My Right To Ride My Recumbent Trike

[Chuck]

Greetings,

This might be a little long but will remain on topic.

About a year ago I bought myself an EZ-3 Recumbent Trike. I loved it and
drove it to work and back everyday until it was destroyed by the idiot
who ran over my left rear end with his car about 3 months ago.

I believe it was an accident in spite of the fact that this individual
had plenty of time to see me, as well as plenty of time and room to go
around me before he ran over me. I was also very well lit, following all
the rules and on a well lit four lane highway with no oncoming traffic
(at the time anyway) and under a clear sky.

Three months later I had rebuilt the trike. Awsome rebuild too.

First day I risked taking it back up Charlotte Pike via Whitebridge Road
I was ran off the road and nearly killed. I just barely got out of the
way in time and he missed me by maybe an inch or two.

Same riding conditions, same time of day, same little half mile or so
stretch of highway only this time the trike had a higher profile and
double the lights. I'll explain. I've used 26" wheels for the rear end
and a 20" wheel in the front. I've re-installed my old headrest and at
the time I also had my canopy attached (my own design) and had four
flags in the rear; two 3 footers sticking up and out which made me look
about 4 feet wide and two more sticking up at a higher angle which put
em at about an actual 12 feet into the air. Ok, so I was clearly
visable.


Now, If the state I live in says I have the right to operate my vehicle
on our streets and fails to provide me with a safe means to exercise
those rights; ( few if any bike lanes, and no alternative to risking my
life sharing the road with the way too many and often way too large
vehicles being driven way to fast than is safe by the all too often...

STUPID, and DANGEROUS TALKING MONKEYS WHO SHOULDN'T BE ALOWED TO OPERATE
HEAVY EQUIPMENT.

Have not my rights been violated?

Indeed are not all of us being cheated out of our right to travel the
roads by bike?

Are not the automobile manufactures also guilty of monopolizing and
bullying us off the roads?

Can we not demand roads for bikes?
Have we no legal recourse?

Thoughts?

Chuck Trotter
Nashville, Tennessee

 

[DD]

Chuck wrote:
<snip>
> Have not my rights been violated?
>
No, the issue is not about rights, think more of roaduser courtesy and care.
> Indeed are not all of us being cheated out of our right to travel the
> roads by bike?
No, I don't have that problem, partly because I do something about it to
make sure other roadusers treat me as a fellow traveller, partly as we
have had many campaigns here about speeding, drink driving, 'share the
roads', public transport initiatives and drivers mostly get the idea
that they are under a spotlight.
Perhaps by trying to be so visible you have lessed your profile to other
roadusers. Toss some of your flag furniture away in favour of a more
conservative look.

> Are not the automobile manufactures also guilty of monopolizing and
> bullying us off the roads?
No, they just sell cars. You could also ask the same of UCI who banned
recumbents in 1933 or the urban planners who support building cycleways
as opposed to on-road lanes.

> Can we not demand roads for bikes?

We have these in places. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. Separate
lanes won't take you everywhere you want to go and traffic apartheid
means you will be less a familiar item in traffic for the average car
driver to know how to handle.
> Have we no legal recourse?

Your local Member of Parliament, Congress, state, whatever. Living in a
litigious society may have driven that question, if so be aware that the
methods used get the result that the method demands. By this I mean that
any thoughts of suing the automotive industry, urban planners, etc will
in the long-term result in a common demoninator of urban traffic
management not designed for the common good but for a common need to
reduce exposure to litigation. Change for the good can come through many
ways, ever heard of Bicycle User Groups?
In your local area, if your recent experiences are not uncommon, there
will be other cyclists that you can meet and perhaps develop a club or
informal group. Rides as a group might be enjoyable as well as perhaps
safer. You may also find kindred spirits and consider forming a BUG to
work with the local community or government to improve cycling
facilities and profile.
For your consideration.

DD
GTR, Logo 351, Airnimal.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> Indeed are not all of us being cheated out of our right to travel the
> roads by bike?

You have learned something that most of us learn sooner or later as we ride
our bikes on the roads and highways. It is a damn dangerous thing to be
doing. Bikes and motor vehicles do not mix at all. It is best if you can
ride your bike on roads with shoulders only and when on a city street stay
far to the right. You do not want to be in the pathway of cars and trucks if
you can help it. If you see a lot of traffic on the road and no shoulders,
find another road.

Bike paths are heaven on this earth. I wills always ride them in preference
to being on the road. Yes, there will often be others using the bike path
that will interfere somewhat with your forward motion, but that is a small
price to pay for being safe.

Whatever you do, do not listen to those that recommend that you take your
share of the roadway. That is an excellent way to get yourself killed.
Instead of riding your bike, you will be riding in a hearse on your way to
the cemetery. Your headstone should read, "Here lies a cyclist who thought
he had a right to the road the same as cars."

It is even more dangerous to walk on or near highways. Drivers will run
right over you and claim they did not see you. And truth to tell, they did
not see you because there were not expecting to see you. We only see what we
expect to see and when driving a motor vehicle on the highway all we expect
to see are other motor vehicles, not pedestrians and not cyclists.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[HH]

"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Greetings,
>
> This might be a little long but will remain on topic.
>
> About a year ago I bought myself an EZ-3 Recumbent Trike. I loved it and
> drove it to work and back everyday until it was destroyed by the idiot
> who ran over my left rear end with his car about 3 months ago.
>
> I believe it was an accident in spite of the fact that this individual
> had plenty of time to see me, as well as plenty of time and room to go
> around me before he ran over me. I was also very well lit, following all
> the rules and on a well lit four lane highway with no oncoming traffic
> (at the time anyway) and under a clear sky.
>
> Three months later I had rebuilt the trike. Awsome rebuild too.
>
> First day I risked taking it back up Charlotte Pike via Whitebridge Road
> I was ran off the road and nearly killed. I just barely got out of the
> way in time and he missed me by maybe an inch or two.
>
> Same riding conditions, same time of day, same little half mile or so
> stretch of highway only this time the trike had a higher profile and
> double the lights. I'll explain. I've used 26" wheels for the rear end
> and a 20" wheel in the front. I've re-installed my old headrest and at
> the time I also had my canopy attached (my own design) and had four
> flags in the rear; two 3 footers sticking up and out which made me look
> about 4 feet wide and two more sticking up at a higher angle which put
> em at about an actual 12 feet into the air. Ok, so I was clearly
> visable.
>
>
> Now, If the state I live in says I have the right to operate my vehicle
> on our streets and fails to provide me with a safe means to exercise
> those rights; ( few if any bike lanes, and no alternative to risking my
> life sharing the road with the way too many and often way too large
> vehicles being driven way to fast than is safe by the all too often...
>
> STUPID, and DANGEROUS TALKING MONKEYS WHO SHOULDN'T BE ALOWED TO OPERATE
> HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
>
> Have not my rights been violated?
>
> Indeed are not all of us being cheated out of our right to travel the
> roads by bike?
>
> Are not the automobile manufactures also guilty of monopolizing and
> bullying us off the roads?
>
> Can we not demand roads for bikes?
> Have we no legal recourse?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Chuck Trotter
> Nashville, Tennessee
>
>
>
>

Yes Chuck, I suggest you contact the Director of Transportation in your
town, file your travel itinerary, and demand, as is your right, the stupid
and the idiotic be cleared from the roads during those times you are
exercising your right to travel.

And yes, of course you have legal recourse against automobile manufactures
(sic) for bullying you off the roads. Sue the bastards. Sue them all.

Are you man or mouse? Insist on your rights!

 

[Chuck]

Here's the "big picture" as I see it.

Are numbers are becoming fewer and fewer as more and more of are forced
to own and operate a motor vehicle just to survive. Those individuals
who are content to load their bikes onto the motor driven vehicle of
their choice and drive to some other location to spend some time in the
saddle will eventually find that there are no more safe places to ride,
no more nice quiet country lanes, etc., because motor driven traffic
will continue to spread like the plague on humanity it has become.

Unless we as a people can bring about some social changes to ensure that
biking remains a practical alternative means of getting around in ones
own neighborhood then we are destined to lose the ability to make use of
or enjoy the bike at all.

So whats wrong with rising up as a people, becoming a voice and
demanding that all roads built everywhere be paralleled by separate
non-motor driven traffic only roads. (not lanes or paths but roads) for
bikes and non-motor driven traffic.?

Why not?

Has any such thing ever been considered?


Chuck


From: [email protected] (HH)
"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Greetings,

This might be a little long but will remain on topic.
About a year ago I bought myself an EZ-3 Recumbent Trike. I loved it and
drove it to work and back everyday until it was destroyed by the idiot
who ran over my left rear end with his car about 3 months ago.

I believe it was an accident in spite of the fact that this individual
had plenty of time to see me, as well as plenty of time and room to go
around me before he ran over me. I was also very well lit, following all
the rules and on a well lit four lane highway with no oncoming traffic
(at the time anyway) and under a clear sky.

Three months later I had rebuilt the trike. Awsome rebuild too.

First day I risked taking it back up Charlotte Pike via Whitebridge Road
I was ran off the road and nearly killed. I just barely got out of the
way in time and he missed me by maybe an inch or two.

Same riding conditions, same time of day, same little half mile or so
stretch of highway only this time the trike had a higher profile and
double the lights.

I'll explain. I've used 26" wheels for the rear end and a 20" wheel in
the front. I've re-installed my old headrest and at the time I also had
my canopy attached (my own design) and had four flags in the rear; two 3
footers sticking up and out which made me look about 4 feet wide and two
more sticking up at a higher angle which put em at about an actual 12
feet into the air. Ok, so I was clearly visable.

Now, If the state I live in says I have the right to operate my vehicle
on our streets and fails to provide me with a safe means to exercise
those rights; ( few if any bike lanes, and no alternative to risking my
life sharing the road with the way too many and often way too large
vehicles being driven way to fast than is safe by the all too often...

STUPID, and DANGEROUS TALKING MONKEYS WHO SHOULDN'T BE ALOWED TO OPERATE
HEAVY EQUIPMENT.

Have not my rights been violated?
Indeed are not all of us being cheated out of our right to travel the
roads by bike?
Are not the automobile manufactures also guilty of monopolizing and
bullying us off the roads?
Can we not demand roads for bikes?
Have we no legal recourse?
Thoughts?

Chuck Trotter
Nashville, Tennessee


In response to my previous post above:

sarcastic asshole:

[email protected] (HH)

wrote the following:

Yes Chuck, I suggest you contact the Director of Transportation in your
town, file your travel itinerary, and demand, as is your right, the
stupid and the idiotic be cleared from the roads during those times you
are exercising your right to travel.
And yes, of course you have legal recourse against automobile
manufactures (sic) for bullying you off the roads. Sue the bastards. Sue
them all.
Are you man or mouse? Insist on your rights!

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> So whats wrong with rising up as a people, becoming a voice and
> demanding that all roads built everywhere be paralleled by separate
> non-motor driven traffic only roads. (not lanes or paths but roads) for
> bikes and non-motor driven traffic.?

What you propose above was proposed in connection with the reconstruction of
a county road here in SW Minnesota. Alas, the more it was discussed, the
less everyone was for it. It was finally decided not to build a separate
path for bikes along side the highway. The main argument against it was that
it did not go anywhere and there were not enough cyclists that would ever
use it.

A well engineered and constructed bike path is sufficient and will serve our
purposes just fine. We are beginning to see more and more of them in certain
urban areas. They are very rare in the countryside except in heavy tourist
areas. In SE Minnesota near the small burg of Lanesboro the State has
constructed bike paths along the Root River and people come from miles
around to ride those bike paths. It has had the effect of giving new life to
that entire region and has made tiny Lanesboro a major tourist attraction.
Minnesota overall is in the forefront of states that have built bike trails.
Everyone loves them!

I am very much in favor of bike paths (trails) and I have never yet heard a
good argument against them. I am not much in favor of bike lanes as they do
not provide all that much safety. However, they are better than no bike
lanes at all. The best solution is to totally separate bikes from motor
vehicles which a bike path or trail does.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[HH]

"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here's the "big picture" as I see it.
>
> Are numbers are becoming fewer and fewer as more and more of are forced
> to own and operate a motor vehicle just to survive. Those individuals
> who are content to load their bikes onto the motor driven vehicle of
> their choice and drive to some other location to spend some time in the
> saddle will eventually find that there are no more safe places to ride,
> no more nice quiet country lanes, etc., because motor driven traffic
> will continue to spread like the plague on humanity it has become.
>
> Unless we as a people can bring about some social changes to ensure that
> biking remains a practical alternative means of getting around in ones
> own neighborhood then we are destined to lose the ability to make use of
> or enjoy the bike at all.
>
> So whats wrong with rising up as a people, becoming a voice and
> demanding that all roads built everywhere be paralleled by separate
> non-motor driven traffic only roads. (not lanes or paths but roads) for
> bikes and non-motor driven traffic.?
>
> Why not?
>
> Has any such thing ever been considered?
>
>
> Chuck
>
>

You seem better grounded in this second post. Except for the "all roads
everywhere" part. That won't happen. But much better overall.

In the meantime take care and avoid riding your trike in dangerous
situations.

sarcastic asshole H.H.
(who suggests that a riding trike in congested, confused, fast, four lane
city traffic might not be the healthiest place to assert a "right to the
road" belief)

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> In response to my previous post above:
>
> sarcastic asshole:
>
> [email protected] (HH)
>
> wrote the following:
>
> Yes Chuck, I suggest you contact the Director of Transportation in your
> town, file your travel itinerary, and demand, as is your right, the
> stupid and the idiotic be cleared from the roads during those times you
> are exercising your right to travel.
> And yes, of course you have legal recourse against automobile
> manufactures (sic) for bullying you off the roads. Sue the bastards. Sue
> them all.
> Are you man or mouse? Insist on your rights!

There is almost always a pretty good point being made when sarcasm is used.
I employ it all the time myself.

HH is advising you not to waste your time tilting at windmills like a Don
Quixote, but he is saying it in an amusing manner. At least it amused me.

We want to keep the group lively and that is what spirited remarks do. I
hate newsgroups that are nothing but question and answer sessions. Also, I
like opinion to be expressed with some emotion. Otherwise I am in danger of
nodding off even as I am reading.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Chuck]

Ok, I can dig it. Thanks so far for all the input from all who have
responded; you too H.H.

I suppose I should be thankful that I do at least have a half way
descent sidewalk I can use with relative safety to go to and from a
Target, a grocery store and a few other stops in the neighborhood.

I'm just not real happy with these conditions.

Anyone care to add anything?

Chuck

 

[Edward Dolan]

"HH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> In the meantime take care and avoid riding your trike in dangerous
> situations.
>
> sarcastic asshole H.H.
> (who suggests that a riding trike in congested, confused, fast, four
> lane city traffic might not be the healthiest place to assert a "right to
> the road" belief)

Where to ride your trike has always been a problem. Robert Bryant, the
editor of RCN, very much likes trikes but has always cautioned that we need
to have safe roads on which to ride them.

I am quite at home riding my recumbent trikes around my small town, but I
would never dream of riding them in heavy urban traffic unless I have my own
lane or a good shoulder. I am so very often struck by the lack of common
sense of some cyclists who think they can ride wherever they want whenever
they want just because it is legal to do so.

I will look up and down a road before I venture on to it. If I don't like
the looks of the road, I will find an alternate road. Damned if I am going
to get myself killed asserting my rights to the road.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Chuck wrote:
> ....
> So whats wrong with rising up as a people, becoming a voice and
> demanding that all roads built everywhere be paralleled by separate
> non-motor driven traffic only roads. (not lanes or paths but roads) for
> bikes and non-motor driven traffic.?
>
> Why not?
>
> Has any such thing ever been considered?

Yes, this situation exists in part. It is called the Netherlands, where
there is an extensive network of bicycle paths that parallel most major
roadways, with traffic control devices where the paths intersect the
motorway. It is very difficult to get permission to move to Western
Europe however, so than is not a realistic option for most people.

Traffic control at intersections (or grade separation) with motorways
is vital, since otherwise the crossing may make the riding the paths
more dangerous overall than riding solely on the streets. For example,
this bicycle trail [1] crosses at two-lane highway with heavy traffic
that often moves near 60-mph/100-kph. There is only a warning sign and
no signal. For most of the day, one may have wait a long time to find a
safe opening to cross.

If you want to campaign for separate bicycle roadways, check out how
much success M A R T I N K R I E G [2] has had. Mr. K R I E G's
greatest accomplishment to date has been infuriating Mr. Cletus Lee of
Bellaire, Texas (by cross-posting across *.rec.bicycles.*).

[1] See
<http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=10&Z=16&X=1974&Y=23150&W=2&qs=butterfield%7caurora%7cil%7c&Addr=Butterfield+Rd%2c+Aurora%2c+IL+60504&ALon=-88.3014916&ALat=41.8109313>.
The trail is the thin line that runs from top-center to lower right in
the picture.
[2] <http://www.bikeroute.com/>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Mike Rice]

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:25:27 -0600, [email protected] (Chuck) wrote:

>
>Ok, I can dig it. Thanks so far for all the input from all who have
>responded; you too H.H.
>
>I suppose I should be thankful that I do at least have a half way
>descent sidewalk I can use with relative safety to go to and from a
>Target, a grocery store and a few other stops in the neighborhood.
>
>I'm just not real happy with these conditions.
>
>Anyone care to add anything?
>
>Chuck

Be especially careful if you use that sidewalk. Drivers are less
likely to notice you, and if memory sreves the insurance statistics
show more auto-bike collisions among sidewalk riders than street
riders. Watch out for vehicles in driveways and be vigilant when you
must enter the road (intersections for example).

I ride in some very congested areas, but I (almost) always feel safe.
I have mirrors on both sides, and use them constantly.

Indiana Mike

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chuck wrote:
>> ....
>> So whats wrong with rising up as a people, becoming a voice and
>> demanding that all roads built everywhere be paralleled by separate
>> non-motor driven traffic only roads. (not lanes or paths but roads) for
>> bikes and non-motor driven traffic.?
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Has any such thing ever been considered?
>
> Yes, this situation exists in part. It is called the Netherlands, where
> there is an extensive network of bicycle paths that parallel most major
> roadways, with traffic control devices where the paths intersect the
> motorway. It is very difficult to get permission to move to Western
> Europe however, so than is not a realistic option for most people.

Nonsense! First go to Algiers, grow a beard, put a towel on your head and
pretend to be a Muslim, then emigrate to the Netherlands. They will welcome
you with open arms. They won't even mind if you want to murder a few of them
just for sport. The Dutch are quite unique that way.

> Traffic control at intersections (or grade separation) with motorways
> is vital, since otherwise the crossing may make the riding the paths
> more dangerous overall than riding solely on the streets. For example,
> this bicycle trail [1] crosses at two-lane highway with heavy traffic
> that often moves near 60-mph/100-kph. There is only a warning sign and
> no signal. For most of the day, one may have wait a long time to find a
> safe opening to cross.
>
> If you want to campaign for separate bicycle roadways, check out how
> much success M A R T I N K R I E G [2] has had. Mr. K R I E G's
> greatest accomplishment to date has been infuriating Mr. Cletus Lee of
> Bellaire, Texas (by cross-posting across *.rec.bicycles.*).
[...]

I thought Cletus Lee, a former nemesis of mine, was devoting his metabolism
solely to BROL these days. You mean to tell me he is on an unmoderated
forum? Heavens to Betsy! That is not possible!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> Traffic control at intersections (or grade separation) with motorways
> is vital, since otherwise the crossing may make the riding the paths
> more dangerous overall than riding solely on the streets. For example,
> this bicycle trail [1] crosses at two-lane highway with heavy traffic
> that often moves near 60-mph/100-kph. There is only a warning sign and
> no signal. For most of the day, one may have wait a long time to find a
> safe opening to cross.

I have heard this argument advanced many times about the danger of bike
paths when meeting at an intersection with a road. The only solution is a
stop sign for the bike path and that means you have to stop unless you can
see for sure that there is no traffic crossing the path. But I have seen
innumerable cyclists go right through onto the road with hardly a glance to
the right or the left. Kids are the worse of course for not stopping.

Bottom line, you will have to wait until it is safe to cross. If you do
that, there is no danger connected with a bike path crossing a road anymore
than there is with a sidewalk crossing a road. Stop, Look and Listen!
Elementary, my dear Watson.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
> > Traffic control at intersections (or grade separation) with motorways
> > is vital, since otherwise the crossing may make the riding the paths
> > more dangerous overall than riding solely on the streets. For example,
> > this bicycle trail [1] crosses at two-lane highway with heavy traffic
> > that often moves near 60-mph/100-kph. There is only a warning sign and
> > no signal. For most of the day, one may have wait a long time to find a
> > safe opening to cross.
>
> I have heard this argument advanced many times about the danger of bike
> paths when meeting at an intersection with a road. The only solution is a
> stop sign for the bike path and that means you have to stop unless you can
> see for sure that there is no traffic crossing the path. But I have seen
> innumerable cyclists go right through onto the road with hardly a glance to
> the right or the left. Kids are the worse of course for not stopping.
>
> Bottom line, you will have to wait until it is safe to cross. If you do
> that, there is no danger connected with a bike path crossing a road anymore
> than there is with a sidewalk crossing a road. Stop, Look and Listen!
> Elementary, my dear Watson.

Ed Dolan reveals his ignorance. At the intersection I posted [1] a link
to, one could literally wait hours to have a safe gap to cross. I once
attempted to turn left onto the road pictured from an uncontrolled
intersection in an AUTOMOBILE [2], and gave up and turned right after
10+ minutes of waiting. Not everyone has the choice of living in low
traffic areas, unless we rid the world of a few billion people.

Note to GotBent: I wasn't going to respond to Mr. Ed's rants, but this
opportunity to point out his ignorance was too hard to resist.

[1]
<http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=10&Z=16&X=1974&Y=23150&W=2&qs=butterfield%7caurora%7cil%7c&Addr=Butterfield+Rd%2c+Aurora%2c+IL+60504&ALon=-88.3014916&ALat=41.8109313>.
[2] The automobile of course accelerates faster, is more visible, and
offers several magnitudes of greater crash protection than a bicycle.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>> > Traffic control at intersections (or grade separation) with motorways
>> > is vital, since otherwise the crossing may make the riding the paths
>> > more dangerous overall than riding solely on the streets. For example,
>> > this bicycle trail [1] crosses at two-lane highway with heavy traffic
>> > that often moves near 60-mph/100-kph. There is only a warning sign and
>> > no signal. For most of the day, one may have wait a long time to find a
>> > safe opening to cross.
>>
>> I have heard this argument advanced many times about the danger of bike
>> paths when meeting at an intersection with a road. The only solution is a
>> stop sign for the bike path and that means you have to stop unless you
>> can
>> see for sure that there is no traffic crossing the path. But I have seen
>> innumerable cyclists go right through onto the road with hardly a glance
>> to
>> the right or the left. Kids are the worse of course for not stopping.
>>
>> Bottom line, you will have to wait until it is safe to cross. If you do
>> that, there is no danger connected with a bike path crossing a road
>> anymore
>> than there is with a sidewalk crossing a road. Stop, Look and Listen!
>> Elementary, my dear Watson.
>
> Ed Dolan reveals his ignorance. At the intersection I posted [1] a link
> to, one could literally wait hours to have a safe gap to cross. I once
> attempted to turn left onto the road pictured from an uncontrolled
> intersection in an AUTOMOBILE [2], and gave up and turned right after
> 10+ minutes of waiting. Not everyone has the choice of living in low
> traffic areas, unless we rid the world of a few billion people.
>
> Note to GotBent: I wasn't going to respond to Mr. Ed's rants, but this
> opportunity to point out his ignorance was too hard to resist.

The Great Ed Dolan does not go to links unless it amuses him to go to links.
That is the burden of being Great.

If you have to wait hours to cross a busy road, then obviously a tunnel or
bridge is needed to get you safely across. It is one thing to be ignorant,
it is quite another thing to be stupid.

Mr. Sherman forgets that the Great Ed Dolan once lived in New York City,
which makes Chicago look like the dump that it is. However, in NYC you do
not bother with such silly things as automobiles. You take the subway like
any sensible person. Only dumb Midwesterners think they can't live without
an automobile.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota