving.

That's the way it is the world over. Deal with it.

- Frank Krygowski

jim beam

August 28th 08, 05:32 AM

DennisTheBald wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:26 pm, Fred > wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:59:07 -0500, Tom Sherman
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> DennisTheBald wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I have a 36W halogen "driving" light. It's pretty dog gone close to
>>>> the same amount of light from a 55W headlight that would be typical on
>>>> a auto. Since I begun using this (over a decade ago) instead of the
>>>> weenie lights they sell at the bike stores I get a lot wider berth on
>>>> the road at night. I think that lighting up a big circle of pavement
>>>> in front of me helps people behind me see me better too. I use rear
>>>> facing lights just the same though.
>>> What type of battery and charger do you use to power the light?
>> I used a 20 watt halogen bulb in a lawn light for a couple years of
>> commuting. Very bright and oncoming cars dimmed their lights. The
>> taillight was same lawn light with a red lens and 8 watt bulb. Worked
>> great.
>>
>> I had a 12 volt 4.3 amp-hour gel cell and kept 1 charger at work and 1
>> at home. Lead-acid batteries don't like to be run down too much.
>>
>> But today I'd say to use 3 1-watt red LED's in the back and a 3 watt
>> LED MR16 bulb in the front using a smaller gel cell. Perhaps 2 bulbs
>> in the front, it's still just 7 watts worth. (That's what I measured
>> for draw on them.)
>>
>> Or go high-tech and use rechargeable lithium-ion cells.
>> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> yeah, I'm studying on switching to LED this winter. I've got a couple
> 3W flashlights that seem pretty bright. I have used one mounted with
> an inner tube to the handle bars during a primary system failure and
> it didn't totally suck. But it didn't throw out that circle of light
> onto the pavement either. I don't need lights right now, but in a
> month or so I will.
>
> I've been using a slightly larger gel cell, 7.5ah. A deep cycle gel
> cell. I'm thinking about switching to nicad if I change to LED from
> the halogen. I'd like to go 6V and use a dyno hub to top off the
> batteries while I'm driving.

are you going to properly shield them so you don't dazzle other
cyclists? there's a reason car headlights have low beams and if you are
a responsible road user, you should address this requirement.

Brent P

August 28th 08, 06:22 AM

On 2008-08-28, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> On Aug 27, 12:13*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-08-27, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm. *I guess I misunderstood. *When you referred to "a natural right
>> > to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
>> > right to travel by whatever means they wish."
>>
>> Dishonest frank makes up quotes and asigns them to me. What I wrote was:
>> "Now if people have their natural rights and are free to travel by
>> whatever means they wish, then we have another situation and
>> privilege isn't a part of it."
>>
>> Only an idiot would twist what I wrote the way you did if he were an
>> honest person. And you're not an idiot Frank.
>>
>> Even isolated, it's "natural rights" AND travel by means of our
>> choosing. It would be redundant if the second was included in the first.
>
> I think my friends who are writing teachers would be splashing red ink
> all over your page!

If it were might fault you wouldn't be doing this sort of thing
repeatedly with multiple people who aren't 100% in agreement with you.

> But if you want to retract the idea of driving as
> a natural right, or claim that you never meant that at all, that's
> fine with me.

See, here you go again with your dishonesty.

>> ...I am talking about concessions made
>> for a government granted privilege. It means driving is NOT A PRIVILEGE
>> granted by government. When something is a privilege, the grantor may
>> put all sorts of conditions on it. Government should not be granting
>> privileges in a system where man is recognized to have natural rights
>> and individual liberty. What driving is I leave up for debate. I am
>> arguing it is *NOT* a privilege, because it cannot be under what is
>> SUPPOSED to be the principles of this nation.

> OK, Brent, I'll admit, it could be just me... but I think you're
> making no sense at all.

No, it's your limited binary thinking.

> You _seem_ to be saying that "when something is a privilege, the
> [government] may put restrictions on it." And you _seem_ to be saying
> that the government does put restrictions on driving. But you're
> somehow claiming driving is not a privilege. All the while admitting
> you don't know what it is. Pardon me, but that's confusing at best.

Yep, your limited thinking. I see that the 1984 style thought training
worked on you. Why don't you look up the word 'privilege'. I already did
that for people here and posted it, but go through the excerise
yourself. Now look up 'yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater' when there is
no fire.

> AFAIK, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving
> as a right.

Damn you are ignorant and the training has boxed your thinking in.
People are told that rights are all enumerated in the constitution, that
if it is not there, it is not a right. The big problem with that is it
is absolutely FALSE. People believe it because they are too lazy to
actually READ the USC and understand the history behind it. It is absurd
to thing that the constitution enumerates all our rights. It is even
more absurd to believe they are granted to us by a document or by
government. We have our rights as individuals by birth.

Anyway,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

> All 50 states, plus a couple territories, treat it as a
> privilege. So does every country I'm aware of. Is everybody in the
> entire world out of step, except for Brent?

Governments like power. If you want driving as a privilege and everyone
else does, just don't whine and cry when the requirements become more
and more painful. Don't whine about being forced to carry a national ID
card to drive. Don't whine when the government decides it wants to track
your movements. Don't whine when you have to give up your rights
(enumerated or not) just to get government to grant you the privilege od
driving. Most of all, don't whine as the concept is extended to
bicycling.

>> > And regarding your displeasure at drivers' licenses being affected by
>> > non-driving behavior: *you should know that all sorts of true rights
>> > get restricted because of a perpetrator's violation of laws. *Think
>> > about house arrest, for just one example.
>>
>> 1) a debt to another person is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

> You complained about the connection between child support payments and
> driving. Here's the quote:
> "Government wishes us to think that driving is a privilege it grants
> because it can then attach all sorts of conditions to it even if they
> have nothing to do with safe operation of a motor vehicle. Didn't get
> good grades or pay your child support and no more license for you! "
>
> Failure to pay child support is not merely a private debt, nor a civil
> matter. It's violation of the law, in every state I know about. That
> makes it a criminal matter.

Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

>> > Brent, as always, you are far too emotionally attached to your car and
>> > to driving. *You're like a 16-year-old that's just passed his test.

>> You again prove your only reason for posting is to lie and insult. *
>
> No, I post to discuss, to learn, and to help others learn.

That is demonstratedly false. You start with insulting posts from the
get go and your idea of 'learning' is that people have to agree with
you.

> But you
> and I have been in discussions, on and off, for years, and in most of
> them, you've gotten petulant about almost any restriction on your
> driving.

LOL. False.

> It reminds me of my son, back in the "no driving until
> you've done your homework" days.

That's how you'd have government treat everyone. As children. You've
made that clear.

>> Why don't you try growing up instead of being an adult (by numerical age)
>> child of the government? You're the one who is always thinking that the
>> government has to be there to play parent.

> Hmm. Once again, you're not making sense.

No, your thinking is limited. Open your mind.

> Driving is a privilege.

Then we don't live in a free country. The very fact government can grant
a privilege, any privilege, especially for things that are common
place, like the common mode of transportation, makes the country
un-free. It makes some people more equal than others. It gives
government the power to force people to surrender their rights in
exchange for the privilege. That's exactly what government has done with
driving and continues to do so.

> Restrictions are very logically placed on
> driving, controlling both who can drive and how they can drive. The
> privilege is revokable, and can be revoked for offenses not directly
> related to driving.

Logical restrictions on who can drive.... hmm... outside of some health
based ones they are arbitrary. If you want driving as privilege that's
fine. Just don't think you live in a free country that respects you as
an individual with rights then. You're no more free than child.
Government will become more and more demanding in what it wants in
exchange for the privileges it grants. There is nothing to stop it once
you accept the premise that it grants privilege.

Remember, by granting privilege, the government is giving permission to
do something that would otherwise be illegal. If driving is a privilege,
driving is by default an illegal act under that premise. Government
might as well give murder and theft privileges.... oh wait, it does
(more or less). One just has to be special to get those privileges.

> That's the way it is the world over. Deal with it.

Some people like being a slave or at least forever a child and doesn't
like it when someone challenges the limited thinking that allows them
to be happy as such. They tend to say things like what is written
above when what they've been told all their lives is challenged. Frank
sounds like one of those people.

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 28th 08, 02:04 PM

On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P >
wrote:
> Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
> Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
> matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
> the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
> person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
> certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I’m all about the govt.
butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
though.

Let’s take an example a friend of mine is going through at the
moment. She and her man decided to have a child. They had a
beautiful, healthy little girl. For a little bit, all was well. Then
dad decided he’d had enough of not being able to party and “chill” as
he liked, and the baby was too much of a headache for him. So, he
bailed. Moved to a different state (Maine), applied for “homeless
benefits”, and was given an apartment – cable TV and all. On our dime
(or maybe just the taxpayers of Maine’s dime, that I’m not sure of).
He’s still got a drivers license, but doesn’t want to get a job
because then she’d get some of the money. You know, to help with the
costs of raising their daughter. So he does 10 hours of community
service per week, and in return the govt. pays for his apartment,
cable TV, phone, etc. He even still gets to keep his license,
although he has to keep the car in someone else’s name, lest he leave
a paper trail to any income he may have. The only recourse she could
possibly have to try to inspire this deadbeat to help pay for his
child is the drivers license revocation, and even that is complicated
as can be, because she needs to be able to have him served with
papers, etc. Thing is, she knows what city he lives in but the town &
police won’t provide her with an address. Granted I’m off on a bit of
a tangent here, but back to the point – do you think people like this
should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
child and make a better life for herself? IMO opinion they should
suspend the a-hole's license, and if he wants to do community service
for an apartment (10 hours a week at that) he should have to do
another 30/week (bringing him to 40, the minimum for a normal full-
time job, and less than either she or I work) with the payout from the
extra 30 hours/week going toward taking care of the baby.

Brent P

August 28th 08, 02:56 PM

On 2008-08-28, > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
>> Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
>> matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
>> the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
>> person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
>> certainly have no bearing on safe driving.

> Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
> overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I?m all about the govt.
> butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
> though.

It's over the top to expect that the government not forcibly take money
from some people to give to other people (welfare,etc) and for people
not to be able to use the force of government to collect some debts but
not others?

> Let?s take an example a friend of mine is going through at the
> moment. She and her man decided to have a child. They had a
> beautiful, healthy little girl. For a little bit, all was well. Then
> dad decided he?d had enough of not being able to party and ?chill? as
> he liked, and the baby was too much of a headache for him. So, he
> bailed.

Seems like their problem to me.

> Moved to a different state (Maine), applied for ?homeless
> benefits?, and was given an apartment ? cable TV and all. On our dime
> (or maybe just the taxpayers of Maine?s dime, that I?m not sure of).

That's the problem. People use the political system to use government
force to take money from them. Seems that you're agreeing with me here
that government shouldn't taking money from some people (taxpayers) to
give to others (deadbeats). You're half in agreement right there.

> He?s still got a drivers license, but doesn?t want to get a job
> because then she?d get some of the money. You know, to help with the
> costs of raising their daughter. So he does 10 hours of community
> service per week, and in return the govt. pays for his apartment,
> cable TV, phone, etc. He even still gets to keep his license,
> although he has to keep the car in someone else?s name, lest he leave
> a paper trail to any income he may have.

Isn't the welfare state wonderful? It allows and encourages this sort of
behavior. However that has zero to do with safe driving, the so called
reason for licensing drivers.

If the government can pull a DL for child support, why can't it pull the
DL if someone doesn't pay for the property damage he causes with
automobile? Why can't it pull the DL for an over due cable TV bill? How
about a failure to support a particular political figure? The typical
response is that's 'too far'. So was pulling it for 'child support' some
many years ago.

It's as if the driver's license is now a method to control people's
behaviors. Why couldn't the government pull the DL of people who oppose
the current government? Make people more loyal to the government. How
about pull it if they use bad language? Or maybe pull it if they discuss
topics the government rather not have discussed? If the DL is going to
be used as a 'privilege' and pulled if someone doesn't behave a certain
way while driving or not, where does it end?

> The only recourse she could
> possibly have to try to inspire this deadbeat to help pay for his
> child is the drivers license revocation, and even that is complicated
> as can be, because she needs to be able to have him served with
> papers, etc.

What, do debt collection services? No guys with baseball bats? Why is
the only recourse pulling a DL? And how will pulling the deadbeat's DL
change anything? Will it physically stop him from driving? Doubtful
given your story. Wouldn't debtors' prisons be more effective?

> Thing is, she knows what city he lives in but the town &
> police won?t provide her with an address.

So? This is the 21st century, why are they needed to get an address?

> Granted I?m off on a bit of
> a tangent here, but back to the point ? do you think people like this
> should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
> while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
> child and make a better life for herself?

Ahh, the heart-strings tug... Let's say this same dead beat not only
stiffed her but stiffed a credit card company. Would it be fair for the
credit card company to have government pull his DL? Toss him in jail?
whatever punishment you think he deserves? Why does she get to use the
government's police forces to collect debts owed her and/or punish him
for his behavior but not the credit card company? What if he ran out on
a debt that he owes to his former best friend? Does that best friend get
to use the government's police forces to collect that money or have his
DL pulled? Why some people and not others?

> IMO opinion they should
> suspend the a-hole's license, and if he wants to do community service
> for an apartment (10 hours a week at that) he should have to do
> another 30/week (bringing him to 40, the minimum for a normal full-
> time job, and less than either she or I work) with the payout from the
> extra 30 hours/week going toward taking care of the baby.

Your real beef seems to be with the welfare state. Instead of suspending
his driver's license, how about a forced labor camp? How about a stay at
Gitmo? Since you seem to think that it is acceptable for government to
'punish' people for debts. Of course maybe if he couldn't get welfare
he'd have to get work somewhere.

The real question here is if pulling the DL is fine as punishment for
dead beat parents, what else might this punishment be used for? Do we
really want to have things being government granted privilege? To
undermine our rights by allowing government to define everyday things as
privileges it can yank for any reason it deems reasonable?

DanKMTB@gmail.com

August 28th 08, 03:19 PM

On Aug 28, 9:56 am, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-28, > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P >
> > wrote:
> >> Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
> >> Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
> >> matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
> >> the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
> >> person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
> >> certainly have no bearing on safe driving.
> > Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
> > overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I?m all about the govt.
> > butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
> > though.
>
> It's over the top to expect that the government not forcibly take money
> from some people to give to other people (welfare,etc)

I 100% disagree with the govt taking $ from hard-working citizens to
support deadbeats and pay welfare to able-bodied people who should be
working.

> and for people not to be able to use the force of
> government to collect some debts but not others?

To me this is a different situation – two people agreed to have a
child. They agreed to share the cost, among other things. Then one
party decided he didn’t want to anymore, and moved to someplace where
welfare would pay all his bills, and he could work under the table,
still drive, have an apartment and cable TV, and just forget about his
child altogether. Meanwhile mom is working her ass off, going to
school, and with the expenses of the child being handled by her alone
along with other life expenses she can’t afford a place of her own,
much less cable TV & phone, all of which are being govt. supplied to
the deadbeat dad. I think it would be reasonable to not give deadbeat
dad a penny of our $ (welfare) and force him to work for a living. I
think it’s bull**** that he’s getting these handouts, doing nothing,
and she’s stuck with the expenses of the commitment they both made,
the child. Since he clearly can work (and is, 10 measly hours per
week to pay for his fully furnished, TV & phone included apartment) I
think he should be forced to work a full 40 like the rest of us
(although most people I know, myself included, work over 40) with some
of the proceeds going to his child.

> > Let?s take an example a friend of mine is going through at the
> > moment. She and her man decided to have a child. They had a
> > beautiful, healthy little girl. For a little bit, all was well. Then
> > dad decided he?d had enough of not being able to party and ?chill? as
> > he liked, and the baby was too much of a headache for him. So, he
> > bailed.
>
> Seems like their problem to me.

It should be. Instead, the child is her problem and his rent, cable
and TV bills are our problem.

> > Moved to a different state (Maine), applied for ?homeless
> > benefits?, and was given an apartment ? cable TV and all. On our dime
> > (or maybe just the taxpayers of Maine?s dime, that I?m not sure of).
>
> That's the problem. People use the political system to use government
> force to take money from them. Seems that you're agreeing with me here
> that government shouldn't taking money from some people (taxpayers) to
> give to others (deadbeats). You're half in agreement right there.

I agree 100% there.

> > He?s still got a drivers license, but doesn?t want to get a job
> > because then she?d get some of the money. You know, to help with the
> > costs of raising their daughter. So he does 10 hours of community
> > service per week, and in return the govt. pays for his apartment,
> > cable TV, phone, etc. He even still gets to keep his license,
> > although he has to keep the car in someone else?s name, lest he leave
> > a paper trail to any income he may have.
>
> Isn't the welfare state wonderful?

No.

> It allows and encourages this sort of
> behavior. However that has zero to do with safe driving, the so called
> reason for licensing drivers.

**** safe. It was decided long ago that driving is a privilege.
Until this changes, that privilege should be revocable by doing things
like refusing to pay court-ordered child support for your child, that
you agreed to have and help raise. If driving even goes back to a
right, like walking around town, requiring no license, then so be it.
As long as it’s a privilege that can be suspended for exceeding speed
limits, it should be revocable for refusing to pay child support,
something far more serious than say, speeding.

> If the government can pull a DL for child support, why can't it pull the
> DL if someone doesn't pay for the property damage he causes with
> automobile?

They should be able to.

> Why can't it pull the DL for an over due cable TV bill?

I’d be ok with that as well.

> How
> about a failure to support a particular political figure?

What’s that comparable do with failing to fulfill a commitment you
entered with another to raise a child?

> The typical
> response is that's 'too far'. So was pulling it for 'child support' some
> many years ago.

And it’s this I disagree with.

> It's as if the driver's license is now a method to control people's
> behaviors. Why couldn't the government pull the DL of people who oppose
> the current government?

Because they never entered an agreement to support that government.
When a father agrees with the mother that they’ll have a child, and
raise it, they’re making a financial commitment.

> Make people more loyal to the government. How
> about pull it if they use bad language? Or maybe pull it if they discuss
> topics the government rather not have discussed? If the DL is going to
> be used as a 'privilege' and pulled if someone doesn't behave a certain
> way while driving or not, where does it end?

These are red herrings. We’re not talking about freedom of speech,
we’re talking about defaulting on a commitment to raise a child.

> > The only recourse she could
> > possibly have to try to inspire this deadbeat to help pay for his
> > child is the drivers license revocation, and even that is complicated
> > as can be, because she needs to be able to have him served with
> > papers, etc.
>
> What, do debt collection services?

Come again?

> No guys with baseball bats?

It’s been considered.

Why is the only recourse pulling a DL? And how will pulling the
deadbeat's DL
> change anything? Will it physically stop him from driving? Doubtful
> given your story. Wouldn't debtors' prisons be more effective?

At least he wouldn’t be living on our financial support while refusing
to financially support his own daughter.

> > Thing is, she knows what city he lives in but the town &
> > police won?t provide her with an address.
>
> So? This is the 21st century, why are they needed to get an address?

The new apartment is recent. I’m sure she’ll get the addy.

> > Granted I?m off on a bit of
> > a tangent here, but back to the point ? do you think people like this
> > should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
> > while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
> > child and make a better life for herself?
>
> Ahh, the heart-strings tug... Let's say this same dead beat not only
> stiffed her but stiffed a credit card company. Would it be fair for the
> credit card company to have government pull his DL? Toss him in jail?
> whatever punishment you think he deserves? Why does she get to use the
> government's police forces to collect debts owed her and/or punish him
> for his behavior but not the credit card company? What if he ran out on
> a debt that he owes to his former best friend? Does that best friend get
> to use the government's police forces to collect that money or have his
> DL pulled? Why some people and not others?

Because of the simple unjustness of him getting a free living while
refusing to honor his financial commitments, mainly helping to support
his daughter. The credit card companies have their own means to go
after those that default. Default on your mortgage, they take your
house. Default on paying your child support, and nothing happens.
This is bull****. If you can’t afford to pay a couple hundred a month
to take care of your daughter, you shouldn’t be able to afford to
drive.

> > IMO opinion they should
> > suspend the a-hole's license, and if he wants to do community service
> > for an apartment (10 hours a week at that) he should have to do
> > another 30/week (bringing him to 40, the minimum for a normal full-
> > time job, and less than either she or I work) with the payout from the
> > extra 30 hours/week going toward taking care of the baby.
>
> Your real beef seems to be with the welfare state.

That’s certainly a “real beef” of mine, but not the one in question.
At least not wholly.

> Instead of suspending
> his driver's license, how about a forced labor camp? How about a stay at
> Gitmo?

I’d be OK with either. Perhaps then the scumbag would pony up.

> Since you seem to think that it is acceptable for government to
> 'punish' people for debts. Of course maybe if he couldn't get welfare
> he'd have to get work somewhere.

And then he’d have wages that could be easily garnished. I’d be ok
with this too.

> The real question here is if pulling the DL is fine as punishment for
> dead beat parents, what else might this punishment be used for? Do we
> really want to have things being government granted privilege? To
> undermine our rights by allowing government to define everyday things as
> privileges it can yank for any reason it deems reasonable?

No, but since they’re already doing it for so many other less-severe
reasons, they may as well do it for this one too. It’s certainly more
harmful to my friend, her daughter, and society in general (who would
already be paying his share if she were not too proud to ask for it)
than say, speeding.

Brent P

August 28th 08, 04:41 PM

On 2008-08-28, > wrote:
>
> I 100% disagree with the govt taking $ from hard-working citizens to
> support deadbeats and pay welfare to able-bodied people who should be
> working.

Then I don't see the problem.

>> and for people not to be able to use the force of
>> government to collect some debts but not others?

> To me this is a different situation ? two people agreed to have a
> child. They agreed to share the cost, among other things. Then one
> party decided he didn?t want to anymore, and moved to someplace where
> welfare would pay all his bills, and he could work under the table,
> still drive, have an apartment and cable TV, and just forget about his
> child altogether.

Again, the welfare state is the problem. This is not solved by making a
government a grantor of privileges, especially privileges that are
common tasks.

> Meanwhile mom is working her ass off, going to
> school, and with the expenses of the child being handled by her alone
> along with other life expenses she can?t afford a place of her own,
> much less cable TV & phone, all of which are being govt. supplied to
> the deadbeat dad.

Again, the problem is government interference. It is not solved by
greater government power and greater interference. It is solved by
removal of the interference that results in the problem in the first
place.

It's like FEMA turning away private aid after a natural disaster. FEMA
got in the way and the result was to increase the size and power of
FEMA. Absurd. Abolishing FEMA so it couldn't get in the way again would
be a far better solution.

> I think it would be reasonable to not give deadbeat
> dad a penny of our $ (welfare) and force him to work for a living. I
> think it?s bull**** that he?s getting these handouts, doing nothing,
> and she?s stuck with the expenses of the commitment they both made,
> the child. Since he clearly can work (and is, 10 measly hours per
> week to pay for his fully furnished, TV & phone included apartment) I
> think he should be forced to work a full 40 like the rest of us
> (although most people I know, myself included, work over 40) with some
> of the proceeds going to his child.

This is due to the welfare state. It's working as designed. Spliting
families and putting more power in the hands of government while
creating dependency.

>> Seems like their problem to me.

> It should be. Instead, the child is her problem and his rent, cable
> and TV bills are our problem.

The solution isn't to increase government power so we are all subject to
it's whims, the solution is to dismantle the welfare state that allows
people to extract money from others using the force of government.

>> It allows and encourages this sort of
>> behavior. However that has zero to do with safe driving, the so called
>> reason for licensing drivers.

> **** safe. It was decided long ago that driving is a privilege.

It wasn't 'decided'. It's what is believed so people act as if it is. .
The government has no such role as a grantor of privilege if we really
want a free country where the individual liberty of the people is the
guiding principle. If we want some other system of government, where
government is parental, where we are not free, well let's just write up
a new USC and drop all the BS.

> Until this changes, that privilege should be revocable by doing things
> like refusing to pay court-ordered child support for your child, that
> you agreed to have and help raise.

Where's the bounds? There are no bounds on a privilege. Enjoy a
bio-metric RFID tracked national ID card, or don't drive. Accept
forcible blood draws, checkpoints, searches, etc or don't drive.
Where does this end? Where disagreement with the government means losing
driving 'privileges'?

> If driving even goes back to a
> right, like walking around town, requiring no license, then so be it.

Walking around town and biking around town are becoming
privileges where we are subject to the same government intrusions as
with driving. One particular city placed an entire neighborhood under 24
hour curfew. Checkpoints in and out of neighborhoods have been set up.
This privilege concept is dangerous and we can see the slow boil before
us right now.

> As long as it?s a privilege that can be suspended for exceeding speed
> limits, it should be revocable for refusing to pay child support,
> something far more serious than say, speeding.

Then we are very much doomed to live under tyranny. For if a government
can do that, maybe it will decide that if you want to drive you need to
serve for a few years in the legions in the far reaches of the empire.
Once you open the door to that sort of thing, it will take more and
more. This idea

>> If the government can pull a DL for child support, why can't it pull the
>> DL if someone doesn't pay for the property damage he causes with
>> automobile?

> They should be able to.

It's considered a private civil matter.

>> Why can't it pull the DL for an over due cable TV bill?

> I?d be ok with that as well

>> How
>> about a failure to support a particular political figure?

> What?s that comparable do with failing to fulfill a commitment you
> entered with another to raise a child?

We are talking about granting privilege. The grantor can ask anything he
wants for it. When government grants privilege it almost always becomes
corrupt where if you say, want to make an addition to your house you get
all sorts of trouble until that is, you give your alderman a
contribution. Maybe you want to open a busines... well, that's not going
to happen until you get your permits, your licenses, etc. And those,
well that process can take years and lots of revisions and changes, that
is unless you give your alderman a piece of the action. Then things
smooth out nicely. Government likes to have the power to grant
privilege. Do you really want DL's to become like getting a CDL in
Illinois?

>> The typical
>> response is that's 'too far'. So was pulling it for 'child support' some
>> many years ago.

> And it?s this I disagree with.

Why? Because the TV convinced you it's a reasonable punishment now? Did
you even thing of such a thing before the government came up with it?
I'm going to guess you didn't.

>> It's as if the driver's license is now a method to control people's
>> behaviors. Why couldn't the government pull the DL of people who oppose
>> the current government?

> Because they never entered an agreement to support that government.

You're not thinking the way the government does. You agreed, or else.

> When a father agrees with the mother that they?ll have a child, and
> raise it, they?re making a financial commitment.

That's a matter between them, it has nothing to do with the government.

>> Make people more loyal to the government. How
>> about pull it if they use bad language? Or maybe pull it if they discuss
>> topics the government rather not have discussed? If the DL is going to
>> be used as a 'privilege' and pulled if someone doesn't behave a certain
>> way while driving or not, where does it end?

> These are red herrings. We?re not talking about freedom of speech,
> we?re talking about defaulting on a commitment to raise a child.

We are talking about attaching requirements to a government granted
privilege. Why should the government not be able to attach all sorts of
other criteria the privileges it grants? As children go... That is how
government gets people to give it power. It finds a way to tie that
power to the care and raising of children. It's how people get played.
They react emotionally and give the government powers that are easily
expanded 'for the children'.

>> What, do debt collection services?

> Come again?

It's a debt. There are private means of collecting debts. I understand
these services can really make someone's life miserable.

> At least he wouldn?t be living on our financial support while refusing
> to financially support his own daughter.

Again, the problem is the welfare state.

>> > Granted I?m off on a bit of
>> > a tangent here, but back to the point ? do you think people like this
>> > should just be able to go on with their lives with no repercussions,
>> > while the single mom works her ass off just trying too feed their
>> > child and make a better life for herself?

>> Ahh, the heart-strings tug... Let's say this same dead beat not only
>> stiffed her but stiffed a credit card company. Would it be fair for the
>> credit card company to have government pull his DL? Toss him in jail?
>> whatever punishment you think he deserves? Why does she get to use the
>> government's police forces to collect debts owed her and/or punish him
>> for his behavior but not the credit card company? What if he ran out on
>> a debt that he owes to his former best friend? Does that best friend get
>> to use the government's police forces to collect that money or have his
>> DL pulled? Why some people and not others?

> Because of the simple unjustness of him getting a free living while
> refusing to honor his financial commitments, mainly helping to support
> his daughter. The credit card companies have their own means to go
> after those that default. Default on your mortgage, they take your
> house. Default on paying your child support, and nothing happens.
> This is bull****. If you can?t afford to pay a couple hundred a month
> to take care of your daughter, you shouldn?t be able to afford to
> drive.

Once again, it's your emotional response to the 'children' issue. Credit
cards aren't backed by anything, they have no means to collect their
debts than any other private party. In fact, they are probably more
restricted than other parties.

She chose a bad partner. I fail to understand why this sort of decision
by her and many others deserves giving government a very dangerous
power. There are many ways to punish a person. Why the DL? Why is it
that government came up with that as a punishment? Could it be because
it further opens the door to other things that it can then do to
everyone? An ineffective punishment for failure to pay a debt and a big
wide hole to use to put all sorts of requirements on nearly everybody.

>> Your real beef seems to be with the welfare state.

> That?s certainly a ?real beef? of mine, but not the one in question.
> At least not wholly.

His entire scheme rests on the welfare state. Remove the welfare state
and he's living in a cardboard box and eating out of trash cans if he
wants to avoid his debts.

>> Instead of suspending
>> his driver's license, how about a forced labor camp? How about a stay at
>> Gitmo?

> I?d be OK with either. Perhaps then the scumbag would pony up.

Then find a way to punish these dead beats that doesn't have everyone's
driving tied to the whims of what government might ask for granting a
privilege.

>> Since you seem to think that it is acceptable for government to
>> 'punish' people for debts. Of course maybe if he couldn't get welfare
>> he'd have to get work somewhere.

> And then he?d have wages that could be easily garnished. I?d be ok
> with this too.

That's why the root cause is the welfare state. Government is the
problem, not the answer.

>> The real question here is if pulling the DL is fine as punishment for
>> dead beat parents, what else might this punishment be used for? Do we
>> really want to have things being government granted privilege? To
>> undermine our rights by allowing government to define everyday things as
>> privileges it can yank for any reason it deems reasonable?

> No, but since they?re already doing it for so many other less-severe
> reasons, they may as well do it for this one too. It?s certainly more
> harmful to my friend, her daughter, and society in general (who would
> already be paying his share if she were not too proud to ask for it)
> than say, speeding.

Might as well too... well guess we can forget about that free country
bull****.

Brent P

August 28th 08, 04:42 PM

On 2008-08-28, barbie gee > wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Brent P wrote:
>
>> On 2008-08-28, > wrote:
>>> On Aug 28, 1:22 am, Brent P >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
>>>> Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
>>>> matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
>>>> the case of child support is simply wrong. As is its taking from one
>>>> person to give to another. But those are other topics. One's debts
>>>> certainly have no bearing on safe driving.
>>
>>> Holy ****. Brent, I usually agree with you when it comes to the
>>> overbearing govt thing. Being a libertarian, I?m all about the govt.
>>> butting out of our business when applicable. This is over the top
>>> though.
>>
>> It's over the top to expect that the government not forcibly take money
>> from some people to give to other people (welfare,etc) and for people
>> not to be able to use the force of government to collect some debts but
>> not others?
>
> stop calling it a "debt".

What do you call an upaid amount of money? It's a debt.

> It's an 18 year obligation that this loser isn't living up to.

The obligation is far more than money.

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

August 28th 08, 05:16 PM

On Aug 28, 1:22*am, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-28, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>
> > I think my friends who are writing teachers would be splashing red ink
> > all over your page!
>
> If it were might fault you wouldn't be doing this sort of thing
> repeatedly with multiple people who aren't 100% in agreement with you.

:-) Did you _purposely_ write that sentence in response to my
"writing teachers" remark? If so, thank you!

> > AFAIK, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving
> > as a right.
>
> Damn you are ignorant and the training has boxed your thinking in.
> People are told that rights are all enumerated in the constitution, that
> if it is not there, it is not a right. The big problem with that is it
> is absolutely FALSE. People believe it because they are too lazy to
> actually READ the USC and understand the history behind it. It is absurd
> to thing that the constitution enumerates all our rights.

:-) You're having a problem with binary thinking. Specifically,
you're unable to perform it when it's required.

Q: Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving as
a right?

A: No.

Q: Does the Constitution's mention of other, non-enumerated rights
prove that driving is a right?

A: No.

Q: Do any countries, states or territories legally consider driving a
right?

A: No. At least, none that I know of.

Those three facts leave your arguments ragged and blowing in the
wind. Drop the idea that driving is a right. It's the kind of thing
a spoiled teenager would say.

> > Failure to pay child support is not merely a private debt, nor a civil
> > matter. *It's violation of the law, in every state I know about. *That
> > makes it a criminal matter.
>
> Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
> Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
> matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
> the case of child support is simply wrong.

Your attitude would astonishes me, except that it's consistent.

Irresponsible young men (boys, really) frequently think their supposed
"right to drive" is sacred, no matter what they do.

Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse.

Our society and our laws consider child support evasion to be a
crime. Your defense of these scumbags, and your attempt to paint this
as nothing more than a little private matter, is reprehensible.

> > Driving is a privilege.
>
> Then we don't live in a free country.

Not according to the anarchist fringe, we don't.

Sorry you're so troubled by the rule of law in a democracy. Can I
make a suggestion?

There are plenty of places in the world where anarchy is in effect.
You've got your pick of third world hot spots, where governments are
so weak that they can't keep control. Take your pick and move to one
for a while. But you'll need to take some friends with you.

You'll probably find that an official driver's license isn't needed at
all. Permission from a local warlord, perhaps, but no license. And
disrespecting the local boss will have no consequences, provided you
and your buddies are numerous enough and armed well enough to put
together some serious intimidation. IOW, don't take just a pea
shooter.

Me, I prefer civilization. And I prefer to shun foolish anarchy fans
who haven't progressed beyond high school machismo social attitudes.

So goodbye, Brent.

- Frank Krygowski

Brent P

August 28th 08, 06:00 PM

On 2008-08-28, Frank Krygowski > wrote:

>:-) Did you _purposely_ write that sentence in response to my
> "writing teachers" remark? If so, thank you!

You make it quite obvious what your purpose on usenet is.

>> > AFAIK, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving
>> > as a right.

>> Damn you are ignorant and the training has boxed your thinking in.
>> People are told that rights are all enumerated in the constitution, that
>> if it is not there, it is not a right. The big problem with that is it
>> is absolutely FALSE. People believe it because they are too lazy to
>> actually READ the USC and understand the history behind it. It is absurd
>> to thing that the constitution enumerates all our rights.

>:-) You're having a problem with binary thinking. Specifically,
> you're unable to perform it when it's required.

> Q: Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving as
> a right?
>
> A: No.
>
> Q: Does the Constitution's mention of other, non-enumerated rights
> prove that driving is a right?
>
> A: No.
>
> Q: Do any countries, states or territories legally consider driving a
> right?
>
> A: No. At least, none that I know of.
>
> Those three facts leave your arguments ragged and blowing in the
> wind. Drop the idea that driving is a right. It's the kind of thing
> a spoiled teenager would say.

More dishonesty (well maybe idiotcy) from Frank. Again, my argument is
that government in the USA is not to be a grantor of privilege because
it undermines the principles upon which this nation was founded. What
you post above does nothing to counter that argument.

>> > Failure to pay child support is not merely a private debt, nor a civil
>> > matter. *It's violation of the law, in every state I know about. *That
>> > makes it a criminal matter.

>> Maybe you really are stupid. I just may be giving you too much credit.
>> Debts from one person to another are civil matters and should be civil
>> matters. The fact that government decides to make it criminal matter in
>> the case of child support is simply wrong.

> Your attitude would astonishes me, except that it's consistent.

My attitude? You mean not bending over and kissing your ass when you
insult me?

> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) frequently think their supposed
> "right to drive" is sacred, no matter what they do.

Again, I have not argued a "right to drive". I've argued against
government granted privilege. Are you dishonest or just stupid Frank?

> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
> recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
> irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
> their own children are worse, far worse.

Who said anything about removing responsibility? Not I. In fact I've
stated quite the opposite.

> Our society and our laws consider child support evasion to be a
> crime. Your defense of these scumbags, and your attempt to paint this
> as nothing more than a little private matter, is reprehensible.

More dishonesty from Frank. Cannot you not put forth a rational argument
for government to be a grantor of privilege? Why must you go this
dishonest route of accusing me of defending 'scumbags'? When you give
government power such as being the grantor of privilege and expect it to
forever only use that power on 'bad people' you are a fool. Government
will expand this power by various means including increasing its
definition of who are 'bad people'. It will also use the existance of
'bad people' to insert itself into the lives of 'good people'.

>> > Driving is a privilege.

>> Then we don't live in a free country.
>
> Not according to the anarchist fringe, we don't.

Not according to anyone with the ability to think.

> Sorry you're so troubled by the rule of law in a democracy. Can I
> make a suggestion?

This is not a democracy. Maybe you really are stupid.

> There are plenty of places in the world where anarchy is in effect.

There are none. There plenty of places where tyrants rule. Places where
governments a tryannies. I know of no nation where there is not some
form of government causing problems. You are probably confusing anarchy
with chaos. For instance, once interfering government bodies pulled out
of somilia, things began to get better without government. That came to
an end when government was again imposed with the barrel of a gun. Now
it's back to various factions fighting it out for control.

> You've got your pick of third world hot spots, where governments are
> so weak that they can't keep control. Take your pick and move to one
> for a while. But you'll need to take some friends with you.

Why do you want to bring their form of government here? Where government
licensed thugs run amuck, where government interferes with every aspect
of life to the point where nobody can do anything without being granted
privileges by the government? Where criminals have infested government
because the government is criminal? The result of governments being in
such control that they grant privileges for just about everything is
poverty, criminality, death. Why do you want to go down that road?

If I want to live in a third world country all I need to do is sit here
and wait, do nothing. Never say a word.

> You'll probably find that an official driver's license isn't needed at
> all. Permission from a local warlord, perhaps, but no license. And
> disrespecting the local boss will have no consequences, provided you
> and your buddies are numerous enough and armed well enough to put
> together some serious intimidation. IOW, don't take just a pea
> shooter.

Disrespecting the local boss. That's right here in the US Frank. Let me
tell you my last run in with a local government thug. I was biking on a
residential street. Speed limit was 25mph. The speedo on my bike read
25mph. I had taken the lane, slightly right of center. I was approaching
a stop sign. To my left a double yellow line. I was going to make a left
turn. A car comes up from behind me accelerating. Passes within two feet
of me (IL law requires 3ft) over the double yellow, at about 30mph. I
sound my horn. The driver cuts in front of me and stops short. I begin
to go around. The passenger side door opens into my path, I dodge. I
stop at the stop sign. Man gets out with a badge. Tells me I have to
ride in the gutter and yield to cars, because I'm on a bicycle. I tell
him to read the vehicle code. He goes on. He threatens me. I tell him to
read the vehicle code. He goes back to the car. He calls me an asshole
and they drive off.

These are the sort of people you want to empower Frank. How do you think
the third world got the way it is? It's because the government is
criminal and filled with thugs who excerise power as they wish. Do you
really want government to have that sort of power and then have some
bicycle hating thug rise to the top?

> Me, I prefer civilization.

I am the one that prefers civilization, you prefer government force that
agrees with you. You want to impose your will on others by coercision of
the state. That is not civilized, it's savage. That's what the third
world is, where people such as yourself got total control.

And I prefer to shun foolish anarchy fans
> who haven't progressed beyond high school machismo social attitudes.
>
> So goodbye, Brent.

Another promise you'll break.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 28th 08, 06:58 PM

In chi.general Frank Krygowski > wrote:
<snip>>Hmm. I guess I misunderstood. When you referred to "a natural right
>to travel by whatever means they wish," I thought you meant "a natural
>right to travel by whatever means they wish."

There was constitutional licensing restrictions on the original colonists as
far as if they chose to travel by horse, canoe or other form of transportation.

Improvements over time to those basic forms of transportation have given
way to the car and the motorboat. The horse gave way to the horseless carriage,
and that to the modern automobile...

>But you are saying travel by car should be treated as a natural right,
>aren't you? Despite the fact that no society I know of has proclaimed
>that to be a right.

In the U.S., merchandise shipped for interstate commerce is treated that way
but the methods of transportation, as of yet are not...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Brent P

August 28th 08, 08:46 PM

On 2008-08-28, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Brent P > considered Thu, 28 Aug
> 2008 00:22:06 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Some people like being a slave or at least forever a child and doesn't
>>like it when someone challenges the limited thinking that allows them
>>to be happy as such.
>
> And some people are detached from reality.

An amusing come back. However I'd much prefer a reasoned argument.

I've yet to hear a reasoned argument in this thread for government being
a grantor of privilege. Try it. You'll notice the arguments sound a good
deal like those for a king or a dictator or some other form of
government that in its published ideals is one that leads and takes care
of the people.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 28th 08, 10:30 PM

In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
>>>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
>>>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
>>>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
>>>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>>>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>>>
>>> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
>>> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>>
>> and looking like a motorcycle does?

>Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
>front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
>but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
>every road I ride.

Hey, what's your top speed?

Crossing the state near Spring Valley I hit 34.6 in a 30 zone (down a hill
between Peru and Spring Valley. At that speed I could no longer pedal fast
enough to engage the wheel.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

August 28th 08, 10:47 PM

In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>On 2008-08-26, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>
>> A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate
>> the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that
>> the overhead lights reflect off...

>This is exactly what I get from my B&M light; you don't need a huge light,
>you need proper optics that put out a lot of light, in the right locations.
>And you need to be prepared to pay for quality.

Send me a url... maybe it's time to retire my planetbike blinkies but i'm not
convinced it'll actually seem bright in the city... riding down forest avenue
in oak park i'm about as bright as anything else on the road, but on Kedzie
or Pulaski I'm close to invisible due to the overhead lighting...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Brent P

August 28th 08, 11:03 PM

On 2008-08-28, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>>On 2008-08-26, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>
>>> A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate
>>> the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that
>>> the overhead lights reflect off...
>
>>This is exactly what I get from my B&M light; you don't need a huge light,
>>you need proper optics that put out a lot of light, in the right locations.
>>And you need to be prepared to pay for quality.
>
> Send me a url... maybe it's time to retire my planetbike blinkies but i'm not
> convinced it'll actually seem bright in the city... riding down forest avenue
> in oak park i'm about as bright as anything else on the road, but on Kedzie
> or Pulaski I'm close to invisible due to the overhead lighting...

This is what I use:
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=22894&subcategory_ID=4320

There is another version made for other retailers that is brighter and
costs more. The sale price is pretty much the always price. The one
annoyance is that it doesn't have a smart charger, so I have to use a
timer for it. Even cheap re-chargable flashlights from target (made in
china) have smart chargers these days.

Geoff Gass

August 28th 08, 11:10 PM

Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-08-28, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
>> Brent P > considered Thu, 28 Aug
>> 2008 00:22:06 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>>Some people like being a slave or at least forever a child and doesn't
>>>like it when someone challenges the limited thinking that allows them
>>>to be happy as such.
>>
>> And some people are detached from reality.
>
> An amusing come back. However I'd much prefer a reasoned argument.

why? you're not capable of one, why should anyone give you one?

Kristian M Zoerhoff

August 29th 08, 12:05 AM

On 2008-08-28, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>>On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader > wrote:
>>> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>>>> On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while
>>>>> back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it
>>>>> might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me
>>>>> fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to
>>>>> pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street
>>>>> doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...)
>>>>
>>>> Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes
>>>> me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process.
>>>
>>> and looking like a motorcycle does?
>
>>Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in
>>front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley,
>>but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually
>>every road I ride.
>
> Hey, what's your top speed?

Close to 40, if you count downhills. On flats, a touch over 30. My normal cruising
speed is close to 20 mph, if I'm not fighting headwinds.

> Crossing the state near Spring Valley I hit 34.6 in a 30 zone (down a hill
> between Peru and Spring Valley. At that speed I could no longer pedal fast
> enough to engage the wheel.

You're top gear's not big enough :-) I have a 52x12 that should be good to 45+
down a long enough hill.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Kristian M Zoerhoff

August 29th 08, 12:14 AM

On 2008-08-28, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>>On 2008-08-26, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>>
>>> A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate
>>> the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that
>>> the overhead lights reflect off...
>
>>This is exactly what I get from my B&M light; you don't need a huge light,
>>you need proper optics that put out a lot of light, in the right locations.
>>And you need to be prepared to pay for quality.
>
> Send me a url... maybe it's time to retire my planetbike blinkies but i'm not
> convinced it'll actually seem bright in the city... riding down forest avenue
> in oak park i'm about as bright as anything else on the road, but on Kedzie
> or Pulaski I'm close to invisible due to the overhead lighting...

<http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.asp>

There are other B&M dealers in the states, but I got mine from Peter. Scroll
down that page to the Ixon IQ Speed to get an idea of the beam pattern.
I've ridden through Greektown, up Elston, and on Pulaski with mine and not felt
washed out.

For my taillight, I still use a PlanetBike SuperFlash, and I have a pair of
auxiliary Blinky3's as backup, and for foggy/rainy conditions.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 29th 08, 01:28 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
> recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
> irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
> their own children are worse, far worse....

Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.

Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P

August 29th 08, 02:56 AM

On 2008-08-28, Geoff Gass > wrote:
> Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-08-28, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
>>> Brent P > considered Thu, 28 Aug
>>> 2008 00:22:06 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>>Some people like being a slave or at least forever a child and doesn't
>>>>like it when someone challenges the limited thinking that allows them
>>>>to be happy as such.
>>>
>>> And some people are detached from reality.
>>
>> An amusing come back. However I'd much prefer a reasoned argument.
>
> why? you're not capable of one, why should anyone give you one?

Nice projection there gassbag.

D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch

August 30th 08, 04:10 PM

Tom Sherman > wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > ...
> > Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
> > recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
> > irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
> > their own children are worse, far worse....

> Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
> when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
> for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
> to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
> matter, he should have no responsibility.

> Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.
Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.
It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.
You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.

Bill, who's been there and collected that

__o | Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain
_`\(,_ | or freed a human soul in this world--and never will.
(_)/ (_) | --Mark Twain

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 30th 08, 04:46 PM

wrote:
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
>>> recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
>>> irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
>>> their own children are worse, far worse....
>
>> Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
>> when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
>> for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
>> to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
>> matter, he should have no responsibility.
>
>> Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.
>
> I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.

The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.

> Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.

But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.

> It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.

No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
over to the wardship of the state.

> You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.
>
Courts are not morally infallible.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch

August 30th 08, 11:14 PM

Tom Sherman > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
> >>> recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
> >>> irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
> >>> their own children are worse, far worse....
> >
> >> Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
> >> when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
> >> for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
> >> to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
> >> matter, he should have no responsibility.
> >
> >> Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.
> >
> > I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.

> The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.

> > Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.

> But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
> adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
> right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
> should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.

> > It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.

> No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
> for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
> over to the wardship of the state.

> > You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.
> >
> Courts are not morally infallible.

You're free to believe that Tom, but if you knock a woman up and she
brings an action for support, it won't stop your wages being garnisheed.

Bill

__o | Every person takes the limits of their own field
_`\(,_ | of vision for the limits of the world.
(_)/ (_) | - Arthur Schopenhauer

Tom Sherman[_2_]

August 31st 08, 02:14 AM

wrote:
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
>>>>> recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
>>>>> irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
>>>>> their own children are worse, far worse....
>>>> Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
>>>> when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
>>>> for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
>>>> to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
>>>> matter, he should have no responsibility.
>>>> Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.
>>>
>>> I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.
>
>> The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.
>
>>> Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.
>
>> But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
>> adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
>> right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
>> should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.
>
>>> It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.
>
>> No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
>> for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
>> over to the wardship of the state.
>
>>> You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.
>>>
>> Courts are not morally infallible.
>
> You're free to believe that Tom, but if you knock a woman up and she
> brings an action for support, it won't stop your wages being garnisheed.
>
What do the decisions of the courts have to do with morality?

Contrary to the beliefs of the authoritarian types, legal is not the
same as moral.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch

August 31st 08, 03:06 PM

Tom Sherman > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Tom Sherman > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman > wrote:
> >>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
> >>>>> recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
> >>>>> irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
> >>>>> their own children are worse, far worse....
> >>>> Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
> >>>> when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
> >>>> for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
> >>>> to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
> >>>> matter, he should have no responsibility.
> >>>> Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.
> >
> >> The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.
> >
> >>> Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.
> >
> >> But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
> >> adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
> >> right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
> >> should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.
> >
> >>> It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.
> >
> >> No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
> >> for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
> >> over to the wardship of the state.
> >
> >>> You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.
> >>>
> >> Courts are not morally infallible.
> >
> > You're free to believe that Tom, but if you knock a woman up and she
> > brings an action for support, it won't stop your wages being garnisheed.
> >
> What do the decisions of the courts have to do with morality?

> Contrary to the beliefs of the authoritarian types, legal is not the
> same as moral.

I didn't say it was. I've talked to more than one lawyer who
acknowledged that courts don't decide what's moral, just what's legal.

Again, you're free to believe what you choose to believe. You might
even want to write your Congressman or start your own political party to
push your beliefs. But meanwhile, if you knock a woman up and she
brings an action for support, your beliefs won't stop your wages being
garnisheed.

Bill

------------------------------------------------------------------
| What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the |
| homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name |
| of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? |
| -- Mahatma Gandhi |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob

September 2nd 08, 01:12 AM

Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
Brent P > wrote:

>
> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>

Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
harm no one else. Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments. Are
these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
assets? Just wondering.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Brent P

September 2nd 08, 01:26 AM

On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
> Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
> Brent P > wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.

> Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
> harm no one else.

This is not a contract. It's called theft.

> Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
> cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.

This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
particulars.

> Are
> these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
> police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company

Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
loan or credit card debts.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

September 2nd 08, 09:34 PM

In chi.general barbie gee > wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:

>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
>>>> insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
>>>> minimum age and visual acuity.
>>>
>>> No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL. Most of
>>> the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
>>> taxes and all for government control.
>>
>> We have safety inspections in MA in addition to emissions. I think that's
>> pretty standard (and sensible).

>"MA"? This explains much.

>like you have any clue what cycling in Chicago proper is like?

Cities like Boston and Providence are worse than Chicago... Also they have a
fog issue at night... I was diverted back and forth between Logan and Bradley
in Hartford, CT once due to fog and they mentioned that Logan had one of the
tallest tower in the country and that often times they could only direct
planes by the tail markings because the fog was so heavy on the ground.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

JCrowe

September 2nd 08, 11:36 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Q: Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving as
> a right?
>
> A: No.

To be pedantic, there are two flaws in your statement. First,
automobiles did not exist at the time of the writing of the
U.S.C. Second, the constitution does not really "enumerate"
rights. The first ten amendments, however, specify a list of
natural rights that are stipulated to be off limits to infringement
by the federal government. Of course, the BoR has become mooted by
the actions of all levels of government for decades so it seems
hardly worth mentioning.
>
> Q: Does the Constitution's mention of other, non-enumerated rights
> prove that driving is a right?
>
> A: No.

This issue is a lot more complex than what you are making it
out to be. So, here's so other points to ponder. Is bicycling
a right or a privilege? If an individual has a thousand acres
with paved roads, does he have a right to drive on those roads
to his heart's content? (probably). It seems to me that your
argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
only because there are no pragmatic alternatives. But it's
important to note that government does not grant rights, or
at least that was the position of the founding fathers. If it
is something granted by the any government it is a privilege
and history has indicated that privileges granted by governments
can be pretty capricious.
--
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
~Albert Einstein
All wars come to an end, at least temporarily. But the authority
acquired by the state hangs on; political power never abdicates.
~Frank Chodorov

Tom Keats

September 3rd 08, 01:58 AM

In article >,
JCrowe > writes:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Q: Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving as
>> a right?
>>
>> A: No.
>
> To be pedantic, there are two flaws in your statement. First,
> automobiles did not exist at the time of the writing of the
> U.S.C. Second, the constitution does not really "enumerate"
> rights. The first ten amendments, however, specify a list of
> natural rights that are stipulated to be off limits to infringement
> by the federal government. Of course, the BoR has become mooted by
> the actions of all levels of government for decades so it seems
> hardly worth mentioning.
>>
>> Q: Does the Constitution's mention of other, non-enumerated rights
>> prove that driving is a right?
>>
>> A: No.
>
> This issue is a lot more complex than what you are making it
> out to be. So, here's so other points to ponder. Is bicycling
> a right or a privilege? If an individual has a thousand acres
> with paved roads, does he have a right to drive on those roads
> to his heart's content? (probably). It seems to me that your
> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.

Being car-free for many (note I'm not saying: "everybody")
isn't anywhere near as onerous as so many believe. I do
realize & recognize how agrarian folks need their motor vehicles.
But even farmers & ranchers can often circumvent having to hit
the road with their POVs. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if
farmers & ranchers comprise a large share of the people that make
the most intelligent & savvy decisions as to when to drive their
motor vehicles, and when not to. Agrarian folks know how
to not waste gas, time or money.

And to be pedantic, any option can only have one, diametrically
opposite "alternative." Alternatives are exclusively binary.

> But it's
> important to note that government does not grant rights, or
> at least that was the position of the founding fathers.

Government should, however, protect existing, defined rights.

> If it
> is something granted by the any government it is a privilege
> and history has indicated that privileges granted by governments
> can be pretty capricious.

Especially if bureaucracy and civil servants are involved
in the discharge of those privileges.

I guess Prohibition was a classic example of the
capriciousness of government-granted privilege.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

smc1987@msn.com

September 3rd 08, 02:56 AM

On Sep 1, 7:26*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
>
> > Regarding State enforcedchildsupportpayments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
> > Brent P > wrote:
>
> >> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
> >> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
> > Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
> > harm no one else.
>
> This is not a contract. It's called theft.
>
> > Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
> > cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
>
> This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
> particulars.
>
> > Are
> > these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
> > police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
>
> Failure to pay an obligation,childsupport, is a breach of contract. A
> better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
> loan or credit card debts.

I am a mother caught up in this governmental/political bs that is
'Federally' funded and I am without support for my daughter who is
13. My ex-husband owes more than $60K (yes, $60,000) in back-support
and for those of you truly reading into this, he obviously is not
paying current support. My case originated in Indiana and has been
'handed' to Tennessee where he resides. I have provided every piece
of information on this dirt bag and Tennessee does nothing to
enforce. We have 'Federal Child Support Enforcement' that does not
enforce it's own policies. They can do some of the following under
this policy, liens, suspend license, revoke passport, seize bank
accounts....and guess what? They don't. I don't live off of other
tax payers and nor will I. I am a working, single mother of 4
children but my luck, this child was not born to my second ex-husband
who I have a wonderful, meaningful and supportive relationship (now
that we don't live together) and I don't have issues with the second
ex, as a matter of fact, he still sees my daughter that is not
biologically his because this 'donor' sits on a phone line in
Tennessee telling his daughter how he is going to send her this or
that and it NEVER has happened. She was born on his birthday and
guess what? You got...he can't seem to pick up the phone on that day.

Now, for something to be 'Federal' you would think that it is
'straight across the board'. Well, it is not. And I know there are a
million and one cases out there that may be as bad if not worse than
mine. What we can all do as we sit here blogging and bashing each
others opinions and political views, is to help out. You can provide
information on any dead beat that you may not even realize you know.
You can go to any government site by state and locate dead beats that
make it to the website. Or you can look as blogs (such as mine) and
help locate these individuals that are not taking care of their
children. Someone said that it was the 'woman' that was responsible
because she did not abort or give the child up for adoption. Let us
not be ignorant. We, as humans and as adults, KNOW what causes
pregnancy. We are all responsible for our own actions. Just as I
am. I am responsible for bringing this child into the world as well
as her father. We knew what we were doing, we planned her. I don't
believe that you, who ever you are reading this, needs to support my
child via your tax dollars. I do feel however, that we all should be
helping one another as neighbors and help bring some justice to these
children. Not just mine.

If you know someone that is running for their parental obligations,
turn them in. You don't have to give your information. We all need
to pull together in this matter for the real purpose, the children.

Thank you!

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 03:31 AM

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> JCrowe > writes:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Q: Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving as
>>> a right?
>>>
>>> A: No.
>> To be pedantic, there are two flaws in your statement. First,
>> automobiles did not exist at the time of the writing of the
>> U.S.C. Second, the constitution does not really "enumerate"
>> rights. The first ten amendments, however, specify a list of
>> natural rights that are stipulated to be off limits to infringement
>> by the federal government. Of course, the BoR has become mooted by
>> the actions of all levels of government for decades so it seems
>> hardly worth mentioning.
>>> Q: Does the Constitution's mention of other, non-enumerated rights
>>> prove that driving is a right?
>>>
>>> A: No.
>> This issue is a lot more complex than what you are making it
>> out to be. So, here's so other points to ponder. Is bicycling
>> a right or a privilege? If an individual has a thousand acres
>> with paved roads, does he have a right to drive on those roads
>> to his heart's content? (probably). It seems to me that your
>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.
>
> Being car-free for many (note I'm not saying: "everybody")
> isn't anywhere near as onerous as so many believe.[...]

Well, the US has (delibertely) developed in a way that makes having a
personal motor vehicle almost necessary for many - those who can not
afford housing near work are an example, since the mass transit systems
are generally pitiful in terms of coverage and frequency of service.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 03:38 AM

wrote:
> [...] Someone said that it was the 'woman' that was responsible
> because she did not abort or give the child up for adoption. Let us
> not be ignorant. We, as humans and as adults, KNOW what causes
> pregnancy. We are all responsible for our own actions. Just as I
> am. I am responsible for bringing this child into the world as well
> as her father. We knew what we were doing, we planned her.[...]

The above is not a true representation of my position. If two people in
a relationship decide to have children, then BOTH are responsible.
However, if a woman engages in recreational sex, she has all the control
of the outcome and therefore is morally obligated to have all the
responsibility. Particularly in the cases where the women deliberately
stops using birth control without telling her sexual partner (various
studies indicate that this is quite common). Let us not compare apples
and oranges.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P

September 3rd 08, 03:52 AM

On 2008-09-03, Tom Keats > wrote:

>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.

I arrange my life to be as bike and walking friendly as possible
short of taking a way lesser paying job in chicago proper but
there is quite a lot I'd have to give up if I were to go 'car free'. And
$20 cab rides are more than my cars cost me to do those things. (but I
have the advantage of paid for cars and doing all my own work)

Brent P

September 3rd 08, 04:01 AM

On 2008-09-03, > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 7:26*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
>>
>> > Regarding State enforcedchildsupportpayments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
>> > Brent P > wrote:
>>
>> >> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>> >> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>> > Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
>> > harm no one else.
>>
>> This is not a contract. It's called theft.
>>
>> > Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
>> > cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
>>
>> This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
>> particulars.
>>
>> > Are
>> > these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
>> > police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
>>
>> Failure to pay an obligation,childsupport, is a breach of contract. A
>> better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
>> loan or credit card debts.
>
> I am a mother caught up in this governmental/political bs that is
> 'Federally' funded and I am without support for my daughter who is
> 13.

Otay...

> My ex-husband owes more than $60K (yes, $60,000) in back-support
> and for those of you truly reading into this, he obviously is not
> paying current support. My case originated in Indiana and has been
> 'handed' to Tennessee where he resides. I have provided every piece
> of information on this dirt bag and Tennessee does nothing to
> enforce. We have 'Federal Child Support Enforcement' that does not
> enforce it's own policies. They can do some of the following under
> this policy, liens, suspend license, revoke passport, seize bank
> accounts....and guess what? They don't.

That's government for ya. It doesn't live up to it's advertising every
time yet people think the next time will be different some how.

> I don't live off of other
> tax payers and nor will I. I am a working, single mother of 4
> children but my luck, this child was not born to my second ex-husband
> who I have a wonderful, meaningful and supportive relationship (now
> that we don't live together) and I don't have issues with the second
> ex, as a matter of fact, he still sees my daughter that is not
> biologically his because this 'donor' sits on a phone line in
> Tennessee telling his daughter how he is going to send her this or
> that and it NEVER has happened. She was born on his birthday and
> guess what? You got...he can't seem to pick up the phone on that day.

That's a nice personal story that tugs at the emotions, but many people
have emotional stories behind broken contracts.

> Now, for something to be 'Federal' you would think that it is
> 'straight across the board'. Well, it is not.

Such poor performance is par for the government.

> And I know there are a
> million and one cases out there that may be as bad if not worse than
> mine. What we can all do as we sit here blogging and bashing each
> others opinions and political views, is to help out. You can provide
> information on any dead beat that you may not even realize you know.
> You can go to any government site by state and locate dead beats that
> make it to the website. Or you can look as blogs (such as mine) and
> help locate these individuals that are not taking care of their
> children.

Why should it be other people's duty to hunt down the losers that
women (or men in the rarer case) decided or risked having children
with? How is this any different that socializing the loses of a big bank
while they keep all the profits?

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 05:01 AM

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-09-03, Tom Keats > wrote:
>
>>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
>> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.
>
> I arrange my life to be as bike and walking friendly as possible
> short of taking a way lesser paying job in chicago proper but
> there is quite a lot I'd have to give up if I were to go 'car free'. And
> $20 cab rides are more than my cars cost me to do those things. (but I
> have the advantage of paid for cars and doing all my own work)
>
It is about $60 to take a cab from Aurora to downtown. :(

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 05:05 AM

Brent P? wrote:
> On 2008-09-03, > wrote:
>> [...]
>> And I know there are a
>> million and one cases out there that may be as bad if not worse than
>> mine. What we can all do as we sit here blogging and bashing each
>> others opinions and political views, is to help out. You can provide
>> information on any dead beat that you may not even realize you know.
>> You can go to any government site by state and locate dead beats that
>> make it to the website. Or you can look as blogs (such as mine) and
>> help locate these individuals that are not taking care of their
>> children.
>
> Why should it be other people's duty to hunt down the losers that
> women (or men in the rarer case) decided or risked having children
> with? How is this any different that socializing the loses of a big bank
> while they keep all the profits?
>
Brent does have a good point here. Many women make horrible choices in
men, thinking that they can turn someone who is "exciting and dangerous"
(i.e. sexually attractive) into someone reliable and caring (i.e. not
attractive) while still retaining the characteristics that she finds
attractive.

You can NOT have your cake and eat it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 05:10 AM

On Sep 2, 6:36*pm, JCrowe > wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Q: *Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution enumerating driving as
> > a right?
>
> > A: *No.
>
> * * To be pedantic, there are two flaws in your statement. First,
> automobiles did not exist at the time of the writing of the
> U.S.C. Second, the constitution does not really "enumerate"
> rights. The first ten amendments, however, specify a list of
> natural rights that are stipulated to be off limits to infringement
> by the federal government. Of course, the BoR has become mooted by
> the actions of all levels of government for decades so it seems
> hardly worth mentioning.

ISTM your entire paragraph added nothing significant to my Q & A. If
you prefer to say "neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights
ennumerates driving as a right," I'll accept that, but it certainly
doesn't change my point.

> > Q: *Does the Constitution's mention of other, non-enumerated rights
> > prove that driving is a right?
>
> > A: *No.
>
> * * This issue is a lot more complex than what you are making it
> out to be.

Well, the part in my second Q & A is pretty simple, really. There's
nothing there that proves driving is a right.

> It seems to me that your
> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.

FWIW, I think governments - at least, all governments that I know of -
consider driving a privilege not because the roads are publicly
financed. They do so because operating a motor vehicle is noisy,
smelly, and dangerous to others. They treat setting off huge
fireworks much the same, for the same reasons.

> But it's
> important to note that government does not grant rights, or
> at least that was the position of the founding fathers. If it
> is something granted by the any government it is a privilege
> and history has indicated that privileges granted by governments
> can be pretty capricious.

I see your point, that the government doesn't grant rights. That's
true by definition. However, society, acting through government, does
decide what's a right and what's not. And driving has never made that
cut.

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 05:21 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> [...]
> FWIW, I think governments - at least, all governments that I know of -
> consider driving a privilege not because the roads are publicly
> financed. They do so because operating a motor vehicle is noisy,
> smelly, and dangerous to others.[...]

So are children (noisy, smelly, and dangerous to others), but so far the
government has allowed anyone to breed freely. :(

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P

September 3rd 08, 05:28 AM

On 2008-09-03, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> I see your point, that the government doesn't grant rights. That's
> true by definition. However, society, acting through government, does
> decide what's a right and what's not.

Now that's a prescription for tyranny if I ever saw one.

Bob

September 3rd 08, 06:11 AM

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 06:33 AM

Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Sep 1, 7:26 pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45 pm,
>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>>>> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>>> Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
>>> harm no one else.
>> This is not a contract. It's called theft.
>>
>>> Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
>>> cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
>> This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
>> particulars.
>>
>>> Are
>>> these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
>>> police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
>> Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
>> better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
>> loan or credit card debts.
>
> You seem to be hung up on the term "contract". Part of the social
> contract we've all implicitly agreed to abide by is the agreement to
> follow court orders, even orders to pay child support. But since you
> apparently want to use a different analogy, try these.
> Go rent a car. Do not return it as your *contract* specified. Keep it
> for a week longer than specified. Then call me and tell me where you
> are. I'll arrest you for auto theft and when you appear in court you
> can explain to the judge that it is a breach of contract and a civil,
> not criminal, matter so a criminal court can't impose any sanctions
> upon you.
> Now then, after you are convicted I'm sure the judge will release you
> on probation (this is Cook County after all) with the provision that
> you pay restitution to the rental agency and complete some community
> service. Don't pay the restitution on time and don't report for your
> CS hours. Call me again and I'll give you a ride to the court where
> you can explain again that it is a civil, not criminal, matter.
>
Hey Bob, you should try to collect payment from deadbeat clients some
time. Payment is practically optional in real world terms. Going to
court will cost at least 5 figures in legal fees, and drag on for years.
And the deadbeats do not go to jail. Heck, one deadbeat I have dealt
with is on the Forbes 400 list (took the money out of an LLC, and left
everyone else holding the bag).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Kristian M Zoerhoff

September 3rd 08, 01:57 PM

On 2008-09-03, Tom Sherman > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-09-03, Tom Keats > wrote:
>>
>>>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>>>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>>>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
>>> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.
>>
>> I arrange my life to be as bike and walking friendly as possible
>> short of taking a way lesser paying job in chicago proper but
>> there is quite a lot I'd have to give up if I were to go 'car free'. And
>> $20 cab rides are more than my cars cost me to do those things. (but I
>> have the advantage of paid for cars and doing all my own work)
>>
> It is about $60 to take a cab from Aurora to downtown. :(

It's $5.65 to take Metra from Aurora to downtown. :-)

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Frank Krygowski[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 04:38 PM

On Sep 3, 12:21*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > [...]
> > FWIW, I think governments - at least, all governments that I know of -
> > consider driving a privilege not because the roads are publicly
> > financed. *They do so because operating a motor vehicle is noisy,
> > smelly, and dangerous to others.[...]
>
> So are children (noisy, smelly, and dangerous to others), but so far the
> government has allowed anyone to breed freely. :(

Societies, acting through governments, have allowed that. (Except,
perhaps, authoritarian China.) If you think it should be otherwise,
you could work on convincing people (i.e. society) that they need a
license to have kids. Or you could move to China.

Personally, I prefer it here. YMMV.

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 06:40 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Sep 3, 12:21 am, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> FWIW, I think governments - at least, all governments that I know of -
>>> consider driving a privilege not because the roads are publicly
>>> financed. They do so because operating a motor vehicle is noisy,
>>> smelly, and dangerous to others.[...]
>> So are children (noisy, smelly, and dangerous to others), but so far the
>> government has allowed anyone to breed freely. :(
>
> Societies, acting through governments, have allowed that. (Except,
> perhaps, authoritarian China.) If you think it should be otherwise,
> you could work on convincing people (i.e. society) that they need a
> license to have kids. Or you could move to China.
>
> Personally, I prefer it here. YMMV.
>
If we only let 5% of people breed for a generation, the future
population of Earth would have a lot better time of it. Instead, most of
those born will have horrible lives and early deaths due to overpopulation.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P

September 4th 08, 02:27 AM

On 2008-09-03, Bob > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 7:26*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
>>
>> > Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
>> > Brent P > wrote:
>>
>> >> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>> >> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>> > Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
>> > harm no one else.
>>
>> This is not a contract. It's called theft.
>>
>> > Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
>> > cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
>>
>> This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
>> particulars.
>>
>> > Are
>> > these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
>> > police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
>>
>> Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
>> better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
>> loan or credit card debts.
>
> You seem to be hung up on the term "contract". Part of the social
> contract we've all implicitly agreed to abide by is the agreement to
> follow court orders, even orders to pay child support. But since you
> apparently want to use a different analogy, try these.

So, when are you opening the debtor's prison.

> Go rent a car. Do not return it as your *contract* specified. Keep it
> for a week longer than specified. Then call me and tell me where you
> are. I'll arrest you for auto theft and when you appear in court you
> can explain to the judge that it is a breach of contract and a civil,
> not criminal, matter so a criminal court can't impose any sanctions
> upon you.

Keeping it beyond the end of the contract is theft.

> P.S.- When we meet following your phone call(s), be sure your pockets
> are empty except for your ID and please don't wear any jewelry.
> Processing prisoner property is a pain- even in "breach of contract"
> cases. ;-)

You know how C(r)ook county got the way it is? Too many people like you
expecting government to solve problems, especially problems created by
government.

Bob

September 4th 08, 02:40 AM

On Sep 3, 12:40*pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:

>
> If we only let 5% of people breed for a generation, the future
> population of Earth would have a lot better time of it. Instead, most of
> those born will have horrible lives and early deaths due to overpopulation.

Brent P

September 4th 08, 02:42 AM

On 2008-09-03, Tom Sherman > wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 12:21 am, Tom Sherman >
>> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> FWIW, I think governments - at least, all governments that I know of -
>>>> consider driving a privilege not because the roads are publicly
>>>> financed. They do so because operating a motor vehicle is noisy,
>>>> smelly, and dangerous to others.[...]
>>> So are children (noisy, smelly, and dangerous to others), but so far the
>>> government has allowed anyone to breed freely. :(
>>
>> Societies, acting through governments, have allowed that. (Except,
>> perhaps, authoritarian China.) If you think it should be otherwise,
>> you could work on convincing people (i.e. society) that they need a
>> license to have kids. Or you could move to China.
>>
>> Personally, I prefer it here. YMMV.
>>
> If we only let 5% of people breed for a generation, the future
> population of Earth would have a lot better time of it. Instead, most of
> those born will have horrible lives and early deaths due to overpopulation.

Not really overpopulation but the conditions they live under due to
economic and government systems. (oddly enough though, those conditions
are what encourages large familes)

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 4th 08, 03:23 AM

Bob Hunt wrote:
> [...]
> It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
> making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense. That
> is, of course, exactly my point. You apparently don't like it that
> elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
> making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
> former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
> obvious choices.[...]

I think "elected lawbreakers" is more accurate than "elected lawmakers".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P

September 4th 08, 05:07 AM

On 2008-09-04, Bob > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 8:27*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-09-03, Bob > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 1, 7:26*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> >> On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
>> >> > Brent P > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
>> >> >> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
>> >> > Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
>> >> > harm no one else.
>>
>> >> This is not a contract. It's called theft.
>>
>> >> > Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
>> >> > cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
>>
>> >> This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
>> >> particulars.
>>
>> >> > Are
>> >> > these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
>> >> > police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
>>
>> >> Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
>> >> better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
>> >> loan or credit card debts.
>>
>> > You seem to be hung up on the term "contract". Part of the social
>> > contract we've all implicitly agreed to abide by is the agreement to
>> > follow court orders, even orders to pay child support. But since you
>> > apparently want to use a different analogy, try these.
>>
>> So, when are you opening the debtor's prison.
>>
>> > Go rent a car. Do not return it as your *contract* specified. Keep it
>> > for a week longer than specified. Then call me and tell me where you
>> > are. I'll arrest you for auto theft and when you appear in court you
>> > can explain to the judge that it is a breach of contract and a civil,
>> > not criminal, matter so a criminal court can't impose any sanctions
>> > upon you.
>>
>> Keeping it beyond the end of the contract is theft.

> It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
> making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense.

Um. Keeping someone's property beyond permission is theft by default.
The rulers need not declare it such.

Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
bank).

Keeping property beyond when it was to be returned is theft. The owner
is deprived of the property. It would be merely a breach of contract if
the vehicle was returned and payment was $10 a day instead of $20.

What is criminal is not a breach of contract but rather fraud and theft.

> That
> is, of course, exactly my point. You apparently don't like it that
> elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
> making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
> former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
> obvious choices.
> 1) Work to change the laws.
> 2) Don't become liable to pay child support.
> 5) Pay it and stop whining.

Ahh, the end game of those with no argument. You have no argument
to speak of so you resort to the 'love it or leave it', 'get political
power yourself', and 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. Poor form.

None of these have anything to do with the fact that government should
not be a grantor of privilege. Government being a grantor of privilege
is very dangerous to liberty. Also it has nothing to do with what is
actually criminal and what is not.

>> > P.S.- When we meet following your phone call(s), be sure your pockets
>> > are empty except for your ID and please don't wear any jewelry.
>> > Processing prisoner property is a pain- even in "breach of contract"
>> > cases. * * ;-)

>> You know how C(r)ook county got the way it is? Too many people like you
>> expecting government to solve problems, especially problems created by
>> government

> I see. When you can't offer a reasonable defense of your opinion you
> simply launch off the wall personal attacks on those who don't share
> that opinion. In that case, there truly is nothing left to say to you.

I did offer a reasonable defense. It is you who has not. I have not
launched any personal attack against you unless it really isn't your
opinion that government should be sticking it's nose into private
affairs by declaring certain not payments of debt and many
other things criminal. I thought you were advocating government
intervention. If you're not advocating government intervention, exactly
what the frack is your point? C(r)ook County is the way it is because
the government is interventionist amung other things.

Brent P

September 4th 08, 05:08 AM

On 2008-09-04, Tom Sherman > wrote:
> Bob Hunt wrote:
>> [...]
>> It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
>> making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense. That
>> is, of course, exactly my point. You apparently don't like it that
>> elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
>> making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
>> former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
>> obvious choices.[...]
>
> I think "elected lawbreakers" is more accurate than "elected lawmakers".

I just call them rulers. They are above the law, they are the law. Those
are rulers.

Bob

September 4th 08, 08:05 AM

On Sep 3, 9:23*pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:

> I think "elected lawbreakers" is more accurate than "elected lawmakers".

You can do better than that. That isn't even original.

Bob

September 4th 08, 08:29 AM

On Sep 3, 11:07*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-09-04, Bob > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 8:27*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> >> On 2008-09-03, Bob > wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 1, 7:26*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> >> >> On 2008-09-02, Bob > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
> >> >> > Brent P > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
> >> >> >> any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
> >> >> > Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
> >> >> > harm no one else.
>
> >> >> This is not a contract. It's called theft.
>
> >> >> > Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
> >> >> > cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
>
> >> >> This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
> >> >> particulars.
>
> >> >> > Are
> >> >> > these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
> >> >> > police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
>
> >> >> Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
> >> >> better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
> >> >> loan or credit card debts.
>
> >> > You seem to be hung up on the term "contract". Part of the social
> >> > contract we've all implicitly agreed to abide by is the agreement to
> >> > follow court orders, even orders to pay child support. But since you
> >> > apparently want to use a different analogy, try these.
>
> >> So, when are you opening the debtor's prison.
>
> >> > Go rent a car. Do not return it as your *contract* specified. Keep it
> >> > for a week longer than specified. Then call me and tell me where you
> >> > are. I'll arrest you for auto theft and when you appear in court you
> >> > can explain to the judge that it is a breach of contract and a civil,
> >> > not criminal, matter so a criminal court can't impose any sanctions
> >> > upon you.
>
> >> Keeping it beyond the end of the contract is theft.
> > It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
> > making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense.
>
> Um. Keeping someone's property beyond permission is theft by default.
> The rulers need not declare it such.

Why, because *you* say it is? That would mean you're merely setting
yourself up as one of those "rulers".
>
> Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
> does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
> former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
> the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
> bank).

You are mistaken. If it is done intentionally, the latter is also a
crime. That banks don't generally demand prosecution doesn't
decriminalize it.
>
> Keeping property beyond when it was to be returned is theft. The owner
> is deprived of the property. It would be merely a breach of contract if
> the vehicle was returned and payment was $10 a day instead of $20.
>
> What is criminal is not a breach of contract but rather fraud and theft.
>
> > That
> > is, of course, exactly my point. You apparently don't like it that
> > elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
> > making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
> > former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
> > obvious choices.
> > 1) Work to change the laws.
> > 2) Don't become liable to pay child support.
> > 5) Pay it and stop whining.
>
> Ahh, the end game of those with no argument. You have no argument
> to speak of so you resort to the 'love it or leave it', 'get political
> power yourself', and 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. *Poor form..

I think anyone reading this thread would put that shoe on your foot,
not mine.

> None of these have anything to do with the fact that government should
> not be a grantor of privilege. Government being a grantor of privilege
> is very dangerous to liberty. Also it has nothing to do with what is
> actually criminal and what is not.

Are you familiar with the concept of *self*-government? You
apparently don't understand that, under our system anyway, government
doesn't "grant privileges". It merely acknowledges as privileges those
things the majority agree should be classified as privileges as
opposed to rights. The "privilege to drive" as opposed to the "right
of free speech" is one example. It seems you are ready to decide for
all of us what is or is not a crime. No thanks. As bad as the system
we have can sometimes be, I'll take it over rule by fiat and ukase any
day.

> >> > P.S.- When we meet following your phone call(s), be sure your pockets
> >> > are empty except for your ID and please don't wear any jewelry.
> >> > Processing prisoner property is a pain- even in "breach of contract"
> >> > cases. * * ;-)
> >> You know how C(r)ook county got the way it is? Too many people like you
> >> expecting government to solve problems, especially problems created by
> >> government
> > I see. When you can't offer a reasonable defense of your opinion you
> > simply launch off the wall personal attacks on those who don't share
> > that opinion. In that case, there truly is nothing left to say to you.
>
> I did offer a reasonable defense. It is you who has not. I have not
> launched any personal attack against you unless it really isn't your
> opinion that government should be sticking it's nose into private
> affairs by declaring certain not payments of debt and many
> other things criminal. I thought you were advocating government
> intervention. If you're not advocating government intervention, exactly
> what the frack is your point? *C(r)ook County is the way it is because
> the government is interventionist amung other things.

Your "reasonable defense" simply doesn't stand up to even a cursory
examination. It may be "reasonable" in the sense that your words
weren't abusive, violent, or threatening but rational and logical?
Hardly. And if you don't consider, "You know how C(r)ook County got
the way it is? Too many people like you....", to be an insult you
really need to work on your people skills.

Bob Hunt

Brent P

September 4th 08, 03:21 PM

On 2008-09-04, Bob > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 11:07*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-09-04, Bob > wrote:

>> >> Keeping it beyond the end of the contract is theft.
>> > It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
>> > making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense.
>>
>> Um. Keeping someone's property beyond permission is theft by default.
>> The rulers need not declare it such.
>
> Why, because *you* say it is? That would mean you're merely setting
> yourself up as one of those "rulers".

*sigh* It's called the common definition of the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the
illegal taking of another person's property without that person's
freely-given consent."

Consent ends with the expiration of the rental contract at the time
specified. Duh.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
"1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and
removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner
of it"

>> Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
>> does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
>> former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
>> the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
>> bank).

> You are mistaken. If it is done intentionally, the latter is also a
> crime. That banks don't generally demand prosecution doesn't
> decriminalize it.

Um, intent is exactly the difference I highlighted. Duh.

>> > elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
>> > making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
>> > former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
>> > obvious choices.
>> > 1) Work to change the laws.
>> > 2) Don't become liable to pay child support.
>> > 5) Pay it and stop whining.

>> Ahh, the end game of those with no argument. You have no argument
>> to speak of so you resort to the 'love it or leave it', 'get political
>> power yourself', and 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. *Poor form.

> I think anyone reading this thread would put that shoe on your foot,
> not mine.

LOL. You've provided nothing but examples that are way off the mark and
I've shown them to be.

>> None of these have anything to do with the fact that government should
>> not be a grantor of privilege. Government being a grantor of privilege
>> is very dangerous to liberty. Also it has nothing to do with what is
>> actually criminal and what is not.

> Are you familiar with the concept of *self*-government? You
> apparently don't understand that, under our system anyway, government
> doesn't "grant privileges".

I've been arguing it doesn't. Others argue it does. DUH! Try to keep the
frack up.

> It merely acknowledges as privileges those
> things the majority agree should be classified as privileges as
> opposed to rights.

LOL. Tyranny of the majority. Sorry, um no. that's not how our rights
are defined.

> The "privilege to drive" as opposed to the "right
> of free speech" is one example. It seems you are ready to decide for
> all of us what is or is not a crime. No thanks. As bad as the system
> we have can sometimes be, I'll take it over rule by fiat and ukase any
> day.

Talk about ignorance. So if the majority (of 'elected' office
holders) decides 'free speech' is a privilege, you're fine with that?
It's no longer a right? LOL. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

> Your "reasonable defense" simply doesn't stand up to even a cursory
> examination.

Nice projection.

> It may be "reasonable" in the sense that your words
> weren't abusive, violent, or threatening but rational and logical?
> Hardly. And if you don't consider, "You know how C(r)ook County got
> the way it is? Too many people like you....", to be an insult you
> really need to work on your people skills.

This coming from a guy who wrote an entire post painting me as a thief
in his example. Now, I took it as just an example, but when you ended
it with:

"P.S.- When we meet following your phone call(s), be sure your pockets
are empty except for your ID and please don't wear any jewelry.
Processing prisoner property is a pain- even in "breach of contract"
cases. ;-)"

If my words were insulting to you, what are your's to me? The smiley
doesn't make it all 'better' either and you knew what you were doing.
My comeback was a lot milder and a hell of a lot more apt (since
c(r)ook county and that within is the result of interventionist
government telling us who may do what and own what) than your initial
strike. If you can't deal with it, don't cross the line. Call it working
on your 'people skills'.

max

September 4th 08, 04:24 PM

In article
>,
Bob > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 9:23*pm, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
>
> > I think "elected lawbreakers" is more accurate than "elected lawmakers".
>
> You can do better than that. That isn't even original.

that reminds me, where's cliftoblog? did his head explode during the Dem
convention? I do hope he's well, if choleric.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Bob

September 5th 08, 03:25 AM

On Sep 4, 9:21*am, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-09-04, Bob > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 11:07*pm, Brent P >
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-09-04, Bob > wrote:
> >> >> Keeping it beyond the end of the contract is theft.
> >> > It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
> >> > making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense.
>
> >> Um. Keeping someone's property beyond permission is theft by default.
> >> The rulers need not declare it such.
>
> > Why, because *you* say it is? That would mean you're merely setting
> > yourself up as one of those "rulers".
>
> *sigh* It's called the common definition of the word.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
> "In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the
> illegal taking of another person's property without that person's
> freely-given consent."
>
> Consent ends with the expiration of the rental contract at the time
> specified. Duh.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
> "1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and
> removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner
> of it"
>
> >> Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
> >> does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
> >> former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
> >> the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
> >> bank).
> > You are mistaken. If it is done intentionally, the latter is also a
> > crime. That banks don't generally demand prosecution doesn't
> > decriminalize it.
>
> Um, intent is exactly the difference I highlighted. Duh.
>
> >> > elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
> >> > making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
> >> > former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
> >> > obvious choices.
> >> > 1) Work to change the laws.
> >> > 2) Don't become liable to pay child support.
> >> > 5) Pay it and stop whining.
> >> Ahh, the end game of those with no argument. You have no argument
> >> to speak of so you resort to the 'love it or leave it', 'get political
> >> power yourself', and 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. *Poor form.
> > I think anyone reading this thread would put that shoe on your foot,
> > not mine.
>
> LOL. You've provided nothing but examples that are way off the mark and
> I've shown them to be.
>
> >> None of these have anything to do with the fact that government should
> >> not be a grantor of privilege. Government being a grantor of privilege
> >> is very dangerous to liberty. Also it has nothing to do with what is
> >> actually criminal and what is not.
> > Are you familiar with the concept of *self*-government? *You
> > apparently don't understand that, under our system anyway, government
> > doesn't "grant privileges".
>
> I've been arguing it doesn't. Others argue it does. DUH! Try to keep the
> frack up.
>
> > It merely acknowledges as privileges those
> > things the majority agree should be classified as privileges as
> > opposed to rights.
>
> LOL. Tyranny of the majority. Sorry, um no. that's not how our rights
> are defined.
>
> > The "privilege to drive" as opposed to the "right
> > of free speech" is one example. It seems you are ready to decide for
> > all of us what is or is not a crime. No thanks. As bad as the system
> > we have can sometimes be, I'll take it over rule by fiat and ukase any
> > day.
>
> Talk about ignorance. So if the majority (of 'elected' office
> holders) decides 'free speech' is a privilege, you're fine with that?
> It's no longer a right? LOL. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
>
> > Your "reasonable defense" simply doesn't stand up to even a cursory
> > examination.
>
> Nice projection.
>
> > It may be "reasonable" in the sense that your words
> > weren't abusive, violent, or threatening but rational and logical?
> > Hardly. And if you don't consider, "You know how C(r)ook County got
> > the way it is? Too many people like you....", to be an insult you
> > really need to work on your people skills.
>
> This coming from a guy who wrote an entire post painting me as a thief
> in his example. *Now, I took it as just an example, but when you ended
> it with:
>
> "P.S.- When we meet following your phone call(s), be sure your pockets
> are empty except for your ID and please don't wear any jewelry.
> Processing prisoner property is a pain- even in "breach of contract"
> cases. * * ;-)"
>
> If my words were insulting to you, what are your's to me? The smiley
> doesn't make it all 'better' either and you knew what you were doing.
> My comeback was a lot milder and a hell of a lot more apt (since
> c(r)ook county and that within is the result of interventionist
> government telling us who may do what and own what) than your initial
> strike. If you can't deal with it, don't cross the line. Call it working
> on your 'people skills'.

Bob

September 5th 08, 03:42 AM

Bob

September 5th 08, 04:15 AM

On Sep 4, 9:21*am, Brent P > wrote:

> >> Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
> >> does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
> >> former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
> >> the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
> >> bank).
> > You are mistaken. If it is done intentionally, the latter is also a
> > crime. That banks don't generally demand prosecution doesn't
> > decriminalize it.
>
> Um, intent is exactly the difference I highlighted. Duh.

No, actually you didn't highlight any difference in intent. You merely
assumed that any overdrafts would of course be unintentional. Are you
saying then- returning to the context of this sub thread- that
habitual non-payment of child support is always, usually, or even
occasionally unintentional? If so, you live in a dream world. If not,
then why should it *not* be criminalized?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Brent P

September 5th 08, 04:16 AM

On 2008-09-05, Bob > wrote:
> Theft is theft not because there is some
> physical law of nature that defines theft but because society has
> agreed to and lawmakers have codified a definition of theft.

The rulers don't get to redefine the meaning in a 1984 sense.

> That is how all crimes are defined.

No. The rulers decide what they want to be a crime for a variety of
purposes. Various things are crimes simply to preserve the power of
rulers.

> The laws you try to use to support your
> argument became law by virtue of the very same authority

I didn't use any laws to support my argument. I used the common
definition of words. Even if I did use some basic common law that
does not undermine my argument in the least because it does not flow
from "authority". Authority isn't needed to figure out that stealing
your neighbor's car is a crime.

> that you now
> argue is a wrongful usurpation of people's rights, in this case some
> imagined "right" to drive.

*sigh* Where did I argue driving was a right? I argued that government
should not be a grantor of privilege. That by making driving a
government granted privilege it gives government a huge amount of power
to do things that undermine our liberty.

> In short, your alleged argument is nothing
> but a lot of hot air. I'll leave it at that.

In short, your counter argument boils down to declarations like that.
You don't have anything else but 'well that's what we are told, so it
is'. Try thinking things through independently instead of just accepting
what you were told and getting in a huff because someone doesn't accept
it.

Brent P

September 5th 08, 04:30 AM

On 2008-09-05, Bob > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 9:21*am, Brent P > wrote:
>
>> >> Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
>> >> does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
>> >> former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
>> >> the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
>> >> bank).
>> > You are mistaken. If it is done intentionally, the latter is also a
>> > crime. That banks don't generally demand prosecution doesn't
>> > decriminalize it.
>>
>> Um, intent is exactly the difference I highlighted. Duh.

> No, actually you didn't highlight any difference in intent. You merely
> assumed that any overdrafts would of course be unintentional. Are you
> saying then- returning to the context of this sub thread- that
> habitual non-payment of child support is always, usually, or even
> occasionally unintentional? If so, you live in a dream world. If not,
> then why should it *not* be criminalized?

Geebus. No Mr. strawman, 'did you stop beating your wife?' question
asker who pulls things out his imagination.

As to assuming unintentional overdrafts, if one overdraws HIS OWN VALID
ACCOUNT with the intent of THEFT, he's got to be the STUPIDEST CRIMINAL
the world has EVER seen. Because he just gave the people he stole from
his name, address, bank info, and countless other information. That's
got to be like robbing someone's home and INTENTIONALLY leaving one's
wallet with ALL THE USUAL CONTENTS in it on the dining room table.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

September 5th 08, 06:55 PM

In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote:
>On 2008-09-03, Tom Sherman > wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-09-03, Tom Keats > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>>>>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>>>>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
>>>> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.
>>>
>>> I arrange my life to be as bike and walking friendly as possible
>>> short of taking a way lesser paying job in chicago proper but
>>> there is quite a lot I'd have to give up if I were to go 'car free'. And
>>> $20 cab rides are more than my cars cost me to do those things. (but I
>>> have the advantage of paid for cars and doing all my own work)
>>>
>> It is about $60 to take a cab from Aurora to downtown. :(

>It's $5.65 to take Metra from Aurora to downtown. :-)

It's even cheaper to go from Chicago to Schaumburg via the L to pace 600
(even faster if you catch the 606)...

Course it takes a while... but where else can you get hours of entertainment
for that price?

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

September 5th 08, 07:08 PM

In chi.general Brent P > wrote:
<snip>
>Not really overpopulation but the conditions they live under due to
>economic and government systems. (oddly enough though, those conditions
>are what encourages large familes)

I don't think the government encourages a large family... remember the
child tax credit cuts out at 16... 16!!!!

Worse yet is AMT!!!

http://www.themoneyalert.com/AMT.html
"...The problem with the AMT lies not in its tax rate - 28 percent compared
to the 35 percent top bracket of the regular tax system - but in the
deductions it disallows. You can still take mortgage interest and
charitable donations, but the AMT excludes state and local income taxes
and property taxes, unreimbursed business expenses, child tax credits,
tax preparation fees, legal fees and home-equity loan interest.

Without those exemptions, you end up with higher taxable income. Simply
living in a state with high property taxes or having a large family can
trigger the AMT ..."

AMT is the governments child tax cut subterfuge... you start out taking all
these deductions but AMT adds back more than half by the time your done...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

September 5th 08, 07:38 PM

In chi.general Tom Sherman > wrote:
>Bob Hunt wrote:
>> [...]
>> It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
>> making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense. That
>> is, of course, exactly my point. You apparently don't like it that
>> elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
>> making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
>> former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
>> obvious choices.[...]

>I think "elected lawbreakers" is more accurate than "elected lawmakers".

Here's an article you might enjoy;

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/bells/
"...It's all wink wink, nod nod..."

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Brent P

September 5th 08, 08:50 PM

On 2008-09-05, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general Tom Sherman > wrote:
>>Bob Hunt wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> It is treated as theft because the Illinois legislature passed laws
>>> making that particular "breach of contract" a criminal offense. That
>>> is, of course, exactly my point. You apparently don't like it that
>>> elected lawmakers can do that or, at least, you don't like the laws
>>> making non-payment of child support a criminal offense. If it is the
>>> former, there's nothing left to say. If the latter, you have three
>>> obvious choices.[...]
>
>>I think "elected lawbreakers" is more accurate than "elected lawmakers".
>
> Here's an article you might enjoy;
>
> http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/bells/
> "...It's all wink wink, nod nod..."

No mention of jesse?

Brent P

September 5th 08, 08:52 PM

On 2008-09-05, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general Brent P > wrote:
><snip>
>>Not really overpopulation but the conditions they live under due to
>>economic and government systems. (oddly enough though, those conditions
>>are what encourages large familes)
>
> I don't think the government encourages a large family... remember the
> child tax credit cuts out at 16... 16!!!!

*sigh* not the US government, not yet anyway, governments in the third
world.

> AMT is the governments child tax cut subterfuge... you start out taking all
> these deductions but AMT adds back more than half by the time your done...

The AMT is the game of inflation. Here's the game plan. The government
goes and taxes the rich because well lots of people like such class
warfare. They define the 'rich' as a dollar amount and don't index it to
any sort of inflation. The government through the privately owned
federal reserve inflates. They devalue the money. Time goes by, now the
average person is 'rich' and heavily taxed.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing

September 5th 08, 11:44 PM

In chi.general Brent P > wrote:
>On 2008-09-05, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>> In chi.general Brent P > wrote:
>><snip>
>>>Not really overpopulation but the conditions they live under due to
>>>economic and government systems. (oddly enough though, those conditions
>>>are what encourages large familes)
>>
>> I don't think the government encourages a large family... remember the
>> child tax credit cuts out at 16... 16!!!!

>*sigh* not the US government, not yet anyway, governments in the third
>world.

I don't think governments in the third world encourage overpopulation, the
people need 10 children to work their farm to survive...

A co-worker of mine from India always said the government would give you a
pail and a brush as payment if you'd allow them to sterilize you...

"India's state of emergency between 1975 and 1977 included an infamous family
planning initiative beginning April 1976, which involved the vasectomy of
thousands of men and tubal ligation of women, either for payment or under
coercive conditions. The son of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Sanjay
Gandhi, was largely blamed for what turned out to be a failed program.[20] A
strong backlash against any initiative associated with family planning
followed the highly controversial program, which continues into the 21st
century.[21]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization

>> AMT is the governments child tax cut subterfuge... you start out taking all
>> these deductions but AMT adds back more than half by the time your done...

>The AMT is the game of inflation. Here's the game plan. The government
>goes and taxes the rich because well lots of people like such class
>warfare. They define the 'rich' as a dollar amount and don't index it to
>any sort of inflation. The government through the privately owned
>federal reserve inflates. They devalue the money. Time goes by, now the
>average person is 'rich' and heavily taxed.

AMT disallows deductions your employer uses to calculate your withholding...
That sort of messes up any additional credits they give because they only
offset the new tax amount...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Brent P

September 6th 08, 01:56 AM

On 2008-09-05, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
> In chi.general Brent P > wrote:
>>On 2008-09-05, Chicago Paddling-Fishing > wrote:
>>> In chi.general Brent P > wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>Not really overpopulation but the conditions they live under due to
>>>>economic and government systems. (oddly enough though, those conditions
>>>>are what encourages large familes)
>>>
>>> I don't think the government encourages a large family... remember the
>>> child tax credit cuts out at 16... 16!!!!
>
>>*sigh* not the US government, not yet anyway, governments in the third
>>world.
>
> I don't think governments in the third world encourage overpopulation, the
> people need 10 children to work their farm to survive...

Those governments create the conditions where they need ten kids to get
by. Remove the corruption, the centralized power, etc and so forth and
the standard of living would advance and people would lose the need for
larger families. this has been seen everywhere it has been tried.

> A co-worker of mine from India always said the government would give you a
> pail and a brush as payment if you'd allow them to sterilize you...

Yes, sponsored by eugenists but that's another story.

>>> AMT is the governments child tax cut subterfuge... you start out taking all
>>> these deductions but AMT adds back more than half by the time your done...
>
>>The AMT is the game of inflation. Here's the game plan. The government
>>goes and taxes the rich because well lots of people like such class
>>warfare. They define the 'rich' as a dollar amount and don't index it to
>>any sort of inflation. The government through the privately owned
>>federal reserve inflates. They devalue the money. Time goes by, now the
>>average person is 'rich' and heavily taxed.
>
> AMT disallows deductions your employer uses to calculate your withholding...
> That sort of messes up any additional credits they give because they only
> offset the new tax amount...

*sigh* you're too caught up in the details.

Tom Keats

September 6th 08, 04:43 PM

In article >,
Brent P > writes:
> On 2008-09-03, Tom Keats > wrote:
>
>>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
>> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.
>
> I arrange my life to be as bike and walking friendly as possible
> short of taking a way lesser paying job in chicago proper but
> there is quite a lot I'd have to give up if I were to go 'car free'. And
> $20 cab rides are more than my cars cost me to do those things. (but I
> have the advantage of paid for cars and doing all my own work)

I'm not saying /everybody/ can go car-free.

But I'm sure a lot of people believe they can't,
when they actually can (and should, if only to
save $$$.) They just haven't their respective
epiphanies about it yet. I leave it to individuals
to make their own educated and thought-out choices.

So I'm not downright ~advocating~ freedom from
POV stewardship; I'm just vocally hoping people
keep open minds, and consider they may have
options of which they've heretofore been unaware,
or have too summarily dismissed.

I observe the trouble with POV stewardship is that
it insidiously entails foot-in-the-door syndrome:
if a POV is required for a certain application,
it becomes too easy to "require" it for less
pressing applications. In many cases there comes
a point where the "need" to own a POV (and all the
stressful baggage that comes with it) becomes phony.
Same as when a junkie or alcoholic or crackhead
"needs" more of their drug of choice: not for any
real purpose, but just to get by and make it through
another day, thereby rationalizing their "need."

I find it so antithetical and irrational to seek freedom
by complicating one's life with phony "needs."

For the record, my current job relies on IC-engine'd
vehicles -- especially semis, yard trucks and
trans-ocean freighters, and I have to drive propane
powered forky lifts, so North American consumers can
buy cheap, cheesy, Made-In-China, dollar store junk.

Sometimes I'd rather be mfg'ing & selling organically
made bike trailers. Jump onto the "green" bandwagon.

The more freedom people have, the more they can
think clearly. Freedom is my goodwill wish for
everybody in the world. (Except for incarcerated
violent people.)

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Sherman[_2_]

September 6th 08, 05:10 PM

Tom Keats wrote:
> [...]
> For the record, my current job relies on IC-engine'd
> vehicles -- especially semis, yard trucks and
> trans-ocean freighters, and I have to drive propane
> powered forky lifts, so North American consumers can
> buy cheap, cheesy, Made-In-China, dollar store junk.[...]

Here is a fork lift that runs on hay:
<http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BZ9AJ2-gBPI/SEVSLLiCFqI/AAAAAAAAAoI/jSX2X6JXhn4/IMG_0171.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Brent P

September 6th 08, 06:17 PM

On 2008-09-06, Tom Keats > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > writes:
>> On 2008-09-03, Tom Keats > wrote:
>>
>>>> argument rests on the case that driving on publicly financed
>>>> roads amounts to a privilege, and in that case, I agree, but
>>>> only because there are no pragmatic alternatives.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> Sure there are. Like bicycling, and public transit.
>>> Or taxicabs. Or having stuff delivered.
>>
>> I arrange my life to be as bike and walking friendly as possible
>> short of taking a way lesser paying job in chicago proper but
>> there is quite a lot I'd have to give up if I were to go 'car free'. And
>> $20 cab rides are more than my cars cost me to do those things. (but I
>> have the advantage of paid for cars and doing all my own work)
>
> I'm not saying /everybody/ can go car-free.
>
> But I'm sure a lot of people believe they can't,
> when they actually can (and should, if only to
> save $$$.) They just haven't their respective
> epiphanies about it yet. I leave it to individuals
> to make their own educated and thought-out choices.

No matter what you say bicycling 9.5 miles at 6 am in janurary in 4
inches of newly fallen snow is never going to appeal to me. There's not
going to be a great epiphany that 'gee I could be car-free and biking
today' while driving to work in that even though that's about as bad as
driving can get.

> So I'm not downright ~advocating~ freedom from
> POV stewardship; I'm just vocally hoping people
> keep open minds, and consider they may have
> options of which they've heretofore been unaware,
> or have too summarily dismissed.

My mind is about as open to it as one can be. I'd rather the bicycle be
my standard form of transporation and my cars be my toys for fun. But as
I was getting at, there are considerable costs to not having a car. It
so limits choices and flexibility, especially in places that have foul
weather for bicycling much of the year that there are costs that often
not included in the analysis.

> I observe the trouble with POV stewardship is that
> it insidiously entails foot-in-the-door syndrome:
> if a POV is required for a certain application,
> it becomes too easy to "require" it for less
> pressing applications. In many cases there comes
> a point where the "need" to own a POV (and all the
> stressful baggage that comes with it) becomes phony.
> Same as when a junkie or alcoholic or crackhead
> "needs" more of their drug of choice: not for any
> real purpose, but just to get by and make it through
> another day, thereby rationalizing their "need."

LOL. Although that might be true of bicycling :) There is a 'high' from
bicycling even if it is routine travel, there is no 'high' from daily
street driving in the US. (on a track or with a special car on an empty
road is another story)

The way I see it is that people create "needs" to justify their "wants".
This is true for everything from their SUV to their 42" flat screen TV.

> I find it so antithetical and irrational to seek freedom
> by complicating one's life with phony "needs."

As I have said many a time, I don't 'need' a particular car or a car at
at all. But the cost to benefit ratio is there for a car for many uses.
I consider trying to arrange my entire life around train and bus
schedules and routes to be a needless complication. Renting cars and
taxis are also complications. All far worse than the complications of
having a car.

> For the record, my current job relies on IC-engine'd
> vehicles
(...)
> Sometimes I'd rather be mfg'ing & selling organically
> made bike trailers. Jump onto the "green" bandwagon.

But there are costs associated with it. I sometimes think I'd rather be
designing bicycle components but there were costs associated with taking
that job that I didn't want to absorb.

> The more freedom people have, the more they can
> think clearly. Freedom is my goodwill wish for
> everybody in the world. (Except for incarcerated
> violent people.)

Freedom isn't the way in the US. The US is about using political power
to force people to do as you want :)