Hit and Run Drivers: Most Wanted Terrorists

[ComandanteBanana]

Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
have them right here among us. Don't tell me terrorists who are
willing to blow themselves up are worse than these. Perhaps these are
selfish terrorists who only care about their own survival leaving the
victim to bleed on the road.

And the politicians? They are doing just fine, like always, caring
about their own survival in the political jungle. I never see the
issue of the hit-and-run epidemic in particular and TRAFFIC SAFETY in
general being addressed by them...

But hey, I do care about my own survival since this could have
happened to me while riding my bike...


Miami-Dade County bus driver charged with hit-and-run
BY RODOLFO ROMAN
Special to The Miami Herald
A Miami-Dade County Transit bus driver has been charged in a hit-and
run accident involving a bicyclist in Bal Harbour and then telling
passengers not to talk to authorities about it, police said.

According to police, the driver William G. Clarke, 57, hit Bay Harbour
Islands* resident Nicolas Oscar Saravia, 32, who was riding his bike
in the 9700 block of Collins Avenue about 4:30 p.m. Monday.

''Passengers told him to stop, but he kept driving,'' Bal Harbour Sgt.
Mike Daddario said.

``At that point, he had knowledge and should've rendered aid.''

Clarke was driving in the southbound lane when he hit Saravia.

A motorist trailing the bus called police, and the bus was pulled over
in nearby Surfside.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/beaches/story/819038.html

*This exclusive city ($$$) excludes cyclists from riding on sidewalks.
I guess they don't care they are then pushed onto the streets. :(

***

Hey, and how about this other one, this Marine just coming back from
Iraq...

Marine Injured In Hit-And-Run

POSTED: Friday, December 19, 2008
UPDATED: 6:43 pm EST December 19, 2008

MIAMI -- A U.S. Marine who just returned from a tour in Iraq is in a
hospital after being involved in a hit-and-run crash on Thursday
night, police said.

William Alfonso, 26, was driving west on Southwest Eighth Street at
about 11 p.m. when an SUV that was turning left in front of him
crashed into his motorcycle near 64th Court, witnesses said.

http://www.justnews.com/news/18317594/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosperity in Frugality
(where traffic safety IS an issue)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

[Michael R. Kesti]

ComandanteBanana wrote:

>Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
>have them right here among us. Don't tell me terrorists who are
>willing to blow themselves up are worse than these. Perhaps these are
>selfish terrorists who only care about their own survival leaving the
>victim to bleed on the road.

<snip>

Terrorism involves the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
Hit and run drivers are not typically systematic nor do they often set
out to coerce and to label as terrorists is to completely miss the point.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

[Bert Hyman]

In
ComandanteBanana > wrote:

> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
> have them right here among us.

If you're going to use the word "terrorist" to describe simple
criminals, what new word are you going to invent to describe the people
who we used to call terrorists?

But then, you're not Humpty Dumpty, are you?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 12:33*pm, Bert Hyman > wrote:
>
>
> ComandanteBanana > wrote:
> > Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
> > have them right here among us.
>
> If you're going to use the word "terrorist" to describe simple
> criminals, what new word are you going to invent to describe the people
> who we used to call terrorists?
>
> But then, you're not Humpty Dumpty, are you?
>
> --
> Bert Hyman * * *St. Paul, MN *

but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.

[BrianNZ]

ComandanteBanana wrote:
> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan .....


If Jesus happened today, he would be a terrorist........

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 20, 2:22*pm, BrianNZ > wrote:
> ComandanteBanana wrote:
> > Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan .....
>
> If Jesus happened today, he would be a terrorist........

He was terrorizing Rome, right?

Whoever is in power uses the term and decides who is, and who is not a
terrorist. For example, it used to be that insurgents in Afghanistan
were "Freedom Fighters," and when they fight America... voila, they
are terrorists!

So I think we need a better definition, which I describe here...

Gus wrote:
Hit and run drivers are the worst, but you loose me by calling them
“terrorists.”


The name “terrorist” should be applied to all those who are coward
enough not to face the consequence of their actions. And these are the
domestic variety of international terrorists, perhaps a little bit
lower because they are selfish terrorists who are unwilling to die.

Perhaps all bullies and drunk drivers deserve the name too.

[BrianNZ]

wrote:
> On Dec 20, 12:33 pm, Bert Hyman > wrote:
>>
>>
>> ComandanteBanana > wrote:
>>> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
>>> have them right here among us.
>> If you're going to use the word "terrorist" to describe simple
>> criminals, what new word are you going to invent to describe the people
>> who we used to call terrorists?
>>
>> But then, you're not Humpty Dumpty, are you?
>>
>> --
>> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN
>
> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.


What a narrow view you have. Careless drivers are a concern for *all*
road users, not just your clique. If you are at the stage of being
terrified on the roads, you should not be there. Take a break and sort
your head out before you make a silly mistake from being terrified and
become one of those careless road users yourself.

Your weakened state of mind does not make someone/something you fear
(causing terror) a terrorist.....not by a long shot.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 20, 11:33*am, "Michael R. Kesti" >
wrote:
> ComandanteBanana wrote:
> >Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
> >have them right here among us. Don't tell me terrorists who are
> >willing to blow themselves up are worse than these. Perhaps these are
> >selfish terrorists who only care about their own survival leaving the
> >victim to bleed on the road.
>
> <snip>
>
> Terrorism involves the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
> Hit and run drivers are not typically systematic nor do they often set
> out to coerce and to label as terrorists is to completely miss the point.

The point is that they are LOW, LOW in the human scale, perhaps closer
to rats and roaches.

Their terror prevails though as most sane Americans wouldn't dare to
ride a bicycle on the road.

[BrianNZ]

ComandanteBanana wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:22 pm, BrianNZ > wrote:
>> ComandanteBanana wrote:
>>> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan .....
>> If Jesus happened today, he would be a terrorist........
>
> He was terrorizing Rome, right?



Or was it that others felt scared of him (what he could achieve?)



>
> Whoever is in power uses the term and decides who is, and who is not a
> terrorist. For example, it used to be that insurgents in Afghanistan
> were "Freedom Fighters," and when they fight America... voila, they
> are terrorists!




Same for anyone living in an occupied country....Would Americans accept
a foreign army in their country? Or would there be a bit of resistance?





>
> So I think we need a better definition, which I describe here...
>
> Gus wrote:
> Hit and run drivers are the worst, but you loose me by calling them
> “terrorists.”
>
>
> The name “terrorist” should be applied to all those who are coward
> enough not to face the consequence of their actions. And these are the
> domestic variety of international terrorists, perhaps a little bit
> lower because they are selfish terrorists who are unwilling to die.
>
> Perhaps all bullies and drunk drivers deserve the name too.


Sod off...terrorist already has a meaning....it doesn't need to be
redefined to fit your agenda. Go find another word if terrorist doesn't fit.

[Studemania]

On Dec 20, 11:45*am, BrianNZ > wrote:
> ComandanteBanana wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2:22 pm, BrianNZ > wrote:
> >> ComandanteBanana wrote:
> >>> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan .....
> >> If Jesus happened today, he would be a terrorist........
>
> > He was terrorizing Rome, right?
>
> Or was it that others felt scared of him (what he could achieve?)
>
>
>
> > Whoever is in power uses the term and decides who is, and who is not a
> > terrorist. For example, it used to be that insurgents in Afghanistan
> > were "Freedom Fighters," and when they fight America... voila, they
> > are terrorists!
>
> Same for anyone living in an occupied country....Would Americans accept
> a foreign army in their country? Or would there be a bit of resistance?
>
>
>
> > So I think we need a better definition, which I describe here...
>
> > Gus wrote:
> > Hit and run drivers are the worst, but you loose me by calling them
> > “terrorists.”
>
> > The name “terrorist” should be applied to all those who are coward
> > enough not to face the consequence of their actions. And these are the
> > domestic variety of international terrorists, perhaps a little bit
> > lower because they are selfish terrorists who are unwilling to die.
>
> > Perhaps all bullies and drunk drivers deserve the name too.
>
> Sod off...terrorist already has a meaning....it doesn't need to be
> redefined to fit your agenda. Go find another word if terrorist doesn't fit.

The person who scratched my old Corolla and left w/o leaving a note
was, it seems, a "hit-and-run driver."

[ComandanteBanana]

Talking about cats and dogs, I think they have more rights than
cyclists. It seems you can't treat cats and dogs the way they treat
cyclists. It would be animal cruely. Even where they become a pest,
it's a crime to exterminate them.

I wished we were treated like animals. ;)

[BrianNZ]

Studemania wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:45 am, BrianNZ > wrote:
>> ComandanteBanana wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 2:22 pm, BrianNZ > wrote:
>>>> ComandanteBanana wrote:
>>>>> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan .....
>>>> If Jesus happened today, he would be a terrorist........
>>> He was terrorizing Rome, right?
>> Or was it that others felt scared of him (what he could achieve?)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Whoever is in power uses the term and decides who is, and who is not a
>>> terrorist. For example, it used to be that insurgents in Afghanistan
>>> were "Freedom Fighters," and when they fight America... voila, they
>>> are terrorists!
>> Same for anyone living in an occupied country....Would Americans accept
>> a foreign army in their country? Or would there be a bit of resistance?
>>
>>
>>
>>> So I think we need a better definition, which I describe here...
>>> Gus wrote:
>>> Hit and run drivers are the worst, but you loose me by calling them
>>> “terrorists.”
>>> The name “terrorist” should be applied to all those who are coward
>>> enough not to face the consequence of their actions. And these are the
>>> domestic variety of international terrorists, perhaps a little bit
>>> lower because they are selfish terrorists who are unwilling to die.
>>> Perhaps all bullies and drunk drivers deserve the name too.
>> Sod off...terrorist already has a meaning....it doesn't need to be
>> redefined to fit your agenda. Go find another word if terrorist doesn't fit.
>
> The person who scratched my old Corolla and left w/o leaving a note
> was, it seems, a "hit-and-run driver."


Probably a cyclist! I hope you aren't still living in terror of
recieving another scratch? :)

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 20, 2:45*pm, BrianNZ > wrote:

> > Perhaps all bullies and drunk drivers deserve the name too.
>
> Sod off...terrorist already has a meaning....it doesn't need to be
> redefined to fit your agenda. Go find another word if terrorist doesn't fit.

I know some of you may be thinking that my choice of word was casual,
perhaps reckless, but there are PRACTICAL REASONS FOR STICKING TO THE
WORD TERRORIST.

For example, we may be able to fit TRAFFIC SAFETY UNDER THE BUDGET OF
HOME SECURITY. (Since all the money is going to fight terrorism and
not traffic safety.) And then we may just get by (of course,
discreetly) with putting ORANGE SUITS ON HIT-AND-RUN DRIVERS.

And I know what you all thinking... HOW ABOUT ALL THOSE TERRORIFIC
METHODS USED BY BUSH AGAINST TERRORISTS? No way, we refuse to use
torture. ;)

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
>an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
>becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.

Sorry, but your cowardice is not justification for restriction of my
activities. Or, in simpler terms: Man up, you pussy.

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

[Jujitsu Lizard]

"ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
...
>
> Miami-Dade County bus driver charged with hit-and-run
> BY RODOLFO ROMAN
> Special to The Miami Herald
> A Miami-Dade County Transit bus driver has been charged in a hit-and
> run accident involving a bicyclist in Bal Harbour and then telling
> passengers not to talk to authorities about it, police said.
>
> According to police, the driver William G. Clarke, 57, hit Bay Harbour
> Islands* resident Nicolas Oscar Saravia, 32, who was riding his bike
> in the 9700 block of Collins Avenue about 4:30 p.m. Monday.
>
> ''Passengers told him to stop, but he kept driving,'' Bal Harbour Sgt.
> Mike Daddario said.
>
> ``At that point, he had knowledge and should've rendered aid.''
>
> Clarke was driving in the southbound lane when he hit Saravia.
>
> A motorist trailing the bus called police, and the bus was pulled over
> in nearby Surfside.
>
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/beaches/story/819038.html

The bus driver's real crime was being an idiot. A collection of strangers
on a bus and motorists who witness such an incident have no incentive to
cover it up.

The Lizard

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:

> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.

Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
*willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
vulnerable vehicle on the road. And then you say "But I shouldn't have
to exposed to risks just because I choose to do this dangerous thing".

This places you in the same ethical position as a rock climber who
thinks God should negate gravity so that he won't fall while engaged
in doing something he enjoys.

Listen up: if you choose to undertake a risky hobby, you'd better be
prepared to accept the responsibility for the predictable results of
same: and this includes things such as drunk and/or innattentive
drivers. You *knew* they were out there on the roads before you ever
threw a leg over the saddle, and imagining that anything is going to
change just because you choose to put yourself in harm's way is
sophomoric at best.

There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
*them*.

We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 5:24*pm, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:
>
> > but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
> > an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
> > becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
>
> Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
> *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
> vulnerable vehicle on the road. And then you say "But I shouldn't have
> to exposed to risks just because I choose to do this dangerous thing".
>
> This places you in the same ethical position as a rock climber who
> thinks God should negate gravity so that he won't fall while engaged
> in doing something he enjoys.
>
> Listen up: if you choose to undertake a risky hobby, you'd better be
> prepared to accept the responsibility for the predictable results of
> same: and this includes things such as drunk and/or innattentive
> drivers. You *knew* they were out there on the roads before you ever
> threw a leg over the saddle, and imagining that anything is going to
> change just because you choose to put yourself in harm's way is
> sophomoric at best.
>
> There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
> at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
> who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
> *them*.
>
> We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".

oh hell, I was just expounding on the ops use of the term terrorist.
but it's cool, I don't care; I've managed deal with careless or
dangerous drivers in an appropiate manner. The court of law can be a
very rewarding place. claim psychological damages and all that, you
know ?

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 20, 4:49*pm, "Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Miami-Dade County bus driver charged with hit-and-run
> > BY RODOLFO ROMAN
> > Special to The Miami Herald
> > A Miami-Dade County Transit bus driver has been charged in a hit-and
> > run accident involving a bicyclist in Bal Harbour and then telling
> > passengers not to talk to authorities about it, police said.
>
> > According to police, the driver William G. Clarke, 57, hit Bay Harbour
> > Islands* resident Nicolas Oscar Saravia, 32, who was riding his bike
> > in the 9700 block of Collins Avenue about 4:30 p.m. Monday.
>
> > ''Passengers told him to stop, but he kept driving,'' Bal Harbour Sgt.
> > Mike Daddario said.
>
> > ``At that point, he had knowledge and should've rendered aid.''
>
> > Clarke was driving in the southbound lane when he hit Saravia.
>
> > A motorist trailing the bus called police, and the bus was pulled over
> > in nearby Surfside.
>
> >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/beaches/story/819038.html
>
> The bus driver's real crime was being an idiot. *A collection of strangers
> on a bus and motorists who witness such an incident have no incentive to
> cover it up.
>
> The Lizard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey, how about the other accident where the lady went back to the
scene of the crime.

OK, these are the activities that qualify for ROAD TERRORISM:

1- Talking on the phone while driving an SUV (most SUV drivers are)

2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
or motorcycle

3- Bicycles may terrorize pedestrians on sidewalk too

4- Bullying people, playing vigilante

TERROR IS TERROR and they got to know that "Big Brother is Watching
You"...

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 20, 5:24*pm, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:
>
> > but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
> > an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
> > becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
>
> Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
> *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
> vulnerable vehicle on the road. And then you say "But I shouldn't have
> to exposed to risks just because I choose to do this dangerous thing".
>
> This places you in the same ethical position as a rock climber who
> thinks God should negate gravity so that he won't fall while engaged
> in doing something he enjoys.
>
> Listen up: if you choose to undertake a risky hobby, you'd better be
> prepared to accept the responsibility for the predictable results of
> same: and this includes things such as drunk and/or innattentive
> drivers. You *knew* they were out there on the roads before you ever
> threw a leg over the saddle, and imagining that anything is going to
> change just because you choose to put yourself in harm's way is
> sophomoric at best.
>
> There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
> at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
> who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
> *them*.
>
> We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".

Hey, you may choose to change reality as well, even if it is that of
the jungle. It's called "change" or "revolution,"
because it's not fair that the little ones are always intimidated
particularly when they are doing the right thing.

In Holland there's room for them without CIVILIZED VIOLENCE. ;)

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Twibil > writes:
> On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:
>> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
>> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
>> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
> Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
> *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
> vulnerable vehicle on the road.

In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
Statistically it's more deadly to be a pedestrian than a
cyclist or a driver. And that makes sense -- bicyclists
have more manoueverable advantages than the foot-bound or
motor-bound, and have necessarily learned to be the more
situationally aware.

Most bicyclists don't want to get run-over or killed, and
take pains to not attain those conditions. I guess that
goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.


> And then you say "But I shouldn't have
> to exposed to risks just because I choose to do this dangerous thing".
> This places you in the same ethical position as a rock climber who
> thinks God should negate gravity so that he won't fall while engaged
> in doing something he enjoys.

People should be able to access the streets & roads without
getting clobbered by the stupidity of other street & road users.

> Listen up: if you choose to undertake a risky hobby, you'd better be
> prepared to accept the responsibility for the predictable results of
> same: and this includes things such as drunk and/or innattentive
> drivers.

If you choose to undertake such a risky hobby as driving a car,
perhaps you should heed your own above advice.

[...]

> There are essentially two sorts of people in the world:

Yeah. Right.



--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[S'mee]

On Dec 20, 6:46*am, ComandanteBanana >
wrote:

YAWN...stating the obvious yet again. Rather pathetic and whiny just
like the kooks, losers and idiots who think 9/11 was an inside job.
--
Keith

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 20, 9:01*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:>

> In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
> among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.

Uh, so you're saying that bicyclists *aren't* particularly vulnerable?
Then what are you whining about, poopsie?

(BTW: You also gave away the fact that you're spinning like *crazy* by
your use of "murdercycles".)

> Statistically it's more deadly to be a pedestrian than a
> cyclist or a driver. *And that makes sense -- bicyclists
> have more manoueverable advantages than the foot-bound or
> motor-bound, and have necessarily learned to be the more
> situationally aware.

Then once again you have nothing to complain about.

> Most bicyclists don't want to get run-over or killed, and
> take pains to not attain those conditions. *I guess that
> goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.

Er, what "usual driver's anti-cyclist propaganda" would that be? I've
been a bicyclist for 60 years now, and I've yet to see any.

> People should be able to access the streets & roads without
> getting clobbered by the stupidity of other street & road users.

And life should be all beer and skittles, except that it never has
been, never will be, and there's nothing you can do about it.

> If you choose to undertake such a risky hobby as driving a car,
> perhaps you should heed your own above advice.

I do, idiot. And I do the same thing when I'm riding a bike or
motorcycling. It's *my* job to keep myself reasonably safe, and the
way I do that is to assume the worst of everyone else, not by whining
that the world should look out for me.

> > There are essentially two sorts of people in the world:
>
> Yeah. *Right.

And you think it's clever -and that you're going to "win" something-
by selective snipping to make yourself look good?

Good thinking.

[Jujitsu Lizard]

"ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
...
>
>2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
>or motorcycle

I don't know where you're from, but here they get you under the same laws.
I personally think that drinking and riding is less dangerous to the public
than drinking and driving, but they don't care.

There was some idiot a year or two or three ago who was extremely drunk and
took his riding lawnmower to or from the bar or something like that. They
nailed him with the same statute, operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence. I think his driver's license was revoked.

I'll have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure that they don't
differentiate between DUI on a motorcycle vs. in a car. Either one will get
your driver's license in peril. I'm not sure about being drunk on a
bicycle.

The Lizard.

[Jujitsu Lizard]

"Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote in message
...
> "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
>>or motorcycle
>
> I don't know where you're from, but here they get you under the same laws.
> I personally think that drinking and riding is less dangerous to the
> public than drinking and driving, but they don't care.
>
> There was some idiot a year or two or three ago who was extremely drunk
> and took his riding lawnmower to or from the bar or something like that.
> They nailed him with the same statute, operating a motor vehicle while
> under the influence. I think his driver's license was revoked.
>
> I'll have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure that they don't
> differentiate between DUI on a motorcycle vs. in a car. Either one will
> get your driver's license in peril. I'm not sure about being drunk on a
> bicycle.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-bicycle-DUI.aspx

The Lizard

[Jujitsu Lizard]

"Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote in message
...
> "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
>>or motorcycle
>
> I don't know where you're from, but here they get you under the same laws.
> I personally think that drinking and riding is less dangerous to the
> public than drinking and driving, but they don't care.
>
> There was some idiot a year or two or three ago who was extremely drunk
> and took his riding lawnmower to or from the bar or something like that.
> They nailed him with the same statute, operating a motor vehicle while
> under the influence. I think his driver's license was revoked.
>
> I'll have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure that they don't
> differentiate between DUI on a motorcycle vs. in a car. Either one will
> get your driver's license in peril. I'm not sure about being drunk on a
> bicycle.

http://www.totaldui.com/non_car_dui.htm

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/07/police_man_operating_riding_la.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194586,00.html

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21358032-Hockey-LOL-Ontario-Zamboni-driver-charged-for-driving-drunk-

The Lizard

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Twibil > writes:
> On Dec 20, 9:01*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:>
>> In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
>> among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
> Uh, so you're saying that bicyclists *aren't* particularly vulnerable?
> Then what are you whining about, poopsie?

Nothing.

Got beef?

> (BTW: You also gave away the fact that you're spinning like *crazy* by
> your use of "murdercycles".)

>> Statistically it's more deadly to be a pedestrian than a
>> cyclist or a driver. *And that makes sense -- bicyclists
>> have more manoueverable advantages than the foot-bound or
>> motor-bound, and have necessarily learned to be the more
>> situationally aware.

> Then once again you have nothing to complain about.

I'm not the one who's complaining here.

>> Most bicyclists don't want to get run-over or killed, and
>> take pains to not attain those conditions. *I guess that
>> goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.

> Er, what "usual driver's anti-cyclist propaganda" would that be? I've
> been a bicyclist for 60 years now, and I've yet to see any.

Good for you!

>> People should be able to access the streets & roads without
>> getting clobbered by the stupidity of other street & road users.

> And life should be all beer and skittles, except that it never has
> been, never will be, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The likes of you preventing me doesn't help, but oh well.

>> If you choose to undertake such a risky hobby as driving a car,
>> perhaps you should heed your own above advice.

> I do, idiot.

I think you should collect your perspective. I never resorted
to name-calling at you, and yet you treat me with this callous
disrespect and contempt. What have I done to you? Why are you
behaving like a driver toward a bicyclist at me? Hey -- please
forgive me for ****ing existing, okay?


> And I do the same thing when I'm riding a bike or
> motorcycling. It's *my* job to keep myself reasonably safe, and the
> way I do that is to assume the worst of everyone else, not by whining
> that the world should look out for me.

How would you feel if you unintentionally ran over someone?


>> > There are essentially two sorts of people in the world:
>>
>> Yeah. *Right.

> And you think it's clever -and that you're going to "win" something-
> by selective snipping to make yourself look good?
> Good thinking.

Maybe you should go back to bed. Maybe attack me with
a fresh mind in the morning. Let 'er rip!

By the way -- you've got a cock in your ass.
I just thought you should be informed of that.

I'd think a guy in his '60s would wanna, like,
keep his BP down. Oh well, if ya wanna explode,
I guess it's your life. If yer lucky, you'll go
out happily on yer murdercycle -- I hope not taking
out others with you. Maybe run into a telephone pole
or sumpthin'.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[BrianNZ]

>
>
>> And I do the same thing when I'm riding a bike or
>> motorcycling. It's *my* job to keep myself reasonably safe, and the
>> way I do that is to assume the worst of everyone else, not by whining
>> that the world should look out for me.
>
> How would you feel if you unintentionally ran over someone?




flesh and bone under my sneakers?

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
BrianNZ > writes:
>
>>
>>
>>> And I do the same thing when I'm riding a bike or
>>> motorcycling. It's *my* job to keep myself reasonably safe, and the
>>> way I do that is to assume the worst of everyone else, not by whining
>>> that the world should look out for me.
>>
>> How would you feel if you unintentionally ran over someone?

> flesh and bone under my sneakers?

Hey, the crowd-jostling, buttinski-ridden lineups at
Boxing Day sales haven't started yet.

But those things are in some ways a mirror image of what
happens on the streets & roads every day. So much "me me
me me me" and not enough "us us us us us."

I know that you truly know what I mean, and you're a good
oerson with a good heart. When it comes down to it,
everybody is, when they allow themselves to be.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 20, 8:45*pm, ComandanteBanana >
wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:49*pm, "Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Miami-Dade County bus driver charged with hit-and-run
> > > BY RODOLFO ROMAN
> > > Special to The Miami Herald
> > > A Miami-Dade County Transit bus driver has been charged in a hit-and
> > > run accident involving a bicyclist in Bal Harbour and then telling
> > > passengers not to talk to authorities about it, police said.
>
> > > According to police, the driver William G. Clarke, 57, hit Bay Harbour
> > > Islands* resident Nicolas Oscar Saravia, 32, who was riding his bike
> > > in the 9700 block of Collins Avenue about 4:30 p.m. Monday.
>
> > > ''Passengers told him to stop, but he kept driving,'' Bal Harbour Sgt..
> > > Mike Daddario said.
>
> > > ``At that point, he had knowledge and should've rendered aid.''
>
> > > Clarke was driving in the southbound lane when he hit Saravia.
>
> > > A motorist trailing the bus called police, and the bus was pulled over
> > > in nearby Surfside.
>
> > >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/beaches/story/819038.html
>
> > The bus driver's real crime was being an idiot. *A collection of strangers
> > on a bus and motorists who witness such an incident have no incentive to
> > cover it up.
>
> > The Lizard- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey, how about the other accident where the lady went back to the
> scene of the crime.
>
> OK, these are the activities that qualify for ROAD TERRORISM:
>
> 1- Talking on the phone while driving an SUV (most SUV drivers are)
>
> 2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
> or motorcycle
>
> 3- Bicycles may terrorize pedestrians on sidewalk too
>
> 4- Bullying people, playing vigilante
>
> TERROR IS TERROR and they got to know that "Big Brother is Watching
> You"...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Let me clarify, I'm not in favor of Big Brother interfering in your
private life (telephone) but I'm favor of SPEED CAMERAS FOR ALL THOSE
ROAD TERRORISTS.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 12:01*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article >,
> * * * * Twibil > writes:
>
> > On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:
> >> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
> >> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
> >> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
> > Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
> > *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
> > vulnerable vehicle on the road.
>
> In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
> among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
> Statistically it's more deadly to be a pedestrian than a
> cyclist or a driver. *And that makes sense -- bicyclists
> have more manoueverable advantages than the foot-bound or
> motor-bound, and have necessarily learned to be the more
> situationally aware.
>
> Most bicyclists don't want to get run-over or killed, and
> take pains to not attain those conditions. *I guess that
> goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.

Listen up boy, I'm coming out of this place all the time, which puts
me square with oncoming traffic, and when the light turns green, the
cars and I enter in conflict... If I go, the cars must wait for me; if
I wait, the cars won't give me break. Is it better to be tough, or
just wise chicken and walk the bike across like pedestrian?

Pedestrians are more respected than cyclists in my understanding.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 1:02*am, "S'mee" > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 6:46*am, ComandanteBanana >
> wrote:
>
> YAWN...stating the obvious yet again. Rather pathetic and whiny just
> like the kooks, losers and idiots who think 9/11 was an inside job.
> --
> Keith

Never said such a thing. But may, just maybe, they let it happen. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 1:55*am, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:01*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:>
>
> > In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
> > among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
>
> Uh, so you're saying that bicyclists *aren't* particularly vulnerable?
> Then what are you whining about, poopsie?
>
> (BTW: You also gave away the fact that you're spinning like *crazy* by
> your use of "murdercycles".)

Motorcycles hardly ever can be terrorists, just sometimes suicidal. ;)

The Terrorists usually drive an SUV with tinted windows.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 2:32*am, "Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
> >or motorcycle
>
> I don't know where you're from, but here they get you under the same laws..
> I personally think that drinking and riding is less dangerous to the public
> than drinking and driving, but they don't care.
>
> There was some idiot a year or two or three ago who was extremely drunk and
> took his riding lawnmower to or from the bar or something like that. *They
> nailed him with the same statute, operating a motor vehicle while under the
> influence. *I think his driver's license was revoked.
>
> I'll have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure that they don't
> differentiate between DUI on a motorcycle vs. in a car. *Either one will get
> your driver's license in peril. *I'm not sure about being drunk on a
> bicycle.
>
> The Lizard.

Because that another fricking business they have together with MADD.
There's little justice in that and lot of business.

[Jujitsu Lizard]

>"S'mee" > wrote in message
...
>On Dec 20, 6:46 am, ComandanteBanana >
>wrote:
>
>YAWN...stating the obvious yet again. Rather pathetic and whiny just
>like the kooks, losers and idiots who think 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm open to all suggestions on 9/11. But what strikes me about it is there
would need to be a large number of people involved in the conspiracy--maybe
at least 20-100 or so--or at least the grand conspiracy as envisioned by
Henry. It would be impractical to keep them all quiet.

The Lizard

[BrianNZ]

ComandanteBanana wrote:
> On Dec 21, 1:55 am, Twibil > wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 9:01 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:>
>>
>>> In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
>>> among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
>> Uh, so you're saying that bicyclists *aren't* particularly vulnerable?
>> Then what are you whining about, poopsie?
>>
>> (BTW: You also gave away the fact that you're spinning like *crazy* by
>> your use of "murdercycles".)
>
> Motorcycles hardly ever can be terrorists, just sometimes suicidal. ;)
>
> The Terrorists usually drive an SUV with tinted windows.


You haven't seen me ride..... :)

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
ComandanteBanana > writes:
> On Dec 21, 12:01*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article >,
>> * * * * Twibil > writes:
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:
>> >> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
>> >> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
>> >> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
>> > Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
>> > *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
>> > vulnerable vehicle on the road.
>>
>> In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
>> among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
>> Statistically it's more deadly to be a pedestrian than a
>> cyclist or a driver. *And that makes sense -- bicyclists
>> have more manoueverable advantages than the foot-bound or
>> motor-bound, and have necessarily learned to be the more
>> situationally aware.
>>
>> Most bicyclists don't want to get run-over or killed, and
>> take pains to not attain those conditions. *I guess that
>> goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.
> Listen up boy, I'm coming out of this place all the time, which puts
> me square with oncoming traffic, and when the light turns green, the
> cars and I enter in conflict... If I go, the cars must wait for me; if

The horror. The horror.

> I wait, the cars won't give me break. Is it better to be tough, or
> just wise chicken and walk the bike across like pedestrian?

Just ~go~, goddammit! There's nothing worse than a dilly-dallyer.
Maybe you're one of those people who just has to delay an entire
queue behind them at the supermarket checkout, ATM, or while
getting on a bus and arguing with the bus driver about the fare.

> Pedestrians are more respected than cyclists in my understanding.

Hey! You've got a cock up your ass.

(I just thought you might like to know that.)


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Leo Lichtman[_2_]]

"Tom Keats" wrote: (clip) Hey! You've got a cock up your ass.
>
> (I just thought you might like to know that.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is just the kind of argument that is going to persuade a lot of people.
Congratulations on your eloquence.

[Leo Lichtman[_2_]]

"ComandanteBanana" wrote: > wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 4:49 pm, "Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Miami-Dade County bus driver charged with hit-and-run
> > BY RODOLFO ROMAN
> > Special to The Miami Herald
> > A Miami-Dade County Transit bus driver has been charged in a hit-and
> > run accident involving a bicyclist in Bal Harbour and then telling
> > passengers not to talk to authorities about it, police said.
>
> > According to police, the driver William G. Clarke, 57, hit Bay Harbour
> > Islands* resident Nicolas Oscar Saravia, 32, who was riding his bike
> > in the 9700 block of Collins Avenue about 4:30 p.m. Monday.
>
> > ''Passengers told him to stop, but he kept driving,'' Bal Harbour Sgt.
> > Mike Daddario said.
>
> > ``At that point, he had knowledge and should've rendered aid.''
>
> > Clarke was driving in the southbound lane when he hit Saravia.
>
> > A motorist trailing the bus called police, and the bus was pulled over
> > in nearby Surfside.
>
> >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/beaches/story/819038.html
>
> The bus driver's real crime was being an idiot. A collection of strangers
> on a bus and motorists who witness such an incident have no incentive to
> cover it up.
>
> The Lizard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey, how about the other accident where the lady went back to the
scene of the crime.

(clip) OK, these are the activities that qualify for ROAD TERRORISM:

1- Talking on the phone while driving an SUV (most SUV drivers are)

2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
or motorcycle

3- Bicycles may terrorize pedestrians on sidewalk too

4- Bullying people, playing vigilante

TERROR IS TERROR and they got to know that "Big Brother is Watching
You"...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hate it when people destroy the meaning of important terms like
"terrorism," "genocide," "holocaust," by applying them to far less serious
situations.

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 21, 12:03*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:

> > Uh, so you're saying that bicyclists *aren't* particularly vulnerable?
> > Then what are you whining about, poopsie?
>
> Nothing.

Pardon me! Your screed sure sounded like a whine to me.

> I'm not the one who's complaining here.

Hmmm. If that's what you think, then you *really* need to proof-read
your own posts for content before pushing "send".

> >> I guess that
> >> goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.
>
> > Er, what "usual driver's anti-cyclist propaganda" would that be? I've
> > been a bicyclist for 60 years now, and I've yet to see any.
>
> Good for you!

Ah! So there *isn't* any such, or you'd have cited an example of this
"usual thing".

> >> People should be able to access the streets & roads without
> >> getting clobbered by the stupidity of other street & road users.
> > And life should be all beer and skittles, except that it never has
> > been, never will be, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
> The likes of you preventing me doesn't help, but oh well.

Sure. I'm "preventing you" from something by calling attention to your
unrealistic expectations about life. Wow.

This is what we call "displacement", which means blaming others for
everything that's wrong with your life.

> >> If you choose to undertake such a risky hobby as driving a car,
> >> perhaps you should heed your own above advice.
>
> > I do, idiot.
>
> I think you should collect your perspective.

Er, is that English?

> *I never resorted
> to name-calling at you, and yet you treat me with this callous
> disrespect and contempt.

People who commit public acts of stupidity -and then expect to be
treated as if their opinions have some worth-*are frequently
dissappointed in the way life treats them.

This goes double for Usenet.

> What have I done to you?

Put forth specious, disjointed, incorrect, and sometimes incoherent
arguments.

>*Why are you behaving like a driver toward a bicyclist at me?

Bingo. See "specious, disjointed, and incoherent", above.

> > And I do the same thing when I'm riding a bike or
> > motorcycling. It's *my* job to keep myself reasonably safe, and the
> > way I do that is to assume the worst of everyone else, not by whining
> > that the world should look out for me.
>
> How would you feel if you unintentionally ran over someone?

Again, see "specious, disjointed, and incoherent". (Add "non
sequitur", as well.)

> By the way -- you've got a cock in your ass.
> I just thought you should be informed of that.

What a Bozo. Can't support his end of an argument, so resorts to
"you're a homo" insults that even 5th graders know better than to try
these days.

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 21, 10:48*am, "Leo Lichtman" > wrote:

> I hate it when people destroy the meaning of important terms like
> "terrorism," "genocide," "holocaust," by applying them to far less serious
> situations.

Sure. Leo. I think most of us do.

But it's just their way of rationalizing some pretended importance
into their otherwise proletarian lives, and we must forgive them -
right after we point out their foolishness.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 1:20*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article >,
> * * * * ComandanteBanana > writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 12:01*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> * * * * Twibil > writes:
>
> >> > On Dec 20, 11:11*am, wrote:
> >> >> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
> >> >> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
> >> >> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
> >> > Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
> >> > *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
> >> > vulnerable vehicle on the road.
>
> >> In terms of collision-related injury stats, POV cars are
> >> among the most vulnerable vehicles, along with murdercycles.
> >> Statistically it's more deadly to be a pedestrian than a
> >> cyclist or a driver. *And that makes sense -- bicyclists
> >> have more manoueverable advantages than the foot-bound or
> >> motor-bound, and have necessarily learned to be the more
> >> situationally aware.
>
> >> Most bicyclists don't want to get run-over or killed, and
> >> take pains to not attain those conditions. *I guess that
> >> goes against the usual drivers' anti-cyclist propaganda.
> > Listen up boy, I'm coming out of this place all the time, which puts
> > me square with oncoming traffic, and when the light turns green, the
> > cars and I enter in conflict... If I go, the cars must wait for me; if
>
> The horror. *The horror.
>
> > I wait, the cars won't give me break. Is it better to be tough, or
> > just wise chicken and walk the bike across like pedestrian?
>
> Just ~go~, goddammit! *There's nothing worse than a dilly-dallyer.
> Maybe you're one of those people who just has to delay an entire
> queue behind them at the supermarket checkout, ATM, or while
> getting on a bus and arguing with the bus driver about the fare.
>
> > Pedestrians are more respected than cyclists in my understanding.
>
> Hey! *You've got a cock up your ass.
>
> (I just thought you might like to know that.)
>
> - Show quoted text -

You pervert. You probably are a precherman in the church. ;)

It shows how immoral terrorists are.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 1:48*pm, "Leo Lichtman" > wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana" wrote: > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 20, 4:49 pm, "Jujitsu Lizard" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ComandanteBanana" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Miami-Dade County bus driver charged with hit-and-run
> > > BY RODOLFO ROMAN
> > > Special to The Miami Herald
> > > A Miami-Dade County Transit bus driver has been charged in a hit-and
> > > run accident involving a bicyclist in Bal Harbour and then telling
> > > passengers not to talk to authorities about it, police said.
>
> > > According to police, the driver William G. Clarke, 57, hit Bay Harbour
> > > Islands* resident Nicolas Oscar Saravia, 32, who was riding his bike
> > > in the 9700 block of Collins Avenue about 4:30 p.m. Monday.
>
> > > ''Passengers told him to stop, but he kept driving,'' Bal Harbour Sgt..
> > > Mike Daddario said.
>
> > > ``At that point, he had knowledge and should've rendered aid.''
>
> > > Clarke was driving in the southbound lane when he hit Saravia.
>
> > > A motorist trailing the bus called police, and the bus was pulled over
> > > in nearby Surfside.
>
> > >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/beaches/story/819038.html
>
> > The bus driver's real crime was being an idiot. A collection of strangers
> > on a bus and motorists who witness such an incident have no incentive to
> > cover it up.
>
> > The Lizard- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey, how about the other accident where the lady went back to the
> scene of the crime.
>
> (clip) OK, these are the activities that qualify for ROAD TERRORISM:
>
> 1- Talking on the phone while driving an SUV (most SUV drivers are)
>
> 2- Drinking and driving while driving any other vehicle than a bicycle
> or motorcycle
>
> 3- Bicycles may terrorize pedestrians on sidewalk too
>
> 4- Bullying people, playing vigilante
>
> TERROR IS TERROR and they got to know that "Big Brother is Watching
> You"...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I hate it when people destroy the meaning of important terms like
> "terrorism," "genocide," "holocaust," by applying them to far less serious
> situations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But perhaps more practical. We don't bump into terrorists everyday,
but we do bump into a lot of terrorizing drivers.

The word terrorist is picked up by those in power because is aimed at
them mostly (nobody would plant a bomb in the ghetto), but these (the
drivers) are the terrrorists that affect us (the poor survivors) the
most.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 21, 2:51*pm, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 10:48*am, "Leo Lichtman" > wrote:
>
> > I hate it when people destroy the meaning of important terms like
> > "terrorism," "genocide," "holocaust," by applying them to far less serious
> > situations.
>
> Sure. Leo. I think most of us do.
>
> But it's just their way of rationalizing some pretended importance
> into their otherwise proletarian lives, and we must forgive them -
> right after we point out their foolishness.

Why holocaust means JEWS EXTERMINATION, but not GONGO OR DARFUR
EXTERMINATION? More people are starving, killing each other in Africa,
and we do little to prevent it. WHY? BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS HUMAN?

You better free your mind, and forget what the media is telling you.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

ComandanteBanana > wrote in
:

> Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
> have them right here among us. Don't tell me terrorists who are
> willing to blow themselves up are worse than these. Perhaps these are
> selfish terrorists who only care about their own survival leaving the
> victim to bleed on the road.
>
> And the politicians? They are doing just fine, like always, caring
> about their own survival in the political jungle. I never see the
> issue of the hit-and-run epidemic in particular and TRAFFIC SAFETY in
> general being addressed by them...
>
> But hey, I do care about my own survival since this could have
> happened to me while riding my bike...
>

I've been saying this for years. Your chances of being killed or maimed by
a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater than by a
terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into thinking
terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway homicides are
nothing!!!

[necromancer[_2_]]

SFB spewed:

>I've been saying this for years. Your chances of being killed or maimed by
>a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater than by a
>terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into thinking
>terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway homicides are
>nothing!!!

You're wrong, ****wit. When I'm on my walks or out cycling, I am much
more concerned that some beater's tires are going to let go and said
car - operated by a moron like you - is going to clobber me.

I'm much more concerned about that than I am that some Palestinian is
going to jump out from behind a tree and try to kill me.

--
S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater
(gramatical errors left as is):

"Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like
2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the
hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has
exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. "

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl
Msg ID:

[Studemania]

On Dec 22, 9:28*am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
> ComandanteBanana > wrote :
>
> > Jesus, we are looking for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
> > have them right here among us. Don't tell me terrorists who are
> > willing to blow themselves up are worse than these. Perhaps these are
> > selfish terrorists who only care about their own survival leaving the
> > victim to bleed on the road.
>
> > And the politicians? They are doing just fine, like always, caring
> > about their own survival in the political jungle. I never see the
> > issue of the hit-and-run epidemic in particular and TRAFFIC SAFETY in
> > general being addressed by them...
>
> > But hey, I do care about my own survival since this could have
> > happened to me while riding my bike...
>
> I've been saying this for years. *Your chances of being killed or maimed by
> a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater than by a
> terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into thinking
> terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway homicides are
> nothing!!!

Does your defiition of homocide agree, in every way, with the legal
definition?

[Studemania]

On Dec 22, 10:48*am, necromancer
> wrote:
> SFB spewed:
>
> >I've been saying this for years. *Your chances of being killed or maimed by
> >a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater than by a
> >terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into thinking
> >terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway homicides are
> >nothing!!!
>
> You're wrong, ****wit. When I'm on my walks or out cycling, I am much
> more concerned that some beater's tires are going to let go and said
> car - operated by a moron like you - is going to clobber me.
>
> I'm much more concerned about that than I am that some Palestinian is
> going to jump out from behind a tree and try to kill me.
>
> --
> S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater
> (gramatical errors left as is):
>
> "Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like
> 2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. *Go with the
> hand pumps where the piston moves *around 15 inches. One of my tires has
> exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. "
>
> * * --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08
> Ref:http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl
> Msg ID:

Cubic inches should come into this. The wide / short stroke
foot=operated one puts out a lot of air with the use of a strong
muscle. The hand-job putf out high pressure but low volume. The latter
is also easier to stow on a bike.
Both are sitable for the vehicle where they are usually used.
(What a turkey!)

[Vito[_2_]]

"Studemania" > wrote
>Does your defiition of homocide agree, in every way, with the legal
>definition?

2008 Florida Statutes:
782.071 Vehicular homicide.--"Vehicular homicide" is the killing of a human
being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to the mother, caused
by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely
to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=homicide&URL=CH0782/Sec071.HTM

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 22, 9:13*pm, "Vito" > wrote:
> "Studemania" > wrote
>
> >Does your defiition of homocide agree, in every way, with the legal
> >definition?
>
> 2008 Florida Statutes:
> 782.071 *Vehicular homicide.--"Vehicular homicide" is the killing of a human
> being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to the mother, caused
> by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely
> to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.
>
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&Su....

That sounds like someone chatting on the phone while driving an SUV. ;)

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

Studemania > wrote in
:

> On Dec 22, 9:28*am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > wrote:

>> I've been saying this for years. *Your chances of being killed or
>> maime
> d by
>> a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater than by a
>> terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into thinking
>> terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway homicides
>> are nothing!!!
>
> Does your defiition of homocide agree, in every way, with the legal
> definition?


Hey stupid. Don't give me that "accident" crap. 99% of the highway deaths
are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
vehicular homicide or manslaughter.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

necromancer > wrote in
:

> SFB spewed:
>
>>I've been saying this for years. Your chances of being killed or
>>maimed by a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater
>>than by a terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into
>>thinking terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway
>>homicides are nothing!!!
>
> You're wrong, ****wit. When I'm on my walks or out cycling, I am much
> more concerned that some beater's tires are going to let go and said
> car - operated by a moron like you - is going to clobber me.
>
> I'm much more concerned about that than I am that some Palestinian is
> going to jump out from behind a tree and try to kill me.

You just agreed with me but you're too stupid to realize it. HAHAHA

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 22, 8:20*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:

> 99% of the highway deaths are NOT accidents -
> they are due to reckless driving and that means
> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.

Cite.

(For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")

[Studemania]

On Dec 22, 6:13*pm, "Vito" > wrote:
> "Studemania" > wrote
>
> >Does your defiition of homocide agree, in every way, with the legal
> >definition?
>
> 2008 Florida Statutes:
> 782.071 *Vehicular homicide.--"Vehicular homicide" is the killing of a human
> being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to the mother, caused
> by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely
> to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.
>
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&Su....

Please answer my question in four letters or less.

[necromancer[_2_]]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:21:43 -0600, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS" > wrote:

>necromancer > wrote in
:
>
>> SFB spewed:
>>
>>>I've been saying this for years. Your chances of being killed or
>>>maimed by a criminal driver are literally a thousand times greater
>>>than by a terrorist. But the idiot american has been brainwashed into
>>>thinking terrorism is problem number 1 and the 40,000 annual highway
>>>homicides are nothing!!!
>>
>> You're wrong, ****wit. When I'm on my walks or out cycling, I am much
>> more concerned that some beater's tires are going to let go and said
>> car - operated by a moron like you - is going to clobber me.
>>
>> I'm much more concerned about that than I am that some Palestinian is
>> going to jump out from behind a tree and try to kill me.
>
>You just agreed with me but you're too stupid to realize it. HAHAHA

Glad to see that you agree with me that people like you with exposed
cords and malfunctioning brakes are a bigger threat than terrorism.

--
S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater
(gramatical errors left as is):

"Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like
2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the
hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has
exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. "

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl
Msg ID:

[necromancer[_2_]]

SFB spewed:

>
>Hey stupid. Don't give me that "accident" crap. 99% of the highway deaths
>are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
>vehicular homicide or manslaughter.

And that includes the death that *YOU* have admitted to causing. BTW
what did yo do to kill that unfortunate soul? Speeding? DUI? Worn
tires? Brake failure? All of the above?

--
"Oh yeah. Well i've gone 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash
so i must be doing something right."

--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 9/24/2006

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qdotr
Msg ID:

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 23, 2:01*am, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 22, 8:20*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> > wrote:
> > 99% of the highway deaths are NOT accidents -
> > they are due to reckless driving and that means
> > vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> Cite.
>
> (For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")

***IT'S NO ACCIDENT***

It's a good book. I recommend it. ;)

'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
Our Roads"
by Lisa Lewis

http://www.lulu.com/content/186268

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 23, 11:25*am, necromancer
> wrote:
> SFB spewed:
>
>
>
> >Hey stupid. Don't give me that "accident" crap. 99% of the highway deaths
> >are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
> >vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> And that includes the death that *YOU* have admitted to causing. BTW
> what did yo do to kill that unfortunate soul? Speeding? DUI? Worn
> tires? Brake failure? All of the above?
>

She would be EXCUSED on the grounds that in America YOU ARE FORCED TO
DRIVE A CAR, so be it she drives a piece of junk.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

Twibil > wrote in news:dff4af9d-eaee-4030-a3bc-
:

> On Dec 22, 8:20*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > wrote:
>
>> 99% of the highway deaths are NOT accidents -
>> they are due to reckless driving and that means
>> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> Cite.
>
> (For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")

Hey stupid. You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA

You're another moron who thinks he has the right to speed and drive drunk
and when you run over some kid you say "sorry dood but it was an accident".

Get help please.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

necromancer > wrote in
:

> SFB spewed:
>
>>
>>Hey stupid. Don't give me that "accident" crap. 99% of the highway
>>deaths are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that
>>means vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> And that includes the death that *YOU* have admitted to causing. BTW
> what did yo do to kill that unfortunate soul? Speeding? DUI? Worn
> tires? Brake failure? All of the above?
>

Liar!!!! I did the same thing Laura Bush did and you don't call her a
killer.

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by CommuterRun
"I don't think I would label a hit-and-run driver a terrorist. Not
unless it could be shown that the act was premeditated. However, all
hit-and-run drivers are cowards."

Reckless behavior at the wheel amounts to a crime. They KNOW it can
lead to someone getting killed or hurt. And I'd charge them with ROAD
TERRORISM, if you will, as opposed to regular terrorism. It would make
the point that their behavior won't be tolerated anymore.

First degree terrorism for SUVs, and second degree for cars. I assure
you the predators out there will get the message.

Otherwise, HOW SHOULD WE TACKLE THE PROBLEM?

[necromancer[_2_]]

SFB spewed:

>necromancer > wrote in
:
>
>> SFB spewed:
>>
>>>
>>>Hey stupid. Don't give me that "accident" crap. 99% of the highway
>>>deaths are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that
>>>means vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>>
>> And that includes the death that *YOU* have admitted to causing. BTW
>> what did yo do to kill that unfortunate soul? Speeding? DUI? Worn
>> tires? Brake failure? All of the above?
>>
>
>Liar!!!! I did the same thing Laura Bush did and you don't call her a
>killer.

Nice how you call me a liar and then admit that what I said was true.
And you are evading the issue: How did you kill that guy? Red light
running? Were you spewing your trap into a cell phone?

BTW, as far as I know, Laura Bush doesn't post here. You do, kid
killer or are you going to claim that you are Laura Bush now?

--
"Oh yeah. Well i've gone 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash
so i must be doing something right."

--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 9/24/2006

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qdotr
Msg ID:

[necromancer[_2_]]

SFB spewed:

>Twibil > wrote in news:dff4af9d-eaee-4030-a3bc-
:
>
>> On Dec 22, 8:20*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> 99% of the highway deaths are NOT accidents -
>>> they are due to reckless driving and that means
>>> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>>
>> Cite.
>>
>> (For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")
>
>Hey stupid. You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA

That the sun will rise tomorrow is not a given. Now, then either
provide a cite for your claim that 99% of highway deaths are not
accidents or shut your piehole and FOAD.

>You're another moron who thinks he has the right to speed and drive drunk
>and when you run over some kid you say "sorry dood but it was an accident".

We all know you are one.

>Get help please.

Physician heal thyself.

And you still haven't told us how you killed that guy. Were you asleep
at the wheel?

--
"Oh yeah. Well i've gone 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash
so i must be doing something right."

--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 9/24/2006

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qdotr
Msg ID:

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 8:53*am, ComandanteBanana >
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:01*am, Twibil > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 8:20*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > 99% of the highway deaths are NOT accidents -
> > > they are due to reckless driving and that means
> > > vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> > Cite.
>
> > (For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")
>
> ***IT'S NO ACCIDENT***
>
> It's a good book. I recommend it. ;)
>
> 'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
> Our Roads"
> by Lisa Lewis

Er, mentioning someone else's opinion doesn't comprise a "cite".

For that you need actual government -or insurance company- stats
showing the percentage of deadly accidents in which charges were
brought, who they were brought against, and *why* they were brought.

Otherwise you're just repeating the actions of the Flat-Earther who,
when asked to prove his contention, said "Here, ask my wife! *She*
knows it's flat too!"

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 9:41*am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:

> Hey stupid. *You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA

Gee, "stupid", last time I ran through the Stanford-Binet IQ tests I
scored 168.

And you?

[The Older Gentleman[_3_]]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:

> 99% of the highway deaths
> are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.

Bwaaahahaha!

****tard.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XTZ660 Tenere Honda CB400F CB125RS SH50
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 23, 1:09*pm, necromancer
> wrote:
> SFB spewed:
>
>
>
>
>
> >necromancer > wrote in
> :
>
> >> SFB spewed:
>
> >>>Hey stupid. Don't give me that "accident" crap. 99% of the highway
> >>>deaths are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that
> >>>means vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> >> And that includes the death that *YOU* have admitted to causing. BTW
> >> what did yo do to kill that unfortunate soul? Speeding? DUI? Worn
> >> tires? Brake failure? All of the above?
>
> >Liar!!!! *I did the same thing Laura Bush did and you don't call her a
> >killer.
>
> Nice how you call me a liar and then admit that what I said was true.
> And you are evading the issue: How did you kill that guy? Red light
> running? Were you spewing your trap into a cell phone?
>
> BTW, as far as I know, Laura Bush doesn't post here. You do, kid
> killer or are you going to claim that you are Laura Bush now?

That's mighty stupid. Laura Bush wouldn't challenge the system that
way.

Who within the system is telling things like they are?

THERE MANY TERRORISTS ON OUR ROADS AND THEY GET AWAY WITH CRIME --but
not misdemeanors, like speeding tickets. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 23, 2:36*pm, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:53*am, ComandanteBanana >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 2:01*am, Twibil > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 22, 8:20*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 99% of the highway deaths are NOT accidents -
> > > > they are due to reckless driving and that means
> > > > vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> > > Cite.
>
> > > (For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")
>
> > ***IT'S NO ACCIDENT***
>
> > It's a good book. I recommend it. ;)
>
> > 'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
> > Our Roads"
> > by Lisa Lewis
>
> Er, mentioning someone else's opinion doesn't comprise a "cite".
>
> For that you need actual government -or insurance company- stats
> showing the percentage of deadly accidents in which charges were
> brought, who they were brought against, and *why* they were brought.
>
> Otherwise you're just repeating the actions of the Flat-Earther who,
> when asked to prove his contention, said "Here, ask my wife! *She*
> knows it's flat too!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Listen, she researched the issue, you didn't. But like Murderer She
Wrote says IT'S PLAIN COMMONSENSE.

Are you telling me in my face that drivers in America won't get away
with crimes like these?

1- TALKING ON THE PHONE WHILE DRIVING (more dangerous than DUI)
2- DRIVING UNSAFE VEHICLES (SUVs, which are more dangerous to
themselves and others)
3- SPEEDING ON ANY LANE (emphasize ANY, as I believe you can be fast
and safe European style)
4- HIT AND RUN (that just blows my mind and puts them BELOW those
other terrorists)
5- UNCERTAIN DRIVING SKILLS (yeah, ANYONE can drive)
6- RAMPANT ROAD RAGE (hey, get a shotgun), etc.

Here I'm quoting from the book...

'The public has been conditioned to believe that seatbelts, airbags
and more "crashworthy" vehicles are the best ways to protect us from
harm on the roads. Meanwhile, the most basic strategies to deter
dangerous driving and prevent crashes have been ignored.'

[ComandanteBanana]

I guess that WHEN WE MAKE HIT-AND-RUN A TERRORIST ACT, things like
this won't happen...

Suzy wrote:
"My mother watched a drunk driver run over her 6yr old sister in front
of their house when she was 13. The guy tried to run and my mother
jumped on the hood of his car. She said she was holding on the wipers
and yelling the whole time.

He stopped the car and ran into an abandoned house.

He killed her...a little six yr old riding a bike on a residential
street at 2 in the afternoon as both of her sisters looked on.

His driver’s license was revoked for 5 years.

My guess is that when one of Katherine Fernandez-Rundle’s or Crist’s
family members are harmed, laws will change."

http://forums.miamibeach411.com/index.php?/forums/viewthread/3622/

[DennisTheBald]

petroleum profits fuel terrorism, both foreign and domestic.

[Bill Sornson[_3_]]

Twibil wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:41 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > wrote:
>
>> Hey stupid. You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA
>
> Gee, "stupid", last time I ran through the Stanford-Binet IQ tests I
> scored 168.

That's Bill Baka-esque!

ROTFL

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 12:22*pm, ComandanteBanana >
wrote:

> > > > Cite.
>
> > > > (For the logically challenged, that means "Prove it or go home.")
>
> > > ***IT'S NO ACCIDENT***
>
> > > It's a good book. I recommend it. ;)
>
> > > 'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
> > > Our Roads"
> > > by Lisa Lewis
>
> > Er, mentioning someone else's opinion doesn't comprise a "cite".
>
> > For that you need actual government -or insurance company- stats
> > showing the percentage of deadly accidents in which charges were
> > brought, who they were brought against, and *why* they were brought.
>
> > Otherwise you're just repeating the actions of the Flat-Earther who,
> > when asked to prove his contention, said "Here, ask my wife! *She*
> > knows it's flat too!"-

> Listen, she researched the issue, you didn't. But like Murderer She
> Wrote says IT'S PLAIN COMMONSENSE.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure it is!

And the fact that it happens to dovetailhmeteld with your misguided
preconceptions has absolutely *nothing* to do with it!

(Reminder to self: replace Irony Meter at first opportunity. Old one
just exploded.)

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 3:05*pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Twibil wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 9:41 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Hey stupid. You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA
>
> > Gee, "stupid", last time I ran through the Stanford-Binet IQ tests I
> > scored 168.
>
> That's Bill Baka-esque!
>
> ROTFL

Shrug. If reality amuses you that much, I hate to think what you'd do
at a Monty Python movie.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

Twibil > wrote in news:a966b929-5580-46d2-b5b7-
:

> On Dec 23, 9:41*am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > wrote:
>
>> Hey stupid. *You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA
>
> Gee, "stupid", last time I ran through the Stanford-Binet IQ tests I
> scored 168.
>


HAHAHA. Only a moron brags about IQ scores. If you were truly smart you
wouldn't need a test score to convince yourself. HAHA

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in
news:1isf2se.1kxn4csh1h2z0N%totallydeadmailbox@yah oo.co.uk:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>
>> 99% of the highway deaths
>> are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
>> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>
> Bwaaahahaha!
>
> ****tard.
>
>

Oh wow - what a brilliant "argument". HAHA

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 5:44*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:

> >> Hey stupid. *You also want proof the sun is gonna rise tomorrow?HAHAHA
>
> > Gee, "stupid", last time I ran through the Stanford-Binet IQ tests I
> > scored 168.
>
> HAHAHA. Only a moron brags about IQ scores.

Pussylips, "bragging" is unprovoked "look at me" behavior. (Such as
posting under the nym "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS".)

But when some jackass like you puts his foot into it by committing
Usenet Mistake #1, I.E. beginning a post addressed to someone he knows
nothing about with "Hey stupid", then replying with a simple truth is
quite appropriate.

That you don't care for the results of your own behavior is not my
problem. You're the one who stepped in the bear trap.

> If you *were truly smart you wouldn't need a test score to convince yourself. HAHA

Oh, *I've* known about it for a bit over 50 years now, and need no
convincing. It's *you* that got the nasty surprise.

But life is like that for psychopaths.

[Left Lane Bandits Are KILLERS And TRAITORS]

SFB spewed:

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in
>news:1isf2se.1kxn4csh1h2z0N%totallydeadmailbox@yah oo.co.uk:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>
>>> 99% of the highway deaths
>>> are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
>>> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>>
>> Bwaaahahaha!
>>
>> ****tard.
>>
>>
>
>Oh wow - what a brilliant "argument". HAHA

There is more brilliance in the first letter of the poster's comments
than in everything you have spewed out onto usenet over the years. Do
us a favor and just blow your head off.

[necromancer[_2_]]

SFB spewed:


>HAHAHA. Only a moron brags about IQ scores. If you were truly smart you
>wouldn't need a test score to convince yourself. HAHA

Just kill yourself, now. Its the best thing you could do for soceity
and the planet.

--
"Hell i once painted a whole car with a bunch of spray cans."
--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 3/29/06

Ref:http://tinyurl.com/qqaeq
Message ID: . com

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 23, 4:02*pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:
> petroleum profits fuel terrorism, both foreign and domestic.

The truths only takes a few words, huh?

[ComandanteBanana]

Suzy wrote:
"No jail time. My family had to choose between 1 year of jail time or
5 yrs of no license. This was in the early 70s and drunk driving laws
aren’t what they are today.

Interestingly enough, he was an employee of a car dealership and was
driving one of their cars when he crashed. Part of the settlement was
that the dealership could not use their name for 20 years. They did
start using it again first chance they got."


Sad to hear. But what good are the tougher laws we’ve got today if
nobody ever catches the driver.

I’m for putting SPEED CAMERAS on every signal light. Cars regularly go
way beyond the 30mph limit, and only a few are caught. Well, we have
to make a campaign against hit and run the way they do against drunk
drivers. Was the driver drunk, you said?

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by boneshake
"Listen people, if hit and run drivers aren't stopped, the terrorists
win."

Not sure about that, but we all lose if either one wins.

There's one connection though: The bigger vehicle you drive, the more
damage you can do... and the more you feed terrorism.

[Vito[_2_]]

"ComandanteBanana" > wrote
>I’m for putting SPEED CAMERAS on every signal light.

Numerous studies have shown that additional speed enforcement has no affect
on accident rates.

[QuestionEverything]

> There's one connection though: The bigger vehicle you drive, the more
> damage you can do... and the more you feed terrorism.


So, I should quit my job as a truck driver?

[BrianNZ]

QuestionEverything wrote:
>> There's one connection though: The bigger vehicle you drive, the more
>> damage you can do... and the more you feed terrorism.
>
>
> So, I should quit my job as a truck driver?
>
>


nah, just stop believeing everything you read on the interweb. These
days every fruitloop is throwing the word terrorist around to match
their own agenda....a modern 'bogeyman'.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

Left Lane Bandits Are KILLERS And TRAITORS
rg> wrote in
:

> SFB spewed:
>
(The Older Gentleman) wrote in
>>news:1isf2se.1kxn4csh1h2z0N%totallydeadmailbox@yah oo.co.uk:
>>
>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 99% of the highway deaths
>>>> are NOT accidents - they are due to reckless driving and that means
>>>> vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
>>>
>>> Bwaaahahaha!
>>>
>>> ****tard.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh wow - what a brilliant "argument". HAHA
>
> There is more brilliance in the first letter of the poster's comments
> than in everything you have spewed out onto usenet over the years. Do
> us a favor and just blow your head off.
>
>

HAHAHA. Looks like i ruined your day again. I love driving you loonies
ballistic. HAHAHA

[necromancer[_2_]]

SFB spewed:

>
>HAHAHA. Looks like i ruined your day again. I love driving you loonies
>ballistic. HAHAHA

You haven't driven anyone ballistic,you american (sic) piece of crap.
You need to get over your delusions of grandeur and just kill
yourself. You are worth nothing.

--
Silly S&DDAM admits to using its car to work out an inferiority complex
(spelling and gramatical errors left as is):

"This little 140 pound wimp gets pushed around everywhere he goes but when
he gets in his grand am all of a sudden HE'S gonna do the pushing.
Pathetic. Lock him up forever "

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers, 3/26/08

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yu3so9
Msg ID:

[Twibil[_2_]]

On Dec 24, 7:59*am, ComandanteBanana >
wrote:

> I’m for putting SPEED CAMERAS on every signal light.

Amazingly stupid idea. (But no surprise *there*.)

There's a curve in a rural area of our town that's blind, decreasing
radius, and changes from neutral to negative camber as it tightens up.
Even in bad weather it''s perfectly safe at the posted speed of 50
MPH, but in the last couple of years three people have been killed
there because they were drunk and running at speeds well in excess of
90 MPH, lost it as the curve tightened up unexpectedly, and spun out
into the large trees lining the road. (Splat.)

A "concerned comittee of citizens" -headed by the mayor (who was up
for re-election)- went to a meeting of the town's traffic commission
and demanded that they lower the posted limit in the area to 25 MPH to
"make the road safe".

The traffic commission politely pointed out that every one of the
fatal accidents had been caused by drunks who were already driving at
*twice* the posted limit, and that not even careful drivers would pay
any attention to a 25 MPH speed limit in a wide-open rural area
anyway, much less drunks.

What they finally did was the right thing: they left the speed limit
at 50 MPH and posted large yellow reflective signs 1/4 mile before the
curve in question, saying "CAUTION! DANGEROUS CURVE AHEAD!" with
arrows pointing in the appropriate directions.

As anyone with a basic knowledge of human nature could predict, drunks
*still* try to take the corner too fast, and there are often fresh
skid marks there testifying to another pants-filling spinout, but the
point is that no matter *what* you do you can't make the roads
perfectly safe for everyone all the time. Human nature won't allow it.

There's no such thing as 'idiot-proof", and all you accomplish by
trying to out-smart idiots in every possible way is to penalize
*everyone* in the attempt.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 24, 11:38*am, "Vito" > wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana" > wrote
>
> >I’m for putting SPEED CAMERAS on every signal light.
>
> Numerous studies have shown that additional speed enforcement has no affect
> on accident rates.

And evidence shows that Europeans drive both faster and safer...

What's the trick, besides having much better training and cars?

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 24, 11:39*am, "QuestionEverything" >
wrote:
> > There's one connection though: The bigger vehicle you drive, the more
> > damage you can do... and the more you feed terrorism.
>
> So, I should quit my job as a truck driver?

If you don't drive a Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle, and you drive a
real truck, you are OK.

You have much better training (assuming you have the license for it)
and an actual purpose for driving it.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 24, 12:04*pm, BrianNZ > wrote:
> QuestionEverything wrote:
> >> There's one connection though: The bigger vehicle you drive, the more
> >> damage you can do... and the more you feed terrorism.
>
> > So, I should quit my job as a truck driver?
>
> nah, just stop believeing everything you read on the interweb. These
> days every fruitloop is throwing the word terrorist around to match
> their own agenda....a modern 'bogeyman'.

Just like they do with those other terrorists. Everything matches an
agenda, either of those in power or those powerless.

[ComandanteBanana]

On Dec 24, 3:08*pm, Twibil > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 7:59*am, ComandanteBanana >
> wrote:
>
> > I’m for putting SPEED CAMERAS on every signal light.
>
> Amazingly stupid idea. (But no surprise *there*.)
>
> There's a curve in a rural area of our town that's blind, decreasing
> radius, and changes from neutral to negative camber as it tightens up.
> Even in bad weather it''s perfectly safe at the posted speed of 50
> MPH, but in the last couple of years three people have been killed
> there because they were drunk and running at speeds well in excess of
> 90 MPH, lost it as the curve tightened up unexpectedly, and spun out
> into the large trees lining the road. (Splat.)
>
> A "concerned comittee of citizens" -headed by the mayor (who was up
> for re-election)- went to a meeting of the town's traffic commission
> and demanded that they lower the posted limit in the area to 25 MPH to
> "make the road safe".
>
> The traffic commission politely pointed out that every one of the
> fatal accidents had been caused by drunks who were already driving at
> *twice* the posted limit, and that not even careful drivers would pay
> any attention to a 25 MPH speed limit in a wide-open rural area
> anyway, much less drunks.
>
> What they finally did was the right thing: they left the speed limit
> at 50 MPH and posted large yellow reflective signs 1/4 mile before the
> curve in question, saying "CAUTION! DANGEROUS CURVE AHEAD!" with
> arrows pointing in the appropriate directions.
>
> As anyone with a basic knowledge of human nature could predict, drunks
> *still* try to take the corner too fast, and there are often fresh
> skid marks there testifying to another pants-filling spinout, but the
> point is that no matter *what* you do you can't make the roads
> perfectly safe for everyone all the time. Human nature won't allow it.
>
> There's no such thing as 'idiot-proof", and all you accomplish by
> trying to out-smart idiots in every possible way is to penalize
> *everyone* in the attempt.

Yeah, the great idea is to have cops hiding behind bushes with the
speed gun when you least expected. Great for the city coffers, but not
so much to control actual speeders...

They figure the chances of being caught are slim and they can hire a
lawyer so they won't even have to go to court.

It's funny that speeding is the offense that probably accounts for 90%
of tickets, and yet so many more things are happening --that shouldn't
be happening.

IT SOUNDS LIKE BIG BUSINESS. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

Suzy wrote:
"you bring up another heated topic with having big brother at every
light.

There are those that say it will increase accidents as people will now
slam on their brakes at yellow lights, possibly causing them to be
rear-ended by a tailgating driver ALSO trying to make the light,
instead of just zipping through.

Granted, there are those* that say implementation elsewhere has proved
that theory wrong.

*’Those’ comments come from municipalities and entities receiving LOTS
o’ cash from the revenues being generated from these tickets."


Big brother is everywhere anyway, from airports to your computer, so
we may as well use him for something good. Even all that cash flow may
be good for building something up, like bike facilities.

That a good idea, LAWBREAKERS HELPING BUILD BIKE FACILITIES AND ROAD
INFRASTRUCTURE.

Instead of TERRORISTS they may earn the title of PATRIOTS.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Twibil Who? wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:11 am, wrote:
>
>> but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
>> an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
>> becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.
>
> Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
> *willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
> vulnerable vehicle on the road. And then you say "But I shouldn't have
> to exposed to risks just because I choose to do this dangerous thing".
>
> This places you in the same ethical position as a rock climber who
> thinks God should negate gravity so that he won't fall while engaged
> in doing something he enjoys.
>
> Listen up: if you choose to undertake a risky hobby, you'd better be
> prepared to accept the responsibility for the predictable results of
> same: and this includes things such as drunk and/or innattentive
> drivers. You *knew* they were out there on the roads before you ever
> threw a leg over the saddle, and imagining that anything is going to
> change just because you choose to put yourself in harm's way is
> sophomoric at best.
>
> There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
> at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
> who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
> *them*.
>
> We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".

Hobby? Hobby?

Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Tom Keats wrote:
> [...]
> Hey! You've got a cock up your ass.[...]

Just so I understand this properly, you are saying a male chicken is
riding his donkey? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Twibil > writes:

>> How would you feel if you unintentionally ran over someone?
> Again, see "specious, disjointed, and incoherent". (Add "non
> sequitur", as well.)
>> By the way -- you've got a cock in your ass.
>> I just thought you should be informed of that.
> What a Bozo. Can't support his end of an argument, so resorts to
> "you're a homo" insults that even 5th graders know better than to try
> these days.

Thank goodness I'm a non-driver.

Unlike you, I don't have a cock in my ass.

So I'm able to sit back, relax, and watch others
get all steamed up. It's kinda like watching
The Three Stooges, or motorized traffic in general.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > writes:

>> There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
>> at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
>> who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
>> *them*.
>>
>> We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".
>
> Hobby? Hobby?
>
> Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
> type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
> society than any form of motorized transportation.
>
> Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
> transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
> control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

Here in Vancouver we've been beset by a number of
heavy snowfalls.

It seems it's considered to be the Important Thing
to clear the sreets so cars can get through.

Here's the rub -- the snowplows go through, and heave
all the snow from the streets onto the sidewalks,
so pedestrians can't get anywhere.

The cars can go, so long as they keep on going, and
don't stop, and nobody gets out of the cars to
buy stuff or anything. Just have to keep those cars
moving, in one side of the city, and out the other.


It's more important to expiditiously route cars
through the city, than to allow people to patronize
local business. Go figure.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
>Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
>type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
>society than any form of motorized transportation.

Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
forms of transit combined.

>Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
>transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
>control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
"ton" is.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>> Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
>> type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
>> society than any form of motorized transportation.
>
> Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
> forms of transit combined.
>
For every such cyclist, there are hundred or thousands of motorists who
believe bicycles are only children's toys and should NOT be used on
public roads.

>> Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
>> transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
>> control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.
>
> And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
> "ton" is.

Well, larger sedans and some smaller SUV's and pick-em-up trucks have
weights over 4000 pounds, and the largest SUV's and dually pickups are
over 8000 pounds. Heck, even my Civic is over 1-1/4 tons.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>>> Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
>>> type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
>>> society than any form of motorized transportation.
>>
>> Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
>> forms of transit combined.
>>
>For every such cyclist, there are hundred or thousands of motorists who
>believe bicycles are only children's toys and should NOT be used on
>public roads.

But most of them keep their beliefs to themselves, or express them to
one cyclist at a time. Sanctimonious cyclists pollute Usenet, letters
to the editor, and even cycling forums, with their hatred of motorists.

>>> Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
>>> transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
>>> control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.
>>
>> And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
>> "ton" is.
>
>Well, larger sedans and some smaller SUV's and pick-em-up trucks have
>weights over 4000 pounds, and the largest SUV's and dually pickups are
>over 8000 pounds. Heck, even my Civic is over 1-1/4 tons.

So what you are saying is that your range was wrong on both ends?

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>>>> Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
>>>> type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
>>>> society than any form of motorized transportation.
>>> Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
>>> forms of transit combined.
>>>
>> For every such cyclist, there are hundred or thousands of motorists who
>> believe bicycles are only children's toys and should NOT be used on
>> public roads.
>
> But most of them keep their beliefs to themselves, or express them to
> one cyclist at a time. Sanctimonious cyclists pollute Usenet, letters
> to the editor, and even cycling forums, with their hatred of motorists.
>
Words do not hurt me, but being hit by a motorist trying to "brush pass"
on purpose or even a glass bottle thrown from a vehicle that is closing
at 150 kph can kill. And yes, I have had a couple of close call with
motorists suffering from anti-cyclist personality disorder.

>>>> Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
>>>> transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
>>>> control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.
>>> And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
>>> "ton" is.
>> Well, larger sedans and some smaller SUV's and pick-em-up trucks have
>> weights over 4000 pounds, and the largest SUV's and dually pickups are
>> over 8000 pounds. Heck, even my Civic is over 1-1/4 tons.
>
> So what you are saying is that your range was wrong on both ends?
>
Read it again. Many passenger vehicles sold in recent years in the US
weight between 2 and 4 tons, particularly those favored by MiFFY drivers.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll