"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <
[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>> You mean you are reduced to name-calling when your dishonesty was
> >>> pointed out: you obviously misrepresented what I had said, turning
> >>> "does not have any slots that could trap a wheel" and "plenty of
> >>> clearance" into "the grate is not a problem due to the angle of the
> >>> slots".
> >>
> >> The grate not being a problem was implied in your statement.
> > Liar - I said you can't trap a wheel in it, judging from what it
> > looked like in the picture, and I *also* said that a bicyclist's
> > nominal path of travel would avoid the grate. That means that you
> > might ride over it if you were momentarily inattentive or had to
> > swerve to avoid some obstacle, etc., but generally would not.
> >
> Even if the assumption of implication was not correct, it would still
> not be a lie. Zaumen must have failed logic, or maybe he learned to
> call everyone a liar from He Who Must Not Be Named.
ROFLMAO. What I said was perfectly clear, and the only thing I said
specifically about the grate is that it couldn't trap a wheel. You
turned that into something quite different. Since this seems to be
the standard mode of operation for you people, I've concluded that
you are reduced to lying - all the evidence indicates that.
> >
> >>>> Well duh, the grate is not where someone would normally ride. So why
> >>>> is the grate in the "bicycle lane"?
> >>> For the same reason that the grate would be in the righ-most lane if
> >>> there were no bike lane. Grates are typically by the curb because
> >>> the roads slope towards the curb to allow water to run along the
> >>> gutter and then down the drain. The design standards (for both bike
> >>> lanes and traffic lanes) allow the users of those lanes to use the
> >>> lanes without riding or driving in the gutter.
> >
> >> Yeah, but in this case avoiding the grate and the joint between the
> >> roadway pavement and the gutter leaves barely enough width for a rider
> >> to stay to the right of the white cyclist apartheid line.
> > Your "yeah" means you were shown to be completely wrong,
> >
> Huh? More illogic from Zaumen.
Reduced to inserting a response midsentence so that people can't see
what I actually said (which follows and which is not "illogic" in any
sense of the word.
> >
> > and 3 feet of
> > asphalt (the minimum the design standards allow) is more than enough
> > room to stay to the right of the stripe while avoiding the gutter.
> >
> If this <http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg> is a normal
> 6 to 8 inch "mountable" (as opposed to barrier) curb, which it appears
> to be, then there is not anywhere near 3 feet of asphaltic concrete
> pavement to the right of the white line.
You don't know what it is from the picture. What *I* said about it is
that the configuration is not a problem *if* it meets the design standards,
which require 3 feet of asphalt between the bike lane stripe and the
gutter pan. This is a discussion about bike lanes in general, so one
should reasonably talk about ones that conform to the design standards.
You can always find some traffic lane or other facility somewhere that
is poorly designed. So what? All you should do is complain to
whoever is responsible and ask for it to be fixed.
> Furthermore, half of the asphaltic concrete to the right of the
> white line appears to be in rather poor condition, and no something
> one would want to ride on for any distance.
Speculation on your part - it was patched, but the picture shows no
indication of cracks or bumps.
> >
> >>>> Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in
> >>>> Silly Cone Valley, eh?
> >>> Most steel meshes are not slippery when wet, and that's what this
> >>> grate is. It is not a solid steel surface with a flat section that
> >>> could hold water on it.
> >> Really? Then why are railroad tracks slippery (even disused ones),
> >> since their upper surface is convex?
> > Barely convex. The grate in question is sharp enough to push into
> > the
> > tires a bit, providing far better support. Try riding over one and
> > see.
(not the lack of a response)
> > A "cut and paste error"? That's simply a lie. The dropped word was
> > in the
> > middle of a sentence. Are you claiming you have a word list of some sort
> > and cut and paste words into your posts rather than typing them?
> >
> Duh! I was using another program as a spell checker, and accidentally
> pasted over a couple of words.
>
> Is "that's a lie" your only argument?
It sounds like you "didn't inhale". Come off it. I've used other
programs for spell checking too, and simply copied *everything* I
wrote into that program, ran the spell checker, and copied it back.
If I had missed something, it wouldn't have been one or two words in
the middle of a sentence. So I think you are making it all up.
> >
> >>>> Only a cyclist hater or ignoramus would create the "bicycle lane" in
> >>>> question, and only Zaumen would defend it.
> >>> Only a fanatic would get as upset about bicycle lanes as you guys do.
> >> Only people like Zaumen are not bothered by Apartheid bicyclist
> >> farcilities (sic).
> > What a fanatic Tom Sherman is! He's totally overreacting.
> >
> No, Zaumen is the bicycle farcility (sic) fanatic.
Liar - you are the person with the obsession. I merely pointed out
that bike lanes that conform to the latest design standards aren't
a problem given the rules in the California Vehicle Code.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
This is the same guy that was yelling for people to TRIM in
