|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
On 2008-08-26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 26, 3:21*pm, Brent P wrote: On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole wrote: Brent P wrote: I didn't question the legitimacy of regulation. I question the concept of driving as a PRIVILEGE granted by government. Trying to defend why bicycling isn't a privilege but driving is, is far weaker than realizing that neither is a privilege. There has to be some agreed upon regulation such that people aren't crashing into each other. This fact doesn't make either a privilege. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find your arguments logical or compelling. Ahh, the 'I'm not satisified'. well, let me know when you can present some sort of compeling argument for driving being a privilege that accounts for the various downsides of that condition nor can be applied to other forms of travel. I think that's been done well enough and often enoug to satisfy most rational people. But here it is again: Most people want government tying *anything* to being allowed to drive? The REAL ID has created a condition where I have to submit to government in a way that has NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVING in order to drive. That's the problem with making it a privilege. It's open to have anything the government wants as a condition be attached to it. Cars and trucks cause tremendous carnage. They are the leading cause of death of people younger than 30. They cause further problems due to noise, pollution, and by giving power and anonymity to people who are too psychologically immature to handle them. Their use needs to be regulated to maintain a semblance of civilized society. And this means the government gets to create a national ID card and tie child support payments and anything else it wants to driving exactly how? Why should I have to submit to carrying the federal government's back-door national ID just to drive? How does that lead to road safety? How does that keep 'immature' drivers off the road. (really, government's privilege system does nothing to keep the "psychologically immature" from driving, it screens them out after they've been driving for a while, which no licenseing coupled with enforcement and punishment could do just as well) In another post, you referred to an imaginary "natural right... to travel by whatever means they wish..." as if anyone should be free to buy an Abrams tank for cruising around the neighborhood, or use a cigarette racing boat to run around Yellowstone Lake. But there is no such "natural right," and AFAIK no society has ever agreed on such a silly idea. I see you remain as dishonest as always Frank. No such thing is implied. I stated nothing about removing laws on equipment permitted on the roadway or anywhere else. BTW, if you want to have a bicyclist paradise, private roads would be the answer for your village. That way you could ban motor vehicle travel entirely. It takes only a few thousand fatalities, serious injuries, near misses and instances of general obnoxiousness before most societies figure out that driving must be treated as a privilege. That happened long ago in America - although there will always be a few who are slow to catch on. Not only are you as dishonest as ever, you are as insulting as ever too. Well Frank, some day you're going to be faced with submission to government on some issue that has nothing to do with driving to keep your driver's license. We all will. Those of us who say 'forget about it' and stop driving and use a bicycle will soon find that bicycling on the government roads has become a privilege too. It's quite clear that you don't understand what a privilege really is. Driving is called a privilege in a '1984' style word play. It conditions people in to believing the government can require whatever it wants to require for a person to drive. If you disagree that government cannot require anything it wants, including absurd things such as loyalty oaths, surrendering of rights, etc and so forth, then you'll be agreeing that driving is not a privilege. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=privilege Noun * S: (n) privilege (a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all) * S: (n) prerogative, privilege, perquisite, exclusive right (a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right)) "suffrage was the prerogative of white adult males" * S: (n) privilege ((law) the right to refuse to divulge information obtained in a confidential relationship) |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
Brent P wrote:
This gets off the point I want to make which is why I've kept it in the background. None of this makes driving a privilege granted by the government. What does is being repeatedly told it is and most everyone behaving as it were. It's really a pretty good'1984' style trick that's been pulled to tell everyone it's a privilege. Here in Boston there was an incident where a bike courier (off duty) struck and seriously injured a (jaywalking) pedestrian. The response was to require licensing and insurance (with displayed registration numbers). Essentially, that category of bicycling was redefined into a revoke-able privilege. The reason was public pressure, apparently the same thing that initiated the first diving licenses (NJ, 1913). "Right vs. privilege" is kind of a semantic-only distinction. Even though I don't need a bike license, I'm sure if I was sufficiently flagrant and considered a hazard, some judge would issue a standing restraining order to forbid me to ride. Your rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all revoke-able if you are convicted of a serious enough crime. The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How else do you punish? Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater. The same argument applies to national ID & the use of SSN as a de facto. There are legitimate privacy and abuse concerns, but at the end of the day you simply have to get the job done. States had a big problem with child support collections, license suspensions proved very effective -- expediency, not conspiracy, and a lot of it driven by Joe Citizen screaming about deadbeat dads (or crazy bike couriers). |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
Peter Cole wrote in news:1_Tsk.776$5C.224
@trnddc02: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/1...g19980917.html During the run-up to the Social Security Act, there was a lot of discussion about the potential of the SSN to become the "national identification number." The government spokesmen assured the world that the SSN would never be used as a national identification number and, I believe, language to this effect was inserted into the Social Security Act. Well, we all know how THAT little piece of subterfuge worked out. Barry Harmon |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole wrote:
Brent P wrote: This gets off the point I want to make which is why I've kept it in the background. None of this makes driving a privilege granted by the government. What does is being repeatedly told it is and most everyone behaving as it were. It's really a pretty good'1984' style trick that's been pulled to tell everyone it's a privilege. Here in Boston there was an incident where a bike courier (off duty) struck and seriously injured a (jaywalking) pedestrian. The response was to require licensing and insurance (with displayed registration numbers). Essentially, that category of bicycling was redefined into a revoke-able privilege. The reason was public pressure, apparently the same thing that initiated the first diving licenses (NJ, 1913). And you'll see it slowly progress until walking along the public way is also a government granted privilege. Already government has gained the power to stop and ID people on foot as it would someone who was driving. "Right vs. privilege" is kind of a semantic-only distinction. If we play like we don't know what words mean. Even though I don't need a bike license, I'm sure if I was sufficiently flagrant and considered a hazard, some judge would issue a standing restraining order to forbid me to ride. Your rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all revoke-able if you are convicted of a serious enough crime. It's one thing to be convicted of a crime and then restricted as punishment, it's quite another to be denied because you wouldn't comply with a government condition that has nothing to do with the task at hand. The former requires due process the later does not. The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How else do you punish? That's parental government thinking. Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater. It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another. The same argument applies to national ID & the use of SSN as a de facto. And illegal under the social security act. Another good example of where the law says one thing but government does another. There are legitimate privacy and abuse concerns, but at the end of the day you simply have to get the job done. States had a big problem with child support collections, license suspensions proved very effective -- expediency, not conspiracy, and a lot of it driven by Joe Citizen screaming about deadbeat dads (or crazy bike couriers). The best form of government for 'getting the job done' is corporatism, aka fascism. Now, we already largely have that in the USA, because people decided that they rather have rulers that 'take care' of things. So, if that's how things are going to be, lets stop pretending about freedom, liberty, etc and so forth and just openly have a corporatist/fascist government. Also, there's nothing to say that there cannot be elections in a fascist system or to even replace the leader. So people can still have the well limited choices they are used to. If we want to be serious about freedom and liberty, well things are going to be a little more difficult to manage, sure. But we'll all be better off for that effort. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
DennisTheBald wrote in
: On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " wrote: On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader wrote: In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote: What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...) Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process. and looking like a motorcycle does? Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley, but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually every road I ride. Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least, that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and ridden. Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on the front of yer scooter. How do these lights show up in urban areas? Is there enough light of a different nature to make them and the cyclist stand out from the background clutter of Duncan Donuts and other lights along the road? Barry Harmon |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
In chi.general wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:43 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote: In chi.general wrote: On Aug 25, 12:58?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote: In chi.general max wrote: Chicago is ramping up RotR and equipment enforcement on cyclists http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ckdown-webaug2 2,0,3716423.story Based on a survey in the Logan Square neighborhood between 9 and 11 tonight, about 90% of the cyclists in Chicago don't have any kind of lighting at all, and damn few (less than 50%) even have reflectors. ? Out rage us. ? ? I estimate traffic control compliance much better, at about 80% for lights, ?but only about 2% for stop signs. ? Cycling's guardian angels have been earning phat overtime checks in Chicago. ?I'm truly truly astonished there aren't a great many more car-bike accidents than there are, and i think, frankly, that a great deal of the credit goes to car drivers. Well, a great deal of credit might also go to cyclists for avoiding cars... I have 2 white lights mounted forward and two red lights facing back. One blinky in each direction and one solid light in each direction. I wear bright colored cycling tops (shorts are black) and a bright colored helmet. ? I have lots of close calls with cars that apparently look right past me (I ride on a busy street and either the cars come to stop signs and don't see me or they don't realize how fast I'm going and pull out in front of me). I spend a good deal of time avoiding other cars, both east and west of Pulaski... snip sig What's with the front strobes? A lot of wrong way riders in my area have those, it's extremely annoying when they're oncoming. A red blinkie isn't bad, but the bright white ones are horrible. Flashing white lights in your face isn't the best thing for vision, which is kind of necessary to keep from driving your vehicle into things. My headlight has a strobe mode, but I don't see myself using it unless I need some sort of emergency beacon some day, and since it's on the road bike that's unlikely. The intensity of bike lights isn't that great compared to bright amber overhead lights we have on Chicago streets. Good bicycle lights are as bright as some car and motorcycle lights. All you need to do is ride down a major street like Kedzie or Pulaski at night to realize how bright it is; I don't need backlighting to read numbers off my Garmin 305... the lighting is that bright here at night... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CitiesAtNight/ (here you can look at Chicago and a few other city images from space at night) A car headlight shows up as a large space of light (6 inch diameter or 6x4 I believe for the retangular bulbs) with a large viewing angle to someone sitting in a car looking at all the reflections you might see on a Chicago street. For a bike light to be as noticable, it would need have the same surface area (similar in size and shape to a motorcycle light). Not wanting to carry a light that size on my bike, I ride with 2 smaller lights, one that is on solid all the time and one that's blinking all the time. From a visibility standpoint, it's very noticable, but that assumes that when I'm on my way home at midnight, the guy is actually looking for someone else and not just thinking about getting home after drinking at a bar... It's very workable when I get into a burb as the lighting isn't nearly as bright, but on major streets in Chicago, because of the light intensity they don't show up well, either that or folks just ignore stopsigns and do quick rolling stops ignore lights that look too small to be a vehicle. In a burb they are great, but you need something to catch the attention of cars when it's quite bright on a major street with so many overhead lights. Much of my riding has been in Boston, where I lived for a while. Never found the need for strobes, which are illegal, annoying and cause blinding/disorientation to other road users. Not at the intensity these are... only complaint i've had was one friend that I had stopped to chat with asked me to turn it off before he had a seizure... I added the second lights (the blinkys) in each direction after many close calls however they don't seem to have reduced the number... There you have it - they are not effective in what you are trying to do. Why continue to use them and annoy/blind/endanger other road users (including other cyclists) with them? I rarely see other cyclists on the routes at times I choose to ride... What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me fearing I was a semi... Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your thinking works there. Road users shouldn?t be using blinding lights. This should be common sense. It's not so much the brightness they emit down the road that is the issue, it's the illuminated space that one would see looking at it. Bike lights are flashlight sized pockets of light... blinking tends to draw someones attention toward it, but a driver driving home at midnight may have had too much to drink to pay attention... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...) So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you recently brought up blinding spotlights, again? Wider surface area. A laser is very bright, but one doesn't see it unless it's pointing directly at you... a bike light that shines straight ahead is useless if it has a bezel that makes it difficult to see from the side... A illuminated wide surface area is whats needed so that drivers can separate the real lights from the reflections off automobile and other surfaces that the overhead lights reflect off... ride down a city street at night after it rains with all the puddles and there are 4 times the number of stray reflections... -- John Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell) |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
In chi.general John Rappe wrote:
wrote: Semi lights are not disproportionately bright, so I don't see how your thinking works there. Road users shouldn=92t be using blinding lights. This should be common sense. [...] So how does this relate to a reason behind white strobes, or as you recently brought up blinding spotlights, again? For the record, "chicago paddling and fishing" is a blithering idiot. Don't expect any logic in his thinking. How often do you ride a bike in Chicago at night Mr Suburban guy? Are you even in a close burb or a way way out burb? On Forest ave in Oak Park the bike lights I have stand out great, but on a major city street, the overhead lights drowned out much of the light... -- John Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell) |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
Brent P wrote:
On 2008-08-26, Peter Cole wrote: The deadbeat dad license suspensions strike me as pure expediency. How else do you punish? That's parental government thinking. Incarceration just makes the cost to society greater. It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another. Actually, no. If a parent defaults, the state/federal welfare system has to pick up the slack. It doesn't work that way for car loans. That's why non-compliance may be a felony. The Law Today Today, a child support violator can be prosecuted under Federal law if the following facts exists: 1) the violator willfully failed to pay; 2) a known child support obligation; 3) which has a) remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000 (misdemeanor), or has b) remained unpaid for longer than two years or is greater than $10,000 (felony) 4) for a child who resides in another state, or 1) the violator traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; 2) with the intent to evade a support obligation; 3) if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period of one year or longer-or is greater than $5,000 (felony). See 18 U.S.C. §228. The best form of government for 'getting the job done' is corporatism, aka fascism. Now, we already largely have that in the USA, because people decided that they rather have rulers that 'take care' of things. If we want to be serious about freedom and liberty, well things are going to be a little more difficult to manage, sure. But we'll all be better off for that effort. So, which is it? A conspiracy or a lazy populace? |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)
On 2008-08-26, Barry Harmon wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote in : On Aug 26, 11:27 am, " wrote: On Aug 26, 11:26 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2008-08-26, Cydrome Leader wrote: In chi.general Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2008-08-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote: What I might need is that flashlight they were selling at Costco a while back, sort of looked like the search becon off a tug boat... while it might be blinding for many, they probably wouldn't pull out in front of me fearing I was a semi... (I'm not planning on getting it... one has to pay attention when riding at night, just because you're on a main street doesn't mean cars on side streets will respect your right-of-way...) Or just buy a real light from Busch & M?ller. They're pricey, but mine makes me look like a motorcycle, and doesn't blind oncoming traffic in the process. and looking like a motorcycle does? Keeps motorists from underestimating my speed and pulling out (or turning) in front of me. Especially useful for those 30 mph descents into the Fox Valley, but I've noticed an almost total elimination of this behavior on virtually every road I ride. Odd, I find that motorists pull out or turn right in front of me pretty often when I look just like a motorcycle as well. At least, that has been my experience on the 2 on-road motorcycles I've had and ridden. Yeah, but think how bad it would be if you had a 3W bicycle light on the front of yer scooter. How do these lights show up in urban areas? Is there enough light of a different nature to make them and the cyclist stand out from the background clutter of Duncan Donuts and other lights along the road? Cheap 3W lights? Don't know, I don't run one. I run a B&M Ixon IQ Speed that puts out 50 lux (lumens/m^2), and it stands out from *everything*. -- Kristian Zoerhoff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oil Enforcement Agency | oilfreeandhappy | General | 2 | April 17th 07 12:07 AM |
Oil Enforcement Agency | oilfreeandhappy | Marketplace | 2 | April 15th 07 02:20 AM |
Chicago Bike Lane Enforcement Internship | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 19th 06 02:17 AM |
290 f'ing posts IN 24 HOURS | Me | Racing | 2 | July 16th 05 04:39 AM |
unicycling and law enforcement | Murde Mental | Unicycling | 67 | September 5th 04 04:41 AM |