Re: Do dead cyclists go to Heaven or Hell?

Bill Z.

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> writes:

> In article <87ve6bvgmv.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net says...
> > Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:
> >
> > > donquijote1954 schrieb:
> > >
> > > >> Btw, the road _does_ look nice!
> > > >
> > > > The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
> > > > looking for bikes.
> > >
> > > Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.
> > >
> > > (I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)
> >
> > Bikes aren't vehicles in Calfornia and many other states. In
> > California, bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities
> > as the operator of a vehicle when a bicycle is operated on a
> > roadway.
> >
> > This sounds like quibbling, but there are rules in the vehicle
> > code that apply when a vehicle is not being driven on a highway,
> > and some of those may not be appropriate for bicycles. So,
> > either you make bicycles vehicles and put in a lot of exceptions
> > or you do not make bicycles vehicles but give bicyclists all the
> > rights and responsibilities that the driver of a vehicle has.
> > Either way, the outcome is more or less the same. It's just a
> > question of what approach is easier (given, for example, previously
> > laws).
>
> In RI, a bicycle is a vehicle, but not a *motor* vehicle...

The phrase "many states" does not mean "all states". BTW, California
distinguishes between vehicles and motor vehicles as well.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Amy Blankenship

Whatever the law says, if it isn't enforced it ain't no good.

The Constitution held that "all men are created equal," but no one
went about destroying slavery for 100 years.
-------
I think that's the Declaration of Independence

Ekul Namsob

Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) writes:
>
> > Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > > Jack, you are not only clueless, but you can't read! The "twisty streets"
> > > was a description of the typical U.S. suburban structure, in which
> > > developers create "pods" of twisty streets with only a few attachment
> > > points to arterials or expressways, etc. Asthetics (or the lack thereof)
> > > aside, one goal it to make the pod so confusing that hardly anyone tries
> > > to drive through it to get around the gridlock on the arterials.
> >
> > I would imagine that the rise of SatNav may well kill off this sort of
> > silliness.
>
> Probably not - to simplify the search for a route, they probably stick
> to arterials, freeways, and expressways (or similar roads) until near
> a destination.

Mine only does that if those roads are the most useful for the journey.
>
> > > > > Also, your link doesn't work for some reason (various error messages).
> > > >
> > > > It worked on my computer when I tested it.
> > >
> > > That's nice, but it doesn't work on mine. The URL had 'ie=...' in it.
> > > If 'ie' means Internet Exploder, it is quite possible that your link
> > > was one where Google expected the user to be running a specific web
> > > browser. Google claims its maps work with my browser, and when I use
> > > it directly, everthing works.
> >
> > It worked perfectly well here using Camino on Mac OS X. Indeed, it looks
> > like a standard Google Maps permalink. What do the links look like to
> > you?
>
> I got an error message about my browser not being supported and no
> image. Turning on javascript and cookies didn't help, nor did
> clearing the cache or following any of the other "what to do if there
> is a problem" hints. I'm not running Windows and not running Mac OS
> X, so it is not surprising that we see different things.

Hence the question I asked and to which you didn't reply.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Bill Z.

notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) writes:

> Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > I would imagine that the rise of SatNav may well kill off this sort of
> > > silliness.
> >
> > Probably not - to simplify the search for a route, they probably stick
> > to arterials, freeways, and expressways (or similar roads) until near
> > a destination.
>
> Mine only does that if those roads are the most useful for the journey.

You'd have no way of knowing - I was referring to cutting through
neighborhoods, which is nearly always slower unless the arterials
are congested. If you are going short distances (a couple of miles),
they probably search all available streets, which would account for
your perception.

> > > It worked perfectly well here using Camino on Mac OS X. Indeed, it looks
> > > like a standard Google Maps permalink. What do the links look like to
> > > you?
> >
> > I got an error message about my browser not being supported and no
> > image. Turning on javascript and cookies didn't help, nor did
> > clearing the cache or following any of the other "what to do if there
> > is a problem" hints. I'm not running Windows and not running Mac OS
> > X, so it is not surprising that we see different things.
>
> Hence the question I asked and to which you didn't reply.

??? There was an error message and a search box. What links are you
talking about? The one Jack gave didn't work for my browser/OS
combination, for whatever reason.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 4, 11:07Â*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> writes:
> > > In article <87ve6bvgmv....@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> > > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net says...
> > > > Jens Müller <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> writes:
> >
> > > > > donquijote1954 schrieb:
> >
> > > > > >> Btw, the road _does_ look nice!
> >
> > > > > > The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
> > > > > > looking for bikes.
> >
> > > > > Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.
> >
> > > > > (I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)
> >
> > > > Bikes aren't vehicles in Calfornia and many other states. Â*In
> > > > California, bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities
> > > > as the operator of a vehicle when a bicycle is operated on a
> > > > roadway.
> >
> > > > This sounds like quibbling, but there are rules in the vehicle
> > > > code that apply when a vehicle is not being driven on a highway,
> > > > and some of those may not be appropriate for bicycles. Â*So,
> > > > either you make bicycles vehicles and put in a lot of exceptions
> > > > or you do not make bicycles vehicles but give bicyclists all the
> > > > rights and responsibilities that the driver of a vehicle has.
> > > > Either way, the outcome is more or less the same. Â*It's just a
> > > > question of what approach is easier (given, for example, previously
> > > > laws).
> >
> > > In RI, a bicycle is a vehicle, but not a *motor* vehicle...
> >
> > The phrase "many states" does not mean "all states". Â*BTW, California
> > distinguishes between vehicles and motor vehicles as well.
>
> Whatever the law says, if it isn't enforced it ain't no good.

Where did that non-sequitur come from?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Ekul Namsob

Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) writes:
>
> > Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > I would imagine that the rise of SatNav may well kill off this sort of
> > > > silliness.
> > >
> > > Probably not - to simplify the search for a route, they probably stick
> > > to arterials, freeways, and expressways (or similar roads) until near
> > > a destination.
> >
> > Mine only does that if those roads are the most useful for the journey.
>
> You'd have no way of knowing - I was referring to cutting through
> neighborhoods, which is nearly always slower unless the arterials
> are congested.

That would be why most SatNavs avoid such roads.

> If you are going short distances (a couple of miles),
> they probably search all available streets, which would account for
> your perception.
>
> > > > It worked perfectly well here using Camino on Mac OS X. Indeed, it looks
> > > > like a standard Google Maps permalink. What do the links look like to
> > > > you?
> > >
> > > I got an error message about my browser not being supported and no
> > > image. Turning on javascript and cookies didn't help, nor did
> > > clearing the cache or following any of the other "what to do if there
> > > is a problem" hints. I'm not running Windows and not running Mac OS
> > > X, so it is not surprising that we see different things.
> >
> > Hence the question I asked and to which you didn't reply.
>
> ??? There was an error message and a search box. What links are you
> talking about? The one Jack gave didn't work for my browser/OS
> combination, for whatever reason.

Go to <http://maps.google.com/>. On the right hand side above the map,
you will see a link marked "Link to this page". What is that link?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Stephen Harding

donquijote1954 wrote:

>>There are rude motorists all over the world. I don't know that
>>Rt 1 over the Keys has any special high concentration of them
>>though.
>
> In that adventure guide you have, "riding a bike on the road" is
> listed next to "swimming with the sharks"? Just curious.

Adventure Cycling is a well known group of bicycling
enthusiasts that promotes bicycle touring. They have a very
large number of "routes" with bike-centric routes along with
camping, eating, motel and bike repair facilities along the
way.

A great organization that is trying to promote bike touring
rather than kill them off with inappropriate bike riding
road routes.

The road can be a dangerous place that is for certain. But
I don't think it's the jungle that you portray it as. Most
motorists are not homicidal in nature towards bicyclists in
my experience. They largely don't have a problem sharing
the road with slow, two wheeled, human powered vehicles.

No doubt I could be squished by a car next week on my
commute to work, but you might slip in the bathtub and your
bicycling on roads in America fears will be at an end!


SMH

Bill Z.

notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) writes:

> Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) writes:
> >
> > > Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I would imagine that the rise of SatNav may well kill off this sort of
> > > > > silliness.
> > > >
> > > > Probably not - to simplify the search for a route, they probably stick
> > > > to arterials, freeways, and expressways (or similar roads) until near
> > > > a destination.
> > >
> > > Mine only does that if those roads are the most useful for the journey.
> >
> > You'd have no way of knowing - I was referring to cutting through
> > neighborhoods, which is nearly always slower unless the arterials
> > are congested.
>
> That would be why most SatNavs avoid such roads.

Except, of course, that those roads are not slower when the arterials
are congested, but your navigation system does not know about traffic
congestion at the time you are driving.

> > >
> > > Hence the question I asked and to which you didn't reply.
> >
> > ??? There was an error message and a search box. What links are you
> > talking about? The one Jack gave didn't work for my browser/OS
> > combination, for whatever reason.
>
> Go to <http://maps.google.com/>. On the right hand side above the map,
> you will see a link marked "Link to this page". What is that link?
>

What good will that do? It has nothing to do with Jack's URL and the
page I got did not show any map. With no map, there is not going to
be anything above the map. When I use google maps on my own, it
works.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 4, 12:45Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > The phrase "many states" does not mean "all states". Â*BTW, California
> > > > distinguishes between vehicles and motor vehicles as well.
> >
> > > Whatever the law says, if it isn't enforced it ain't no good.
> >
> > Where did that non-sequitur come from? Â*
>
> What relevance it has that bicycles are vehicles or not, if it doesn't
> make any difference in practical terms? Cyclists stay away from roads
> because they ain't safe. WE NEED TO MAKE OUR ROADS SAFE FOR ALL.
>
> Pretty declarations are not enough...

Sigh. What I was trying to explain to you was the the distinction
between whether bicycles are vehicles or whether they have all the
rights and responsibilities of the drivers of vehicles is more or
less a purely technical, and the choice is what makes the vehicle
code easiest to manage when it gets updated.

I'll give you an example. The California Vehicle Code contains the
following section:

21758. In the event any vehicle is being operated on any
grade outside of a business or residence district at a speed
of less than 20 miles per hour, no person operating any other
motor vehicle shall attempt to overtake and pass such slow
moving vehicle unless the overtaking vehicle is operated at a
speed of at least 10 miles per hour in excess of the speed of
the overtaken vehicle, nor unless the passing movement is
completed within a total distance not greater than one-quarter
of a mile.

Now, suppose you have a bicycle (let's make it a low-powered electric
bicycle) going up a grade a 10mph on a shoulder, and that traffic is
so heavy that cars are traveling at 15 mph. If bicycles were
vehicles, Section 21758 would make it illegal for a motor vehicle to
pass the bicycle. even though it could be done safely.

Now, when you write something like Section 21758, do you want to have
to explicitly list bicycles and who knows what else in a series of
exceptions? It simply becomes awkward and unreadable if you do that.

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 4, 3:48Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > I'll give you an example. The California Vehicle Code contains the
> > following section:
> >
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* 21758. Â*In the event any vehicle is being operated on any
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* grade outside of a business or residence district at a speed
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* of less than 20 miles per hour, no person operating any other
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* motor vehicle shall attempt to overtake and pass such slow
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* moving vehicle unless the overtaking vehicle is operated at a
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* speed of at least 10 miles per hour in excess of the speed of
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* the overtaken vehicle, nor unless the passing movement is
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* completed within a total distance not greater than one-quarter
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* of a mile.
> >
> > Now, suppose you have a bicycle (let's make it a low-powered electric
> > bicycle) going up a grade a 10mph on a shoulder, and that traffic is
> > so heavy that cars are traveling at 15 mph. Â*If bicycles were
> > vehicles, Section 21758 would make it illegal for a motor vehicle to
> > pass the bicycle. even though it could be done safely.
> >
> > Now, when you write something like Section 21758, do you want to have
> > to explicitly list bicycles and who knows what else in a series of
> > exceptions? Â*It simply becomes awkward and unreadable if you do that.
>
> OK, I understand your point too. But how should it read so that people
> understand that the bicycles have "special needs" if not priority?
>
> "Whenever there's a bicycle present anywhere in the right lane, you
> must clear the lane in order to pass. Any infraction would result in
> the speed camera issuing a ticket... And it's not a lottery ticket."

Talk to your elected representative if you want the law changed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jens Müller

Bill Z. schrieb:

> I'll give you an example. The California Vehicle Code contains the
> following section:
>
> 21758. In the event any vehicle is being operated on any
> grade outside of a business or residence district at a speed
> of less than 20 miles per hour, no person operating any other
> motor vehicle shall attempt to overtake and pass such slow
> moving vehicle unless the overtaking vehicle is operated at a
> speed of at least 10 miles per hour in excess of the speed of
> the overtaken vehicle, nor unless the passing movement is
> completed within a total distance not greater than one-quarter
> of a mile.
>
> Now, suppose you have a bicycle (let's make it a low-powered electric
> bicycle) going up a grade a 10mph on a shoulder, and that traffic is
> so heavy that cars are traveling at 15 mph. If bicycles were
> vehicles, Section 21758 would make it illegal for a motor vehicle to
> pass the bicycle. even though it could be done safely.
>
> Now, when you write something like Section 21758, do you want to have
> to explicitly list bicycles and who knows what else in a series of
> exceptions? It simply becomes awkward and unreadable if you do that.

Why do they write such details into the law at all? It becomes
unmaintainable ...

I thoght the US had a case law system?

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 4, 5:35Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Whenever there's a bicycle present anywhere in the right lane, you
> > > must clear the lane in order to pass. Any infraction would result in
> > > the speed camera issuing a ticket... And it's not a lottery ticket."
> >
> > Talk to your elected representative if you want the law changed.
>
> When I started my struggle over 15 years ago, I was naive enough to
> think they were looking for solutions. Now I know they are hiding from
> them...

If that's your "struggle", get some professional help.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:

> Bill Z. schrieb:
>
> > I'll give you an example. The California Vehicle Code contains the
> > following section:
> >
> > 21758. In the event any vehicle is being operated on any
> > grade outside of a business or residence district at a speed
> > of less than 20 miles per hour, no person operating any other
> > motor vehicle shall attempt to overtake and pass such slow
> > moving vehicle unless the overtaking vehicle is operated at a
> > speed of at least 10 miles per hour in excess of the speed of
> > the overtaken vehicle, nor unless the passing movement is
> > completed within a total distance not greater than one-quarter
> > of a mile.
> >
> > Now, suppose you have a bicycle (let's make it a low-powered electric
> > bicycle) going up a grade a 10mph on a shoulder, and that traffic is
> > so heavy that cars are traveling at 15 mph. If bicycles were
> > vehicles, Section 21758 would make it illegal for a motor vehicle to
> > pass the bicycle. even though it could be done safely.
> >
> > Now, when you write something like Section 21758, do you want to have
> > to explicitly list bicycles and who knows what else in a series of
> > exceptions? It simply becomes awkward and unreadable if you do that.
>
> Why do they write such details into the law at all? It becomes
> unmaintainable ...

Welcome to America. :-)


> I thoght the US had a case law system?

.... the laws are written by lawyers (which is what most of our
elected representatives are).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

Ron Wallenfang <rwallenfang@wi.rr.com> writes:

> On Jan 4, 7:09 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Jens Müller <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> writes:
> >
> >
> > >o
> > > I thoght the US had a case law system?
> >
> > ... the laws are written by lawyers (which is what most of our
> > elected representatives are).
> >
>
> Laws are mostly written by legislative reference bureaus - staffed by
> lawyers and others - whose job is to take a legislator's idea, work
> with it and with the legislator, and send back specific language for
> consideration by the legislative body, which, if all goes well,
> carries out the legislator's intent, identifies and solves unseen
> problems, integrates with other laws, and generally puts the whole
> thing in comprehensive and coherent language. Oftentimes, all doesn't
> go well.

.... which is a very long winded way of saying what I did in a much
shorter sentence (and keep in mind that the guy I replied to was
probably not interested in details).

<snip>


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB