Critical Mass Tunnel F*cks



Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]
>
>> 90% of the time the Bicycle is AT FAULT. 890 0f the 900
>> caused their own deaths! look it up!
>
>=v= If you'd spend some time away from the CAPS LOCK key and
>look things up, you'd find that you've got it backwards. Take
>a look at the reports on this site:
>
>http://www.rightofway.org/

There's a good summary and link to the pdf report here:
http://www.transalt.org/features/goodcyclist.html

Oh, what the heck, I'll paste in some of the summary:

The Only Good Cyclist is an analysis of fatal bicycle
crashes with motor vehicles in New York City. It refutes
police officials' claim that bicyclists, not drivers, are
responsible for most cyclist deaths.

Bicycle fatalities in New York City doubled last year to an
all-time high of 35. When this news hit the media, Mayor
Giuliani reacted with a promise to protect cyclists (and
pedestrians) from dangerous drivers. This promise has proven
empty.

Police officials justify their inaction with the unsupported
claim that "cyclist error" has been the "primary
contributing factor" in three-fourths of recent fatal
bicycle crashes with motor vehicles.

To test this claim, and to better understand how cyclists
are being struck and killed on our streets, Right Of Way
obtained and analyzed police accident reports for 71 fatal
bicycle crashes during 1995-1998 (data for 1999 were not
available). Here are our key findings.

1. Traffic-law violations by motorists are the main cause
of fatal bicyclist accidents in New York City. We were able
to assign responsibility in 53 of the 71 fatal bicycle
crashes during 1995-1998 for which we obtained police crash
reports. We determined that drivers were highly culpable in
30 cases, partly culpable in 11 cases, and not culpable in
12 cases. Driver misconduct was thus the principal cause in
57% (30 out of 53) of the cases and a contributory factor in
78% (30 plus 11, or 41, out of 53).

Thus, although police blame cyclist error for three-fourths
(75%) of cyclist fatalities, in fact, driver error was the
principal cause in 57% of recent fatal bicycle crashes and
at least a contributing cause in 78%.
--
Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]
>
> > **** them off really good and they will form an army and
> > FIGHT YOU.
>
> =v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
> (and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.

By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally purchasing
fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?

Dave
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:47:25 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:

> It's already a war and you scud jockeys started it.
>
> CARS SUCK!


You see!! And I thought this news group would be about Biking in NYC and
finding partners ie: Boring!

I guess I was so wrong...


WATCH OUT FOR THAT KANGAROO!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]
> >
> > > **** them off really good and they will form an army and
> > > FIGHT YOU.
> >
> > =v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
> > (and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.
>
> By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally
purchasing
> fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?
>
> Dave
>


He's gonna blow up all the oil wells like Saddam tried too

so no fuel for:

Airplanes,
trains,
electric power companies,
ships
Food transportation,
Trucks
His SUV

He wants to put us back in the Dark ages with the Mullahs,
 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:08:42 -0500, Jorma Myers wrote:

> 90% of the time the Bicycle is AT FAULT.


ummm

No. Definetely not

ruben
 
"Jorma Myers" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The worthless miserable fux already do with restrictive legislation
>> regulating where they figure we should ride. They proclaim it's for
>> our own safety while it's just to remove bicycles from our roads
>> for the convenience of drivers.
>
> ********, bicycles get wacked by cars and lose, therefore keep all
> bicycles AWAY from cars.

You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate this
fact.

> Has nothing to do with Car drivers, it is how heavy and
> uncontrollable the cars are. Bicycles are much lighter, and more
> manuravable, and more controllable.

So the cars are at fault, then, because they are heavy and poorly
controllable? Since the driver is in fact responsible for the
operation of the car, then it is indeed the driver who is at fault.

>> They kill around 900 cyclists and many times more pedestrians in
>> North America every year. Ninety five percent of cycling deaths
>> worldwide are the result of motor vehicles.
>
> AND they are caused by the Bicyclist making unsafe movements, NOT
> the cars. 90% of the time the Bicycle is AT FAULT. 890 0f the 900
> caused their own deaths! look it up! THAT IS WHY Bicycles CANNOT
> GET INSURANCE.

I have insurance, in several forms. So that statement of yours isn't
true (unless you meant that *bicycles* cannot purchase insurace- which
is true in the same way that cars, toasters and rutabagas cannot
purchase insurance).

In point of fact, 90% of car-bike collisions are not the fault of
cyclists- I don't know where you got that figure but it's not correct.
Certainly some car-bike collisions are the fault of cyclists; some are
the fault of drivers; some are true accidents.

>> The caged scum and their enablers are poisoning you and your
>> children every minute of the day.
>
> You continue to feed on your own poison, anger, which keeps you
> riding unsafely, and blinded to the truth.

Some people don't have much grip on perspective, unfortunately. Zoot
seems to be one of those.
 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:33:32 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

>
> You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
> citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
> roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate this
> fact.

Umm

this is also no.

It's so fun to see you both argue without any comprehension of the facts!


One red-herring after the next! It is so much fun!

Ruben
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
> citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
> roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate this
> fact.
Not true. Some streets and highways do place restrictions on the
type of vehicles that are allowed to operate there.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jorma Myers" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> The worthless miserable fux already do with restrictive legislation
> >> regulating where they figure we should ride. They proclaim it's for
> >> our own safety while it's just to remove bicycles from our roads
> >> for the convenience of drivers.
> >
> > ********, bicycles get wacked by cars and lose, therefore keep all
> > bicycles AWAY from cars.
>
> You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
> citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
> roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate this
> fact.

Roads have been designed for Cars only, not bicycles + Cars. If you look it
up you will find the legal status of bicycles on the road is only that of a
"secondary use", like a pedestrian walking along side in the road, not
equivelent to a Car or Truck at all. The secondary use has very limited
legal recourse in accidents, another reason why insurance companies stay
away from "bicycle insurance" (I do ride a bicycle, and know the law)

>
> > Has nothing to do with Car drivers, it is how heavy and
> > uncontrollable the cars are. Bicycles are much lighter, and more
> > manuravable, and more controllable.
>
> So the cars are at fault, then, because they are heavy and poorly
> controllable? Since the driver is in fact responsible for the
> operation of the car, then it is indeed the driver who is at fault.

No. Bicyclists keed to understand the facts, and realize that as they are
more manuravable, and more controllable, they are held at fault if an
accident happens.


> >> They kill around 900 cyclists and many times more pedestrians in
> >> North America every year. Ninety five percent of cycling deaths
> >> worldwide are the result of motor vehicles.
> >
> > AND they are caused by the Bicyclist making unsafe movements, NOT
> > the cars. 90% of the time the Bicycle is AT FAULT. 890 0f the 900
> > caused their own deaths! look it up! THAT IS WHY Bicycles CANNOT
> > GET INSURANCE.
>
> I have insurance, in several forms. So that statement of yours isn't
> true (unless you meant that *bicycles* cannot purchase insurace- which
> is true in the same way that cars, toasters and rutabagas cannot
> purchase insurance).

You do not have insurance that covers an accident with your bicycle and a
car, unless it is under your Homeowners or your Auto insurance. Insurance
companies stay away from "Bicycle coverage", too risky.


> In point of fact, 90% of car-bike collisions are not the fault of
> cyclists- I don't know where you got that figure but it's not correct.
> Certainly some car-bike collisions are the fault of cyclists; some are
> the fault of drivers; some are true accidents.

Most accidents are caused by over aggressive bicyclists and vehicle drivers
that do not see the bicycle.
Sure there are other cases, but I would not use them solely as an excuse to
blame all cars as evil.
 
Steven M. O'Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There's a good summary and link to the pdf report here:
> http://www.transalt.org/features/goodcyclist.html
>
> Oh, what the heck, I'll paste in some of the summary:
>
> The Only Good Cyclist is an analysis of fatal bicycle
> crashes with motor vehicles in New York City. It refutes
> police officials' claim that bicyclists, not drivers, are
> responsible for most cyclist deaths.
>
> Bicycle fatalities in New York City doubled last year to an
> all-time high of 35. When this news hit the media, Mayor
> Giuliani reacted with a promise to protect cyclists (and
> pedestrians) from dangerous drivers. This promise has proven
> empty.
>
> Police officials justify their inaction with the unsupported
> claim that "cyclist error" has been the "primary
> contributing factor" in three-fourths of recent fatal
> bicycle crashes with motor vehicles.
>
> To test this claim, and to better understand how cyclists
> are being struck and killed on our streets, Right Of Way
> obtained and analyzed police accident reports for 71 fatal
> bicycle crashes during 1995-1998 (data for 1999 were not
> available). Here are our key findings.
>
> 1. Traffic-law violations by motorists are the main cause
> of fatal bicyclist accidents in New York City. We were able
> to assign responsibility in 53 of the 71 fatal bicycle
> crashes during 1995-1998 for which we obtained police crash
> reports. We determined that drivers were highly culpable in
> 30 cases, partly culpable in 11 cases, and not culpable in
> 12 cases. Driver misconduct was thus the principal cause in
> 57% (30 out of 53) of the cases and a contributory factor in
> 78% (30 plus 11, or 41, out of 53).
>
> Thus, although police blame cyclist error for three-fourths
> (75%) of cyclist fatalities, in fact, driver error was the
> principal cause in 57% of recent fatal bicycle crashes and
> at least a contributing cause in 78%.
> --
> Steven O'Neill [email protected]


Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which is obviously
biased and came out with a result they wanted.

Even so, the percentage of accidents caused by bicyclists is somewhere in
between 60% to 75%.

Which is 2/3 to 3/4 caused by Bicyclists.
 
Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:21:19 -0400, "tcmedara"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> taim <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Typical. You do not seem to understand that pissing people off
>>>>> turns them against your cause, not towards it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Do you have any sense whatsoever of taking your own advice?
>>>
>>> Japan did that at Pearl Harbor, USA use that tactic in Iraq, Waco,
>>> many other places.
>>>
>>> **** them off really good and they will form an army and FIGHT YOU.
>>
>> Waco??? Yeah, those Branch Dividians are a force to be reckoned
>> with.
>>
>> Hehehe
>
> That's right. They only killed about four federal agents, I
> believe.
>
>
>
>
> Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, Bonjour.
>
I think you missed my point. Perhaps I should have said they are *no
longer* a force to be reckoned with -- ****** off or otherwise. Right or
wrong, Janet Reno put a stop to that business. I guess the real lession is
that if you're going to ******** your enemy, you better finish the job. I'm
thinking CM might have quite a task on their hands there. By almost any
measure, the car-driving public is going to come out on top in a direct
confrontation.

Tom
 
"Jorma Myers" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> Roads have been designed for Cars only, not bicycles + Cars. If you look
it
> up you will find the legal status of bicycles on the road is only that of
a
> "secondary use", like a pedestrian walking along side in the road, not
> equivelent to a Car or Truck at all. The secondary use has very limited
> legal recourse in accidents, another reason why insurance companies stay
> away from "bicycle insurance" (I do ride a bicycle, and know the law)

And if you actually looked, you'd find you are quite wrong.
Usually, the wording is something along the lines as "...has the same rights
and responsibilities as..."

Just a sampling of US laws

[Virginia]
§ 46.2-100. Definitions.
"Bicycle" means a device propelled solely by human power, upon which a
person may ride either on or astride a regular seat attached thereto, having
two or more wheels in tandem, including children's bicycles, except a toy
vehicle intended for use by young children. For purposes of Chapter 8 (§
46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a vehicle while operated
on the highway.

§ 46.2-800
Every person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device,
electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, or an animal or driving an animal on
a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and shall have
all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, unless
the context of the provision clearly indicates otherwise.

[West Virginia]
§17C-11-2. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the
rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of
a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article
and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can
have no application.


[Wyoming]
W.S. 31-5-702. General rights and duties of riders.
Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle has all
of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any vehicle
under this act, except as to special regulations in this act and except as
to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. (Laws
1955, ch 225, § 74; C.S. 1945, § 60-674; W.S. 1957, § 31-164; Laws 1984, ch.
48, § 1.)


[Mississippi]
SEC. 63-3-207. Applicability of chapter to persons riding bicycles or
animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles.
Every person riding a bicycle or an animal or driving any animal drawing a
vehicle upon a highway shall have all of the rights and all of the duties
applicable to the driver of a vehicle under this chapter, except those
provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

[New York]
ARTICLE 34S 1231. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or
skating or
gliding on in-line skates. Every person riding a bicycle or skating or
gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the
rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driv-
er of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this
article and except as to those provisions of this title which by their
nature can have no application.Pete
Do some bike riders break the laws and ride like asshats? Sure. Same as some
motorists.
 
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:33:32 -0500, <[email protected]>,
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Some people don't have much grip on perspective, unfortunately. Zoot
>seems to be one of those.

I'm unabashedly a semi-rabid car basher. I don't buy into car-culture
and ended up hating every cage I've owned since 1970. I much prefer
motorcycles or bicycles for my personal transportation.

Most cars could be replaced by bungee powered golf carts for the
typical service they perform. ie. trips less than five miles with the
majority of those being under two miles.
I think it's car drivers who have lost their perspective.
--
zk
 
Ruben Safir <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:33:32 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>>
>> You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
>> citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
>> roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate
>> this fact.
>
> Umm
>
> this is also no.
>
> It's so fun to see you both argue without any comprehension of the
> facts!

And your perception of the "facts" is what, sir?

> One red-herring after the next! It is so much fun!

Glad we can amuse.
 
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
>> citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
>> roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate
>> this fact.
>
> Not true. Some streets and highways do place restrictions on the
> type of vehicles that are allowed to operate there.

Indeed some streets are restricted, for example, from truck usage.
But that wouldn't apply to bicycles, of course, as they are not
trucks. Bicycles are not permitted on restricted access highways,
such as the Interstate system, but even then there are exceptions to
this. Otherwise, bicycles are vehicles under the law and have the
same rights of access as other vehicles- although I will grant you
that there are some streets it is not very smart to ride.
 
"Jorma Myers" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Jorma Myers" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> The worthless miserable fux already do with restrictive
>> >> legislation regulating where they figure we should ride. They
>> >> proclaim it's for our own safety while it's just to remove
>> >> bicycles from our roads for the convenience of drivers.
>> >
>> > ********, bicycles get wacked by cars and lose, therefore keep
>> > all bicycles AWAY from cars.
>>
>> You don't ride a bike, eh? Let's make this simple: bicyclists are
>> citizens and taxpayers, and have the same rights of access to the
>> roadways as anyone in a car. Folks in cars have to accommodate
>> this fact.
>
> Roads have been designed for Cars only, not bicycles + Cars.

This is a quasi-true statement. Road designs prior to the enactment
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act frequently
left bicycles out of the design parameters. Since the passage of
ISTEA and subsequently TEA-21, road designs are required to take
cyclists and other nonmotorized users into account. The NEXTEA
reauthorization should continue this. Wide paved shoulders, striped
lanes, parallel alternative routes, etc. are all options. Some parts
of the country have had better compliance with this than other parts.
Here in Minneapolis/St. Paul MN, for example, cycling in town is much
easier than where I grew up (DuPage County IL), due to the aggressive
capture of ISTEA and TEA-21 funding for cycling facilities with new
road construction and old road upgrades.

> If you look it up you will find the legal status of bicycles on the
> road is only that of a "secondary use", like a pedestrian walking
> along side in the road, not equivelent to a Car or Truck at all.
> The secondary use has very limited legal recourse in accidents,
> another reason why insurance companies stay away from "bicycle
> insurance" (I do ride a bicycle, and know the law)

You, at best, have only a partial knowledge of the law- and only for
your state or province, for that matter.

>> > Has nothing to do with Car drivers, it is how heavy and
>> > uncontrollable the cars are. Bicycles are much lighter, and more
>> > manuravable, and more controllable.
>>
>> So the cars are at fault, then, because they are heavy and poorly
>> controllable? Since the driver is in fact responsible for the
>> operation of the car, then it is indeed the driver who is at fault.
>
> No. Bicyclists keed to understand the facts, and realize that as
> they are more manuravable, and more controllable, they are held at
> fault if an accident happens.

And yet this is not in fact the case. Fault is determined exactly the
same whether one of the persons involved was on a bicycle or not. The
law does not permit assigning blame to the cyclist simply because a
car is an elephantine mass of steel that was incompetently controlled
by its operator. Whichever operator broke the law is at fault,
whether it's the cyclist or the driver. I've seen multiple incidents
which resulted in the driver being charged, not the cyclist. Drivers
like to blame the other guy, whether the other guy is driving a car,
on a bike, or riding a pig with wings down the road.

>> >> They kill around 900 cyclists and many times more pedestrians in
>> >> North America every year. Ninety five percent of cycling deaths
>> >> worldwide are the result of motor vehicles.
>> >
>> > AND they are caused by the Bicyclist making unsafe movements, NOT
>> > the cars. 90% of the time the Bicycle is AT FAULT. 890 0f the
>> > 900 caused their own deaths! look it up! THAT IS WHY Bicycles
>> > CANNOT GET INSURANCE.
>>
>> I have insurance, in several forms. So that statement of yours
>> isn't true (unless you meant that *bicycles* cannot purchase
>> insurace- which is true in the same way that cars, toasters and
>> rutabagas cannot purchase insurance).
>
> You do not have insurance that covers an accident with your bicycle
> and a car, unless it is under your Homeowners or your Auto
> insurance. Insurance companies stay away from "Bicycle coverage",
> too risky.

That's correct, both my auto coverage and my homeowner's coverage, as
well as my umbrella liability policy, cover accidents I might be
involved in while operating my bicycle. I have had no trouble
whatsoever buying insurance that covers me while cycling- explicitly
covers me as a matter of fact. So, again, your assertion was false.

The reason that insurance companies do not offer specific bicycle
insurance is (1) there is no perceived need sicne cyclists are coverd
under other insurance policies and (2) there is no market. Indeed, if
auto insurance wasn't required by law, many if not most drivers would
not pay for it.

>> In point of fact, 90% of car-bike collisions are not the fault of
>> cyclists- I don't know where you got that figure but it's not
>> correct. Certainly some car-bike collisions are the fault of
>> cyclists; some are the fault of drivers; some are true accidents.
>
> Most accidents are caused by over aggressive bicyclists and vehicle
> drivers that do not see the bicycle.

Malarkey. People who have had time to roll down the window and throw
a beer can at me have definitely seen me. ;-) I find drivers to be
far more aggressive than cyclists in almost every situation. It's the
driver's job to be looking- if they can see the stripes on the road,
they can see me: I am almost 7 feet tall when I'm sitting up on a bike
and usually look like a 215 lb canary. I'm taller than a lot of cars.
If they can't see me, their vision is so poor that they should not be
driving in the first place. Or they should hang up the damned cell
phone and put down the latte.

> Sure there are other cases, but I would not use them solely as an
> excuse to blame all cars as evil.

I am not doing so. In fact, I think that bicyclists should be held to
the same standards of vehicle operation as all other road users,
including stopping for stop signs, illegal lane changes, etc. For
such enforcement to be viable, however, drivers would be required to
share the road. A small but significant minority of drivers are
unwilling to do so.
 
"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > = Jorma Myers
>
> > Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which
> > is obviously biased and came out with a result they wanted.
>
> =x= Their techniques and data are right there for all to see.
> As are the many consistently inaccurate (and, understandably,
> completely unsupported) assertions made in the last week of
> Usenet posts from Jorma Myers.
> <_Jym_>
>

60% to 75% caused by bicyclists is much higher than I expected, I thought
it was more like 20%,
No wonder the cops have a bias.
 
"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > = Ken [NY)
>
> > What does this discussion have to do with bicycles?
> > Off topic!
>
> =x= Here's a guy who fills bicycle newsgroups with babble
> about Branch Davidians and Islam, but can't seem to figure
> out that Critical Mass and using less oil has anything to
> do with bicycles.
> <_Jym_>


Jym wants to put us back in the Dark ages with the Mullahs.......
No cars, no electricity, everybody in Turbans on bicycles,

> > =v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
> > (and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.
>
> By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally
purchasing fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?
>
> Dave
>


He's gonna blow up all the oil wells like Saddam tried too

so no fuel for:

Airplanes,
trains,
electric power companies,
ships
Food transportation,
Trucks
His SUV

He wants to put us back in the Dark ages with the Mullahs,
 
Snukey wrote:

>"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>[I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>**** them off really good and they will form an army and
>>>>FIGHT YOU.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>=v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
>>>(and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.
>>>
>>>
>>By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally
>>
>>
>purchasing
>
>
>>fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>He's gonna blow up all the oil wells like Saddam tried too
>
>so no fuel for:
>
>Airplanes,
>trains,
>electric power companies,
>ships
>Food transportation,
>Trucks
>His SUV
>
>He wants to put us back in the Dark ages with the Mullahs,
>
>
>

Regardless, we're gonna have some pretty wars in the near future over oil.

If you're between the ages of 18 and 36, have you enlisted? If you have
family members in that age range, have you helped them enlist? If not,
why not? Do you believe in terrorism, do you hate the American way of
life? The only way gas is going to get cheaper is if we support our
military and take the world's oil by force. Get out there and fight if
you don't hate America.

Jack Dingler
 
"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > = Ken [NY)
>
> > What does this discussion have to do with bicycles?
> > Off topic!
>
> =x= Here's a guy who fills bicycle newsgroups with babble
> about Branch Davidians and Islam, but can't seem to figure
> out that Critical Mass and using less oil has anything to
> do with bicycles.
> <_Jym_>

OK, to keep it on topic: How do you and/or Critical Mass plan to prevent
people from legally purchasing fuel for their vehicles?

This is what you meant when you said, " No, "**** them off" doesn't do it.
Keeping oil addicts (and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.",
isn't it?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back