Can you make it to the market on a bike?

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.

Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?

Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.

Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

btw I don't own any boats.

When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring
or something?

Hint: Zaumen wrote "Can you get that through your thick scull?",
implying that Martin Dann owner a scull, which is a type of boat.

One wonders if Zaumen really was referring to Martin Dann's "thick
skull", which is the bone structure surrounding the brain. A grammatical
error, perhaps?

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.

Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron,
according to the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so
I can post.

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?

Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.

Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply
to the rest of the world.
As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be
defined as one of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not
changing every time you try and define it here.

btw The United Kingdom (including England) is not in
California.

btw I don't own any boats.

When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring
or something?

Sorry you mentioned them first, I don't know why as they
don't normally travel on roads. (Or do they have a special
road lane in California).

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.
Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?

Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.
Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

btw I don't own any boats.
When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red
herring
or something?

Hint: Zaumen wrote "Can you get that through your thick scull?",
implying that Martin Dann owner a scull, which is a type of boat.

Oh, you found another typo that my spelling corrector wouldn't find.
Good boy. We'll give you a lollipop.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.
Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to
the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post.

Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive.
Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.
Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest
of the world.
As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one
of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try
and define it here.

Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you
get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free
to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you.
I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression
on your face when he tells you the fine.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.
Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.
Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)
Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to
the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post.

Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive.

Even if IQ's were additive, I doubt you would get to one.



Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.
Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".
This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest
of the world.
As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one
of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try
and define it here.

Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you
get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free
to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you.
I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression
on your face when he tells you the fine.

The UK is not in California. Your state legislature, much
as it would like to, does not write laws for the rest of
the world.

So if I am in court, and the Judge tries to judge me by
Californian law. My barrister would have the case thrown
out before you could say "Moron".

Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.
Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.
Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)
Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to
the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post.
Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive.

Even if IQ's were additive, I doubt you would get to one.

How lame, particularly since you are the one having persistent
problems understanding simple phrases.

slow vehicles "abnormal".
This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest
of the world.
As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one
of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try
and define it here.
Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you
get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free
to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you.
I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression
on your face when he tells you the fine.

The UK is not in California. Your state legislature, much as it would
like to, does not write laws for the rest of the world.

Having trouble with context, I see.

So if I am in court, and the Judge tries to judge me by Californian
law. My barrister would have the case thrown out before you could say
"Moron".

Your barrister would not be allowed to practice law here unless he was
also a member of the California bar.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
Google "Hubbert's Peak.


Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
danger of cycling.

Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.

Regards,

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

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Andrew Muzi wrote:
However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" wrote
Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is
now,

Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote
My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
health care in the U.S.

Edward Dolan wrote:
Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer
system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the
public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense.
It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich
and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A
total no-brainer!

You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion

My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a
chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than my
discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer
provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
Canada.

More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people
who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills.
Great system, eh?

Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and yet he
finds himself in trouble. That says it all.

No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to
give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical
procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs to
be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to pay
for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the first
place?

The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have the
VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself.

Regards,

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

On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
Google "Hubbert's Peak.

Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
danger of cycling.


OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on
Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to
hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy
was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we
have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period.

So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to
them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming
measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE
LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter
(everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to...

(all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution)

TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and
traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby
improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving
the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe,
especially Northern Europe; less so in North America.

Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of
pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which
are side effects of the traffic. However, streets have many social and
recreational functions which are severely impaired by car traffic. The
Livable Streets study by Donald Appleyard (circa 1977) found that
residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more
friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with
heavy traffic which were otherwise similar in dimensions, income, etc.
For much of the twentieth century, streets were designed by engineers
who were charged only with ensuring traffic flow and not with
fostering the other functions of streets. The basis for traffic
calming is broadening traffic engineering to include designing for
these functions.

There are 3 "E"'s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing
traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police)
enforcement. Because neighborhood traffic management studies have
shown that often it is the residents themselves who are contributing
to the perceived speeding problem within the neighborhood, it is
stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all
three components, and that engineering measures alone will not produce
satisfactory results.

A number of visual changes to roads are being made to many streets to
bring about more attentive driving, reduced speeds, reduced crashes,
and greater tendency to yield to pedestrians. Visual traffic calming
includes lane narrowings (9-10'), road diets (reduction in lanes), use
of trees next to streets, on-street parking, and buildings placed in
urban fashion close to streets.

Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are
speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in
size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars
to between 10 and 25 miles per hour.

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

COMING SOON
http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/...ution%21& l4=

On Aug 5, 6:53 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in s.com...





donquijote1954 who? wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
Google "Hubbert's Peak.

Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
danger of cycling.

Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.

Even a caveman knows that. 15 minutes in the street is all you need to
know that.