|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
More on conspicuity
On 2017-03-26 07:51, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that Joerg wrote: On 2017-03-25 12:06, Doc O'Leary wrote: Totally a different class of behavior than that of basic visibility and safe distance. Someone threatening you with their vehicle is not simply “jerk” behavior. It is assault with a deadly weapon. Perhaps even attempted murder. That is something that needs to be escalated each and every time it happens. Get their license plate and file a report with the police. Makes no difference whatsoever. Plus no witness on my side. Doesn’t matter. Unless you made the whole damn thing up, *someone endangered your life*. That’s something that needs to be escalated. Police reports allow for further actions, especially if the person in question is a repeat offender. It is foolish to wait until that guy kills someone (and then gets a slap on the wrist because it’s his first offense on record) before anything gets done. They will not take any action. So what's the point? Here’s another radical idea: if you really live in such an awful neighborhood, start recording your rides. In addition to filing police reports with that evidence, post it online so that the world forever knows who these assholes are. A camera to the front, another to the side, another to the rear? Even that won't be considered by police. They "don't have the time". However, there is a 3ft legal requirement and a driver must obey laws. Make up your mind. Either they “must obey”, or they can do whatever they want and it “makes no difference”. It's a law and it's not enforced. The usual. But a good law because ever since it was published most drivers obey it. Way more than before. So, a good law. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
More on conspicuity
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 6:34:52 PM UTC, Ralph Barone wrote:
There are also people who drive pickup trucks as a lifestyle choice (because they aspire to the redneck lifestyle and want to drive a big loud threatening vehicle). A good start is to have more curtains in your truck than in your house. You can start with an official NRA curtain over your gun rack, so that the envious can't perve your rifles. Andre Jute Loaded and cocked, not locked |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
More on conspicuity
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:34:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/26/2017 12:28 AM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:32:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/25/2017 1:28 AM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:01:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/24/2017 9:23 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:16:07 -0700, Joerg wrote: Sometimes they are [jerks]. Like a week ago when the guy leaned on the horn and gradually pushed me to the side of the road as punishment for taking "his" lane. He had even pulled into that lane from the other (fast) lane just to show me who is boss. Yes, those are jerks. Jerks who should not even have a driver license. But after all, wasn't it "His lane too"? No. I do remember, on one bike tour, having a low life multi-tattooed pickup driver yell at me "Get out of my road." Our offense (there were three of us riding together) was taking our place in a line of traffic moving at about 10 mph. I was not shy about telling him it was not "his" road. I think my, um, lack of diplomacy shocked one of my touring companions. But was it "your road"? The road is not a possession of any individual. It's a facility available to serve the public. Exactly. And come to think of it, in his analysis of the foundation principles of traffic law, John Forester listed this principle: "First come, first served." That is, any legal road user is allowed safe access to the roadway for a reasonable distance in front of him. He doesn't lose that access if someone else would prefer otherwise. The faster motorist behind (or in my example, the obnoxious motorist who could not move any faster than we were) cannot clear the road in front of him by demand. Sorry about John but every state highway law that I have read, and that isn't intended to mean I've read them all, has stated that "thou shall not impede", usually in the form of something like "slower traffic shall drive in such a manner as to not impede faster traffic". I can't say that I've read that "a vehicle has the right to the road for some specific distance ahead of them". Perhaps you didn't understand. What Forester wrote (paraphrased above) was not the text of the laws. It was the foundation rationality behind the laws. I suggest reading _Effective Cycling_ for details. To be frank, while I realize that Forester may well have written that I can see no rational reasoning or precedence, for the claim. After all, anyone can write anything and a certain portion of the readers will believe it. Read, for example, the Christian bible, specifically the 10 commandments. The various versions of the English language translations can't even agree on the wording of the 10 laws that God gave the Hebrews. And yes, the laws assume a vehicle _operator_ (as opposed to a vehicle) has a right to safe access to the road for a reasonable distance in front. That's why there are laws forbidding pulling out of a side street directly in front of someone; or pulling back into someone's lane too soon after passing. As an aside, I rather resent the inference that those driving pickup trucks are low lifes. After all, I drive a pickup, my sister-in-law, who is a small rice trader, drives a pickup. In fact I know a rather large number of people who drive pickups, the majority of whom are probably under the impression that they are just normal folks. There was no such inference. This particular low-life was driving a pickup truck. In stating that, I made no claim that all pickup drivers are low-lifes. No you didn't specifically state that people that drive pickups are low life's.. What you said was "a low life multi-tattooed pickup driver" which does tend to make one think that you equate pickups and low life's. Or is it only tattooed pickup drivers who are the low-life's?? I apply "low-life" to jerks who blare their horn and shout at bicyclists stuck in the same 0 to 10mph queue as about 20 other motorists. Tattoos and pickup were added to further describe the event. There were probably other multi-tattooed pickup drivers in that line who were not low-lifes. BTW, I didn't mention that low-life driver's passenger. She also had multiple tattoos but was not driving. You may need to add foul-mouthed pickup passengers to your list of people in your "protected class." Well yes, I guess that "protected class" is a good term although I believe it is usually pronounced "politically correct" in modern America. If what I read is true, you even have laws protecting these poor innocent minorities from public disdain. Or at least against verbal or written disdain. And, Goodness Gracious, here you are, a member of one minority group bad-mouthing another minority group. How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is ..... Further details? The passenger actually opened her door and stood on the running board to more effectively yell at us and give obscene gestures. A charming couple! -- Cheers, John B. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
More on conspicuity
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-03-26 07:51, Doc O'Leary wrote: For your reference, records indicate that Joerg wrote: On 2017-03-25 12:06, Doc O'Leary wrote: Totally a different class of behavior than that of basic visibility and safe distance. Someone threatening you with their vehicle is not simply “jerk” behavior. It is assault with a deadly weapon. Perhaps even attempted murder. That is something that needs to be escalated each and every time it happens. Get their license plate and file a report with the police. Makes no difference whatsoever. Plus no witness on my side. Doesn’t matter. Unless you made the whole damn thing up, *someone endangered your life*. That’s something that needs to be escalated. Police reports allow for further actions, especially if the person in question is a repeat offender. It is foolish to wait until that guy kills someone (and then gets a slap on the wrist because it’s his first offense on record) before anything gets done. They will not take any action. So what's the point? Here’s another radical idea: if you really live in such an awful neighborhood, start recording your rides. In addition to filing police reports with that evidence, post it online so that the world forever knows who these assholes are. A camera to the front, another to the side, another to the rear? Even that won't be considered by police. They "don't have the time". However, there is a 3ft legal requirement and a driver must obey laws. Make up your mind. Either they “must obey”, or they can do whatever they want and it “makes no difference”. It's a law and it's not enforced. The usual. But a good law because ever since it was published most drivers obey it. Way more than before. So, a good law. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ You've got more excuses than a company has little liver pills. Perhaps you should trade in the bicycle and buy a suplus armoured car from the military? Cheers |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
More on conspicuity
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:21:47 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2017-03-26 07:51, Doc O'Leary wrote: For your reference, records indicate that Joerg wrote: On 2017-03-25 12:06, Doc O'Leary wrote: Totally a different class of behavior than that of basic visibility and safe distance. Someone threatening you with their vehicle is not simply jerk behavior. It is assault with a deadly weapon. Perhaps even attempted murder. That is something that needs to be escalated each and every time it happens. Get their license plate and file a report with the police. Makes no difference whatsoever. Plus no witness on my side. Doesnt matter. Unless you made the whole damn thing up, *someone endangered your life*. Thats something that needs to be escalated. Police reports allow for further actions, especially if the person in question is a repeat offender. It is foolish to wait until that guy kills someone (and then gets a slap on the wrist because its his first offense on record) before anything gets done. They will not take any action. So what's the point? Heres another radical idea: if you really live in such an awful neighborhood, start recording your rides. In addition to filing police reports with that evidence, post it online so that the world forever knows who these assholes are. A camera to the front, another to the side, another to the rear? Even that won't be considered by police. They "don't have the time". However, there is a 3ft legal requirement and a driver must obey laws. Make up your mind. Either they must obey, or they can do whatever they want and it makes no difference. It's a law and it's not enforced. The usual. But a good law because ever since it was published most drivers obey it. Way more than before. So, a good law. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ You've got more excuses than a company has little liver pills. Perhaps you should trade in the bicycle and buy a suplus armoured car from the military? Cheers I've always wondered whether the DANGER, DANGER, folks actually believe their own rhetoric. After all if bicycling is actually so dangerious it would seem that one must either be either feeble minded or have a death wish if one continues to use such a dangerious means of transportation. Or perhaps riding a bike, being so dangerious, proves how brave and resolute one is. After all, one can no longer go out and joust with dragons in this modern world. Perhaps riding a dangerious two wheel conveyance is the only way left to prove how fearless and resolute one is. -- Cheers, John B. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
More on conspicuity
For your reference, records indicate that
Joerg wrote: They will not take any action. So what's the point? The point is that a police report is evidence that can demonstrate a pattern of behavior. Evidence people can use against the bad guy in the future. Maybe it’s to request a concealed carry permit. Maybe it’s to get a restraining order. Maybe it’s to file a lawsuit against the person, or the city for not taking action. A camera to the front, another to the side, another to the rear? Even that won't be considered by police. They "don't have the time". So? It’s more evidence. If you have it, post it online. Contact the media. Name and shame. At the very least! Grow the **** up and *act* when someone tries to kill you. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Colour combinations for conspicuity | Nick L Plate | UK | 46 | April 13th 09 02:47 AM |