Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

[Tom Sherman]

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
>> that cyclists can be confined to.
>
> So when you unpaint the lanes, they'll invite the cyclists into their newly widened domain with open arms.
>
> Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes.
>
Yes, if one is going to spend money on "cycling facilities", an extra
wide lane with "sharrows" is the way to go.

> Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious. But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.
>
I go out of my way to avoid roads with painted bicycle lanes and/or
parallel paths.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Jens Müller]

Dan Connelly schrieb:

> Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes. Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious.

That's why German road building guidelines and administrative
regulations discourage stripes in the middle of the carriageway (to
separate bidirectional traffic) ("Leitlinien") on inner-city roads with
only one lane per direction. They are _forbidden_ in 30 km/h zones.

> But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes.

Cyclicts or "also-cyclists" ("I'm also a cyclist, sometimes." [i.e.,
almost never]?

> If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.

The safest would be lots of cyclists on the carriageway, i.e. the normal
lanes for vehicles.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
>
> "But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible."

I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
bike lanes.

I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
idea.

I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
there are problems with separate bike lanes."

He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
"Well, understand, this is just an example..."

To a certain degree, this is a matter of education. Public ignorance
regarding an issue is a bad reason for acceding to public desires.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not
> >> just Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the
> >> rec.bicycles.misc newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to
> >> ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of interest primarily to those in Northern
> >> California and likely familiar with Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut
> >> Tom a bit of slack.
> > I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
> > previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
> > a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
> > think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
> > situations.
> >
> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
> controlled access freeways).

The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
"mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
road".

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Jens Müller <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>> one's
> >>> vehicle's mass.
> >> And under California street law?
> > What's that?
> >
> Street law is what happens in real life.

You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

> It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
> truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
> cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
> same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
> them like a bug underfoot.

That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.

The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of way
and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> >>>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> >>>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> >>>>> engineering matter....
> >>>> >
> >>>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
> >>>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
> >>>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
> >>>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
> >>>> space.
> >>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>> one's
> >>> vehicle's mass.
> >>>
> >> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
> >> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
> >> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> >> and immediate.
> > See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> > a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
> >
> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?

Accidents can have witnesses.
>
> Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
> SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.
>
> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.

Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
bus driver was not at fault.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >>>>>
> >>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
> >>>> driven (pun intended) by emotion. > >>> Actually, you really
> >>>> had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I > >>> recall. Am
> >>>> I confusing you with someone else?
> >> >
> >> That possibility does exist.
> > So it was you as I remembered.
> >
> That response is illogical.

No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English would
refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".

> >>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
> >>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
> >>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
> >>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
> >>> relevant.
> >>>
> >> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
> > If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
> > subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
> >
> Done.

??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not
>>>> just Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the
>>>> rec.bicycles.misc newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to
>>>> ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of interest primarily to those in Northern
>>>> California and likely familiar with Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut
>>>> Tom a bit of slack.
>>> I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
>>> previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
>>> a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
>>> think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
>>> situations.
>> >
>> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
>> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
>> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
>> controlled access freeways).
>
> The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
> "mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
> your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
> on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
> getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
> road".
>
Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
>>>>>> driven (pun intended) by emotion. > >>> Actually, you really
>>>>>> had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I > >>> recall. Am
>>>>>> I confusing you with someone else?
>>>> >
>>>> That possibility does exist.
>>> So it was you as I remembered.
>> >
>> That response is illogical.
>
> No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English would
> refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
> someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".
>
Logically, my response should be taken as it is indeed possible that
Bill Zaumen was confusing me with someone else.

>>>>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
>>>>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
>>>>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
>>>>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
>>> If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
>>> subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
>>>
>> Done.
>
> ??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.
>
So?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Jens Müller <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>> one's
>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>> And under California street law?
>>> What's that?
>>>
>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>
> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>
No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle" or
"other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".

>> It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
>> truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
>> cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
>> same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
>> them like a bug underfoot.
>
> That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
> when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
> level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
> train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
> realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.
>
> The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of way
> and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
> clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
> cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?
>
That is due to poor processing of relative closing speeds.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
>>>>>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
>>>>>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
>>>>>>> engineering matter....
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
>>>>>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
>>>>>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
>>>>>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
>>>>>> space.
>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>> one's
>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>
>>>> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
>>>> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
>>>> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>> and immediate.
>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>
>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>
> Accidents can have witnesses.
>
And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.

>> Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
>> SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.
>>
>> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
>> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
>
> Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
> bus driver was not at fault.
>
No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> >
> >> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
> >> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
> >> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
> >> controlled access freeways).
> > The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
> > "mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
> > your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
> > on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
> > getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
> > road".
> >
> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".

Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
<http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).

Since drivers spend most of their time between intersections and
relatively little time changing lanes or otherwise turning, it isn't
surprising that speeding is well represented in the traffic-citation
statistics, but it is not by a long shot the only thing for which
citations are written.

If you think they know the "rules of the road" and ignore them
anyway, then your proposal for frequent testing regarding the
"rules of the road" would be rather pointless.

There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
continually get all the facts wrong.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Jens Müller <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> >>>>> one's
> >>>>> vehicle's mass.
> >>>> And under California street law?
> >>> What's that?
> >>>
> >> Street law is what happens in real life.
> > You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
> >
> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".

You can't be serious.


> >> It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
> >> truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
> >> cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
> >> same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
> >> them like a bug underfoot.
> > That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
> > when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
> > level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
> > train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
> > realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.
> > The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of
> > way
> > and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
> > clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
> > cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?
> >
> That is due to poor processing of relative closing speeds.

Nope.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> >>>> and immediate.
> >>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
> >>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
> >>>
> >> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
> > Accidents can have witnesses.
> >
> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.

Conspiracy theory.

> >> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
> >> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
> > Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which
> > the
> > bus driver was not at fault.
> >
> No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
> bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.

Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
> >>>>>> driven (pun intended) by emotion. > >>> Actually, you really
> >>>>>> had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I > >>> recall. Am
> >>>>>> I confusing you with someone else?
> >>>> >
> >>>> That possibility does exist.
> >>> So it was you as I remembered.
> >> >
> >> That response is illogical.
> > No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English
> > would
> > refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
> > someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".
> >
> Logically, my response should be taken as it is indeed possible that
> Bill Zaumen was confusing me with someone else.
>
> >>>>> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
> >>>>> however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
> >>>>> on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
> >>>>> location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
> >>>>> relevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
> >>> If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
> >>> subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.
> >>>
> >> Done.
> > ??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.
> >
> So?

So why did you bother posting anything if you had nothing to say?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
>>>> the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
>>>> matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
>>>> controlled access freeways).
>>> The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
>>> "mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
>>> your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
>>> on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
>>> getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
>>> road".
>>>
>> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
>> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
>> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
>
> Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
> besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
> <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
> a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
> government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
> of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
> citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
> non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
> moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
>
How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals for
speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is Florida
representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do not tell
the whole story.

> Since drivers spend most of their time between intersections and
> relatively little time changing lanes or otherwise turning, it isn't
> surprising that speeding is well represented in the traffic-citation
> statistics, but it is not by a long shot the only thing for which
> citations are written.
>
> If you think they know the "rules of the road" and ignore them
> anyway, then your proposal for frequent testing regarding the
> "rules of the road" would be rather pointless.
>
> There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
> continually get all the facts wrong.
>
Which facts?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Jens Müller <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>
>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>
>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>
> You can't be serious....
>
Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
>>>>>> and immediate.
>>>>> See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
>>>>> a judge and jury if there is a fatality.
>>>>>
>>>> Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
>>> Accidents can have witnesses.
>> >
>> And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
>
> Conspiracy theory.
>
Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the population
as a whole.

>>>> On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
>>>> collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.
>>> Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which
>>> the
>>> bus driver was not at fault.
>>>
>> No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
>> bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.
>
> Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
> accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
> much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.
>
Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
get away with it is common.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>> Jens Müller <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>>>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>>> vehicle's mass.
>>>>>>> And under California street law?
>>>>>> What's that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Street law is what happens in real life.
>>>> You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?
>>>>
>>> No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
>>> or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
>>
>> You can't be serious....
>>
> Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
> especially in the larger cities.
>

Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason that
they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit "anything",
they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a Honda runs a
red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa and pity the
Honda driver.

Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to muscle
me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in driving
aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
>
> >> Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
> >> anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
> >> posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
> > Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
> > besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
> > <http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf> (just did
> > a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
> > government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
> > of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
> > citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
> > non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
> > moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).
> >
> How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
> stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
> for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
> Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
> not tell the whole story.

Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
"questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
of BS.

The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".

I might add that some of the "DWB" complaints are bogus - there were
some complaints of racial profiling in San Jose a few years ago due to
an unsusually large number of Hispanics being cited, and when the
statistics were carefully checked, they found that officers were
ticketing fairly: what happened is that the police department was
spending more time patrolling high crime areas, where a lot of
disadvantaged Hispanics live, and they ended up getting more traffic
tickets because the police were around more trying to protect them
from serious crimes. Regardless of how you want to handle the
increased number of citations, the citations were in fact legitimate.
It's not that people were being cited for something they didn't do.

> > There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
> > continually get all the facts wrong.
> >
> Which facts?

The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
sveral examples above.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB