Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/15/2011 10:23 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/14/2011 12:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:45 pm, Peter wrote:
On 8/13/2011 12:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]
The tenets of vehicular cycling essentially claim that cyclists should
abandon the margins of roads, because of the threat of being struck by
motor vehicles. This is contrary to the "natural law" of slower users,
vehicle operators or not, traditionally using those sections. Motor
vehicles create 100% of the threat, yet cyclists and pedestrians are to
bear most of the burden of accommodation.

Cyclists bearing the burden of accommodation is *not* part of vehicular
cycling.

It seems you are referring to the case of a cyclist, who on a long
downhill, was right hooked by a garbage truck. I read everything I could
find about that incident. Excuse me for not being able to read your mind
and determine which incident you were referring to.

That cyclist left around 30' of rear tire skid mark. It seemed to me to
be a clear violation of right of way/failure to yield. One could, and I
would, argue that the very presence of a bike lane should have indicated
to the driver that he was crossing lanes to make his turn, and so should
have watched for parallel (bike) traffic. If anything, the presence of a
marked lane makes the behavior more inexcusable. The very same incident
could (and frequently does) happen without lanes. It is not clear, and
probably unlikely given the evidence, that "taking the lane" would have
avoided the right turn in front of the cyclist or changed the
"visibility" of the cyclist enough for the driver to have not created
the collision. As usual, your faith-based cycling principles force you
to blame the victim.

If the cyclist was taking the lane, he/she would not have been in the
position to be right-hooked, as the truck would have been forced to
either stay behind the cyclist (since there was not enough length for a
truck to switch to the left lane, pass, switch back to the right lane,
then turn right.

You define the circumstance as a cyclist "passing on the right", I
define it as a cyclist proceeding straight and a motorist crossing his
lane. Perhaps if the bike lane was a "normal" street lane your
conclusion would be different. In that case I would ask why a cycle lane
should be treated any differently than any other road lane?

Then there needs to be a full-width right turn lane to the right of the
bicycle lane, or right turns prohibited.

The fundamental rules of traffic work quite well when people pay
attention to them, and when facilities aren't designed to violate them.
And I'd say "Don't put yourself at the right of a right turning truck"
is a fundamental rule of traffic.

I'd say a more "fundamental rule of traffic" is look before you turn so
you don't run over people. But that's just me.

I'd love to watch you drive sometime, especially if driving a big
truck or bus. It seems you must stop halfway through every inner-city
turn to scan for out-of-control sidewalk cyclists. That's very
admirable - but doesn't it anger the motorists behind you? How many
times has your car been rear-ended?

I have never been rear-ended. I do watch for pedestrians or anyone else
in crosswalks or simply crossing or walking in the street. I do watch
for cyclists and the possibility I may be crossing their paths, with
lane or not. I don't particularly care if that causes irritation to
other drivers. I believe safety trumps convenience, obviously you don't.
I think it's criminal to give street crossers a clear signal while still
allowing traffic to intersect their path. I have no problem with
sidewalk cycling, provided it's done at pedestrian speeds. Those are
often higher than walking speed, people do run, either for exercise or
because they're in a hurry, children may do it just for fun.

Another issue with sidewalk cycling is it being irritating as hell to
pedestrians.

Like Forester, you associate pro-facility sentiments with anti-motoring
attitudes. This is not surprising.

Where does Forester say that?

This is a typically suburban,
car-centric point of view -- apparently "obvious" to both of you, and to
most of the majority of Americans who reside in suburbs, but there's
nothing "natural" about it.

Pro-facility sentiments are often anti-cyclists, as a way to put cyclist
in a ghetto while reserving the proper street for motor vehicles.

Those who defend the rights of non-motorists
to use the street in traditional ways are labeled as anti-motorist, with
the context of being either anti-progress, romantic dreamers, or both.

The traditional use of a street is transportation. Vehicular cycling
defends the right of cyclists to use the streets for transportation much
more than the "we need a separate facility for cyclists" crowd does.

In fact, it is the majority of Americans, particularly the suburbanites
who stubbornly refuse to accept the changing times and cling to a
romantic vision, that even if ever existed, is obviously not
sustainable, and was only romantic in papering over some pretty
unpleasant truths. Safety is only one issue, and arguably, not even the
central issue. The advent of the motorist changed society and street
culture. The automobile, for a time, defined progress, and accommodation
to motor traffic seemed reasonable, or at least unavoidable. Vehicular
cycling is essentially the formalization of a philosophy of
accommodation.

Bull****.

Evidence has accumulated to an irrefutable level that the
policies of accommodation have virtually eliminated non-motor traffic
from US streets.

What is more accommodating to motorists than making a cyclist ghetto,
while reserving the rest of the street (in effect, if not in law) for
motorists?

The law should also be changed to presume fault of the motorist when a
non-motorist is struck. If anything, the current status is the opposite.
[...]

The moral position is to presume fault of the user who does *not* follow
the rules of right-of-way.

Forester, and his vehicular cycling followers, claim facility proponents
have an anti-motorist agenda. It's clear to me that it's really they who
have the agenda. It's pro-motoring and pro status quo.

Bull****.

Its major premise
is that non-motorists should adapt to the presence of motor traffic by
adopting a mimicking behavior, where possible, and abandon traditional
portions of the street where not. The cover story is that all this is
some kind of natural law -- as if motor vehicles are like anything seen
in nature.

No, it is the premise that cyclists are *equal* users of the roads.

The presence of motor vehicles, according to vehicular cyclists, makes
cycling such a hazardous undertaking that this former pastime of
children now requires the attendance of special training sessions,
conducted by (who else?) vehicular cyclists. In these courses,
presumably even children can be taught the intricacies of "lane
positioning", "negotiation" with motorists, and how to instantly "dive"
your bicycle into a side street to avoid being crushed by a driver who
has utter disregard for your presence. I suppose "vehicular walking"
seminars are on the horizon.

So you approve of the USian convention where children ride in a chaotic
manner with total disregard for rules of right-of-way? (At least in the
past) in Europe, a child behaving such would have his/her bicycle
confiscated by the police until the parents retrieved it with the
condition of teaching the child to cycle properly (as described to me by
people who grew up in Europe in the 1940's through 1960's).

Yes, children should be supervised until they learn to ride properly.

This nonsense would be harmless enough if the vehicularists, like most
crazy cults, would be content to practice their arcane rituals and leave
others alone.

The facilities believers would be harmless if they did not publicly
promote bicycle ghettos.

Proselyting, while irritating, is easily ignored, which
most cyclists have managed to do for years. The trouble comes when these
screeching ideologues acquire positions of influence and are taken by
the gullible to represent mainstream opinion.

Such as the facilities and h*lm*t promoters.

Forester is a stellar
example. This self-taught, self-proclaimed, "transportation engineer"
and "cycling expert", got a sizable inheritance and used it to publish
diatribes and support his full-time "cycling advocacy".

No comment on the un-trained in transportation engineering promoting and
designing facilities?

He freely
revises US cycling history, airily dismisses US bike culture and
industry, flaunting his British cycling heritage and mystique, despite
being raised mostly in California and working mostly in the
aerospace/defense industry. His politics appear deeply conservative,
regarding pro-facility cycling advocates as relics of the hippie
movement and their "anti-motoring" stance as still having something to
do with the Viet Nam war.

Wow! Never got any of that from reading Forester.

Vehicular cycling, and the cult of the Forester-ites peaked in the 80's
(when he ran LAB) and fortunately has declined since. The dwindling core
of true believers has, at last, been reduced to mud-slinging on the
sidelines while the rest of the cycling world finally gets on with the
business of rescuing cycling from extinction.

By forcing cyclists into separate and unequal ghettos?

"Vehicular" visionaries
have been replaced in administrative positions in cities around the
country, like here in Boston, and at long last, the climate for cycling
is beginning to change. It's been an unfortunate chapter.

Yes, those who want to get bicycles out of the way of motor vehicles by
creating ghettos have the upper hand.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Aug 15, 11:11*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

And the Nazis had already started bombing civilian cities even before
WW2 started (during the Spanish Civil War in 1938).

That's pretty famous.

http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Guer-1.jpg

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 15, 4:35 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Peter, this wasn't a situation where a motorist passed a cyclist then
whipped right. It was a situation where the cyclist tried passing a
truck that was already turning.

I doubt that's an adequate or fair description of the circumstances
that led to this tragic worst-case scenario. It seems to me that he
was completely surprised by the truck's turn, for one reason or
another, until it was too late. Perhaps as Jay Beattie mentioned the
truck turned extra wide left before whipping right, which they can do
with surprising agility and speed. That move can be very deceptive.
There may also have been severe line-of-sight issues at that
intersection. Perhaps the victim was looking down momentarily or to
the side and didn't see the truck start the turn. Surprise combined
with a lot of speed (much greater than 20 mph judging by 36-ft skid)
and the additional terribly bad timing to impact right in front of the
giant wheels and go under instead of say, behind them or right into
them and bounce off. An inch or two or a millisecond here or there,
one mph and he could have walked away with nothing more than an
adrenaline rush, even with a collision. I wouldn't call it bad luck.
If he had been vigilant with his attention while approaching the
intersection it would not have occurred at all, but these things do
happen.

The man's death was not preordained by a stripe on the street and the
circumstances involved in his death also exist on non-bike-lane
streets.

On 8/15/2011 6:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/14/2011 12:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:45 pm, Peter wrote:

She was in a crosswalk.

Which means what? That a motorist should stop halfway through every
turn on a city street, before the edge of the crosswalk, and scan left
and right to be sure no bicyclist is zooming out into his path?
Sorry, that's totally impractical. Crosswalks and the sidewalks they
connect are places for pedestrians moving at walking speed. They are
too dangerous for bicyclists at normal speeds. Advising cyclists to
use sidewalks is irresponsible - at least, unless you include about a
dozen warnings.

I'm not recommending cyclists ride in crosswalks or sidewalks.

Well, that's good.

I'm just
pointing out that apparently in both incidents I mentioned (DC and
Montreal), the crosswalk apparently had a "cross" signal while the
through street did not control right hand turns. This is a trap for the
unwary, cyclist or pedestrian. It is indicative of the lack of concern
for the safety of vulnerable travelers.

Well, it shouldn't be a trap for a cyclist, because a cyclist shouldn't
be using the crosswalk. It's less of a problem for pedestrians, because
pedestrians typically enter a crosswalk at a slower speed, making it
easier for both the pedestrian and the motorist to react to avoid a crash.

However, I agree that walking in a city is much more hazardous than
biking in a city, and this is one reason. But what should the solution
be? It's normal practice to have (say) northbound motorists and
pedestrians to get simultaneous greens. Separate green phases would
significantly slow travel times for both walkers and motorists (and
cyclists). I don't think anybody is going to accept that!

Given that the bike path was routed over the cross street via a
crosswalk, some provision should have been made to anticipate the right
turn hazard for cyclists. A trigger on the light would have been sufficient.


Someone riding in a door zone is putting themselves
at risk of great harm, just as is someone who smokes a lot. That's
true even though both dumb actions are legal. The fact that there's
some chance they might injure others (for example, the person getting
out of the car, or a person breathing second-hand smoke) doesn't
change the foolishness of the self-risk.

The dooring risk is created by the motorist, not the cyclist. By placing
the burden on the cyclist you are effectively saying the same thing as
people should avoid places where they might be exposed to second-hand
smoke.

And they do that! From
http://ukhealthcare.uky.edu/secondha...hand-smoke.asp

"Use your power of choice

Choose smoke-free restaurants, hotels and other businesses.
Choose smoke-free child care facilities.
Choose smoke-free adult care facilities.
If you have friends or family members who smoke in their homes, choose
to visit with them elsewhere.
Teach your children to remove themselves from smoking areas.
if your work area is not smoke-free, talk with your employer about a
smoke-free policy."

It's pretty sensible.

Maybe that's "sensible" in Kentucky (#2 tobacco state) is ridiculous
almost anywhere else. All of those situations are guaranteed to be
smoke-free by law in MA, except private homes, but those are smoke-free
by convention mostly.

I think the parallels with VC are even more apt with your example.


Society recognized the unfairness of that and has begun to ban
smoking in public places. A simple measure to eliminate the dooring
hazard would be to restrict parallel parking, or otherwise buffer
cyclists from doors.

Well, you can try that, if you like. If you can get parallel parking
prohibited in your city, I'll be amazed. Buffering cyclists from doors
by zebra-striped "Don't ride here" door zones sounds fine to me, too.
Meanwhile, I tell cyclists to avoid door zones, because they should
protect themselves now.

You then create a conflict by violating the "natural law" of slow moving
traffic staying to the right.


If you feel such a measure is impractical, then logic dictates you
should favor a restriction on cyclists riding in the door zone at all.

You mean pass a law against riding within (say) four feet of a parked
car? Hmm. That's a new idea. If you want to work on that too, go ahead.
I think I'd favor an exception for filtering forward at 5 mph during
traffic jams, though.

A law would be a logical conclusion that starts with dooring being a
cyclist's fault.


Ditto on right hooks. Why not pass an ordinance requiring cyclists to
"take the lane" in every possible hooking scenario -- essentially every
intersection?

In general, it's not possible to cover "every possible scenario" with
such a law. Legislators usually understand that, and would shoot down
any such proposal. Like it or not, cyclists have to exercise _some_
competence and judgment in traffic. That's just the way this universe
works.

So when is a cyclist "impeding" traffic wantonly and when necessarily?
How would you regulate these exceptions to the "natural law"?


The tenets of vehicular cycling essentially claim that cyclists should
abandon the margins of roads, because of the threat of being struck by
motor vehicles. This is contrary to the "natural law" of slower users,
vehicle operators or not, traditionally using those sections.

Nope. Peter, once again, you either thoroughly misunderstand, or
deliberately misrepresent the "tenets of vehicular cycling." You've
repeatedly shown you're really not qualified to discuss those tenets.

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

"When approaching an intersection, position yourself with respect to
your destination direction—on the right near the curb if you want to
turn right, on the left near the center line if you want to turn left,
and between those positions if you want to go straight.

Between intersections, position yourself according to your speed
relative to other traffic; slower traffic is nearer the curb and faster
traffic is nearer the centerline."

"Control the traffic lane unless overtaking traffic is being delayed and
the marked traffic lane is wide enough to safely share."

"Controlling the lane normally precludes passing within the same lane by
drivers of wide motor vehicles,"

Simple enough. Accurate?



In the most notorious example in Portland, both the driver and the
cyclist were stopped at a red light. The light turned green and the
truck driver crushed the cyclist. I don't know what case you're
referring to.

Then you're not as plugged into cycling news as you think. One of
those fatalities was a cyclist passing a moving motor vehicle on the
right as the vehicle executed a right turn. That's one of the hazards
promoted by bike lanes up to an intersection, or perhaps bike lanes in
general.

It seems you are referring to the case of a cyclist, who on a long
downhill, was right hooked by a garbage truck. I read everything I could
find about that incident. Excuse me for not being able to read your mind
and determine which incident you were referring to.

Let's review. I said "...in one of the most publicized Portland
fatalities, the cyclist was passing the fatal truck on the right as the
motor vehicle had the green light to turn right..."

Now you're saying you read everything about that incident, but didn't
know that was the one I was talking about? Sheesh!

That may be because the cyclist was not "passing on the right". Yours is
the first description I've seen of this. Source?


That cyclist left around 30' of rear tire skid mark. It seemed to me to
be a clear violation of right of way/failure to yield. One could, and I
would, argue that the very presence of a bike lane should have indicated
to the driver that he was crossing lanes to make his turn, and so should
have watched for parallel (bike) traffic. If anything, the presence of a
marked lane makes the behavior more inexcusable.

Sorry, that's pretty unreasonable. How fast does a cyclist have to go to
leave a 30 foot skid mark? We could try some calculations, but I'd guess
over 20 mph, or 30 ft/s.

It can easily take over five seconds for a slow truck to make a turn in
a tight city street. If so, a cyclist could be nearly 150 feet back when
the trucker started the turn. That's a long distance. Telling someone
"Don't turn right if there's someone within 150 feet in the direction
you can barely see" is just a long way of saying "Never turn right."

The real problem is obvious. The bike lane should not be placed to
encourage riding to the right of motor vehicles that might turn right.
That's as unreasonable as this:
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lane3.jpg

Hardly.

In your rush to blame the victim and/or the facility, you neglect the
basic facts.


The very same incident could (and frequently does) happen without lanes.

It happens far less often if the cyclist is taught about the dangers of
passing vehicles - especially turning vehicles - on the right.

It is not clear, and
probably unlikely given the evidence, that "taking the lane" would have
avoided the right turn in front of the cyclist or changed the
"visibility" of the cyclist enough for the driver to have not created
the collision.

Peter, this wasn't a situation where a motorist passed a cyclist then
whipped right. It was a situation where the cyclist tried passing a
truck that was already turning.

It was precisely that first situation. The street where the collision
occurred has a long grade, descending for about 1/2 mile, with a slope
of around 7%. The cyclist was young (31), fit and experienced, a bike
shop employee and an amateur racer. The road has a posted speed limit of
30 mph as the sign midway down the grade indicates. It is unlikely that
the cyclist was riding at less than the speed limit, especially given
the length of skid and the estimated impact speed. It was a classic
right hook. The truck passed the cyclist and executed a right turn
immediately in front of him.

Some other information alleged as part of the wrongful death suit:

"The lawsuit alleges Lowes and AGG were negligent with the cause of
Jarolimek's death by details such as; failing to yield to a bicyclist in
a bike lane; failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle; that the
truck had a poorly attached passenger side mirror and a partially
obscured windshield; excessive driver work hours and allowing Lowes to
operate said vehicle while taking the prescription anti-anxiety
medication BuSpar (known for causing drowsiness).

The lawsuit also faults AGG for hiring Lowes in the first place because
he had “numerous motor vehicle violation convictions, driver's license
suspensions and revocations.” In the lawsuit, Lowes is reported to have
been convicted for felony possession of a controlled substance, caused
another accident in 2005 while driving an AGG truck, and was improperly
screened by AGG before hiring."

As usual, your faith-based cycling principles force you
to blame the victim.

I had a friend who broke his neck diving into a shallow creek. He became
quadriplegic. Should I never say "Kids, don't dive into shallow creeks"?

As usual, your example is painfully stretched.



You define the circumstance as a cyclist "passing on the right", I
define it as a cyclist proceeding straight and a motorist crossing his
lane. Perhaps if the bike lane was a "normal" street lane your
conclusion would be different. In that case I would ask why a cycle lane
should be treated any differently than any other road lane?

For the same reason this isn't done:
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lane3.jpg

The traffic lane was not a right turn lane.


Like Forester, you associate pro-facility sentiments with anti-motoring
attitudes. This is not surprising. This is a typically suburban,
car-centric point of view -- apparently "obvious" to both of you, and to
most of the majority of Americans who reside in suburbs, but there's
nothing "natural" about it. Those who defend the rights of non-motorists
to use the street in traditional ways are labeled as anti-motorist, with
the context of being either anti-progress, romantic dreamers, or both.
In fact, it is the majority of Americans, particularly the suburbanites
who stubbornly refuse to accept the changing times and cling to a
romantic vision, that even if ever existed, is obviously not
sustainable, and was only romantic in papering over some pretty
unpleasant truths. Safety is only one issue, and arguably, not even the
central issue. The advent of the motorist changed society and street
culture. The automobile, for a time, defined progress, and accommodation
to motor traffic seemed reasonable, or at least unavoidable. Vehicular
cycling is essentially the formalization of a philosophy of
accommodation. Evidence has accumulated to an irrefutable level that the
policies of accommodation have virtually eliminated non-motor traffic
from US streets.

:-) "Rise up, brothers and sisters! Overthrow the bourgeois motorist
oppressors! Man the anti-car barricades! If we must die, let us die as
heroes!"

That's helpful.


Peter, I'm a lot more anti-motoring than Forester is.

Not saying much. More accurately, you're less pro-motoring than he.

I'd like to see
far fewer privileges for motorists, and far more responsibility on their
part.

However, I think there are limits. I'm fine with saying "If you hurt
someone, you should never drive again." But not if a facility designed
in violation of physics, human psychology and normal traffic interaction
sets up an impossible situation. Some of these bike lanes are like
sliding boards shooting kids out into traffic without warning. That's
just unreasonable.

That would be unreasonable, but this particular bike lane was not an
example of that.


Let's try again: How long will it take you
to fix all the drain grates, all the slippery surfaces, all the
trolley tracks, all the right hooks, etc, so people can cycle
mindlessly in perfect safety? Don't evade; give us at least an
estimate.

I think it could be done in most cities in a few years, if there was the
will for it.

"... COULD be done... IF there was the will..." isn't what I asked. How
long until it's ACTUALLY done?

You actually asked how long it would take me. I have no idea how to
answer that or your follow up question.

Remember, the point was, I'm in favor of educating cyclists to avoid
those hazards while they exist. You were not. You said we should just
remove all the hazards. How long will that take?

It will take forever if no one tries, demands or even asks sweetly for it.


Priorities will never
change while cyclist and pedestrian "advocates" claim things are safe
enough. They're not.

Um... not safe enough to recommend riding a bike? I don't believe that,
since the benefits clearly outweigh the tiny dangers. Not safe enough to
satisfy you? Perhaps - but from what I see in your writing, cycling will
never be safe enough. "Why, if just ONE fatality can be prevented, no
matter the cost..."

You're changing the subject, and I'm not advocating "any cost" mitigation.


The law should also be changed to presume fault of the motorist when a
non-motorist is struck.

I agree.

Then why did you presume otherwise in this incident?


If anything, the current status is the opposite.
This is something vehicular cycling effectively supports with its blame
the victim premise.

That's false, another mis-characterization of vehicular cycling. You're
consistently failing in that regard.

I've read the literature closely, it's the only conclusion that can be
reached.


And in the mean time, do you really think cyclists should not be
taught to watch out for those hazards? Don't evade. Just answer
"Education is OK" or "No education, dammit!"

I have never opposed education.

You do oppose telling cyclists not to pass right turning vehicles on the
right. You called that "blaming the victim."

I don't oppose educating cyclists about common hazards. I simply believe
that shouldn't be the priority above eliminating them.

... Forester, as you say, may claim now to be
opposed to legal vehicular status for bicycles, which means I suppose
that "vehicular cycling" is a misnomer, and that his trademark "Cyclists
fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" doesn't
mean that cyclists should have legal vehicle operator status. If so,
he's splitting hairs finer than I can resolve.

Ah well. Many of us are capable of understanding the difference, and the
reasons Forester feels that way, whether or not we specifically agree
with him. (Again, vehicular cyclists do have different opinions on
certain matters.)

Your reluctance to explain the difference makes me suspect it's
vanishingly small.


And with that, I think we've exceeded Usenet's word limit for one post!

A convenient exit. Trim, if you wish.

On 8/15/2011 10:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:00:30 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 8/15/2011 9:46 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...]
This caused a lovely blunder at the end of WW2.
When war was declared on Hitler's Germany in 1939, the full UK title
was used, but at the end of the war, it was neglected.
As a result, Berwick-upon-Tweed continued to be at war with Germany
until the error was noticed and corrected in 1987.
Thankfully, no casualties were recorded.

The German military surrendered, but the civilian state never did. One
can make a case that the Third Reich is still the legal government of
Germany, while all post WW2 governments have been illegitimate.

Of course the German people have received a raw deal for the past 65
years, as the ethnic cleansing, starvation, rape and murder [1] of
millions of Germans in the half-decade following the war have been swept
under the rug, as well as the deliberate targeting of German civilians
during the war [2], while those who were too young to bear any
responsibility have been saddled with assigned guilt and reparations
payments.

[1] Of course, only the war crimes of the losers are punished, but not
those of the winners.

And obviously not those which never actually happened.

[2] The RAF starting night bombing of German cites *prior* to the
Luftwaffe bombing civilian areas of Great Britain.

Bull****.
The RAF barely had the capability to reach Germany at all during the
blitz, never mind carry any meaningful payload of bombs (it was almost
entirely propaganda leaflets).

You forget that Sir Winston Churchill ordered night bombing of Berlin
prior to the "London Blitz".

And the Nazis had already started bombing civilian cities even before
WW2 started (during the Spanish Civil War in 1938).

Your Nazi sympathies are showing again.

Godwin's Law, anyone?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 8/15/2011 11:17 PM, wrote:
I doubt that's an adequate or fair description of the circumstances
that led to this tragic worst-case scenario. It seems to me that he
was completely surprised by the truck's turn, for one reason or
another, until it was too late. Perhaps as Jay Beattie mentioned the
truck turned extra wide left before whipping right, which they can do
with surprising agility and speed. That move can be very deceptive.
[...]

But often necessary to avoid running over the curb with the rear wheels.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 8/16/2011 7:58 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:35:36 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 8/15/2011 10:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:00:30 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 8/15/2011 9:46 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...]
This caused a lovely blunder at the end of WW2.
When war was declared on Hitler's Germany in 1939, the full UK title
was used, but at the end of the war, it was neglected.
As a result, Berwick-upon-Tweed continued to be at war with Germany
until the error was noticed and corrected in 1987.
Thankfully, no casualties were recorded.

The German military surrendered, but the civilian state never did. One
can make a case that the Third Reich is still the legal government of
Germany, while all post WW2 governments have been illegitimate.

Of course the German people have received a raw deal for the past 65
years, as the ethnic cleansing, starvation, rape and murder [1] of
millions of Germans in the half-decade following the war have been swept
under the rug, as well as the deliberate targeting of German civilians
during the war [2], while those who were too young to bear any
responsibility have been saddled with assigned guilt and reparations
payments.

[1] Of course, only the war crimes of the losers are punished, but not
those of the winners.

And obviously not those which never actually happened.

[2] The RAF starting night bombing of German cites *prior* to the
Luftwaffe bombing civilian areas of Great Britain.

Bull****.
The RAF barely had the capability to reach Germany at all during the
blitz, never mind carry any meaningful payload of bombs (it was almost
entirely propaganda leaflets).

You forget that Sir Winston Churchill ordered night bombing of Berlin
prior to the "London Blitz".

But only after many other British cities had already been bombed, and
in full knowledge of the criminal tactics of the enemy.

And the Nazis had already started bombing civilian cities even before
WW2 started (during the Spanish Civil War in 1938).

Your Nazi sympathies are showing again.

Godwin's Law, anyone?

You were the one who brought up the third reich.

Godwin's Rule/Law refers to comparing another poster to Hitler/Nazis, et
al, not a mere mention of them. Duh.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

T°m Sherm@n wrote:
On 8/16/2011 7:58 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:35:36 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 8/15/2011 10:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:00:30 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 8/15/2011 9:46 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...]
This caused a lovely blunder at the end of WW2.
When war was declared on Hitler's Germany in 1939, the full UK title
was used, but at the end of the war, it was neglected.
As a result, Berwick-upon-Tweed continued to be at war with Germany
until the error was noticed and corrected in 1987.
Thankfully, no casualties were recorded.

The German military surrendered, but the civilian state never did.
One
can make a case that the Third Reich is still the legal government of
Germany, while all post WW2 governments have been illegitimate.

Of course the German people have received a raw deal for the past 65
years, as the ethnic cleansing, starvation, rape and murder [1] of
millions of Germans in the half-decade following the war have been
swept
under the rug, as well as the deliberate targeting of German civilians
during the war [2], while those who were too young to bear any
responsibility have been saddled with assigned guilt and reparations
payments.

[1] Of course, only the war crimes of the losers are punished, but not
those of the winners.

And obviously not those which never actually happened.

[2] The RAF starting night bombing of German cites *prior* to the
Luftwaffe bombing civilian areas of Great Britain.

Bull****.
The RAF barely had the capability to reach Germany at all during the
blitz, never mind carry any meaningful payload of bombs (it was almost
entirely propaganda leaflets).

You forget that Sir Winston Churchill ordered night bombing of Berlin
prior to the "London Blitz".

But only after many other British cities had already been bombed, and
in full knowledge of the criminal tactics of the enemy.

And the Nazis had already started bombing civilian cities even before
WW2 started (during the Spanish Civil War in 1938).

Your Nazi sympathies are showing again.

Godwin's Law, anyone?

You were the one who brought up the third reich.

Godwin's Rule/Law refers to comparing another poster to Hitler/Nazis, et
al, not a mere mention of them. Duh.


Can we make this a 'Godwin gimme'? Close counts sometimes
(horseshoes, hand grenades, Nazis, etc.).

Please?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/16/2011 8:39 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
T°m Sherm@n wrote:
On 8/16/2011 7:58 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:35:36 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 8/15/2011 10:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...]
Your Nazi sympathies are showing again.

Godwin's Law, anyone?

You were the one who brought up the third reich.

Godwin's Rule/Law refers to comparing another poster to Hitler/Nazis,
et al, not a mere mention of them. Duh.


Can we make this a 'Godwin gimme'? Close counts sometimes (horseshoes,
hand grenades, Nazis, etc.).

Please?


I kind of like taking the gloves off and having it out. As I once
replied to someone complaining about a certain poster with a reputation
for being crotchety, I can make him look like Huggy Bear.

You can ask Ed Dolan about having a sore foot.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

""T°m Sherm@n"" " wrote in message
...
[...]
I kind of like taking the gloves off and having it out. As I once replied
to someone complaining about a certain poster with a reputation for being
crotchety, I can make him look like Huggy Bear.

You can ask Ed Dolan about having a sore foot.

I have been kicking Tom Sherman's dumb ass like forever, but it does no
good. He is a dyed in the wool liberal.

Hitler was a seminal figure of the 20th century and not to ever mention him
means that you must be from some other planet.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota