Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



"MZH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:14:01 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Your question is confused. If I didn't own them then neither did the
person
> >I bought them from, so why did I pay him for them in the first place?
>
> Why would you pay for something when you don't believe in ownership?

Where on earth is that question coming from? *I'm* the one that believes in
ownership. These other guys only believe in the right to using something
because the collective has given you its permission.


Shayne Wissler
 
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:37:09 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:49:59 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:34:02 +1000, "DRS"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >He's only going to play semantic games whilst
>> >> >avoiding this fundamental truth.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the heads up. :)
>> >
>> >No, he just provided a great litmus test for the sheep mentality: a
>> >convenient rationalization for evading the responsibility of thinking.
>>
>> Thus far all I see is you using this as an excuse to dodge out of the
>> discussion.
>
>And as we have already seen, all you see is a world of artificially
>restricted alternatives designed to prop up your bogus views.
>
>But by all means, use my exit from this discussion as an excuse for
>yourself.
>

So to get back to the topic of land ownership, if I find a nice spot
for a little house and a farm, and I built a little house and started
farming, I would on the land the house is on and the area that I
cultivated, right?

Let's say all the farming is done in back of the house, do I own any
of the land in front?

If so, how much of it? 10 feet? 50 feet?

Or does it depend on if I'm having friends over for a picnic in my
front yard that day?

Now let's also say there are some woods where I hunt stuff to eat. I
build a blind, do I own the land the blind is on? How about all land
I can see from within the blind? Or would it just be the land within
range of my gun?

Does anybody own the forest? What about animals? Surely, lots of
animals make their home in the forest. If they own a little part of
it, what right do I have to clear a little of it and build a house?



>
>Shayne Wissler
>
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> My opinion matters exactly as much as yours does. Make of that
>> what you will.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Opinions are valued by how useful and realistic they are in real
> life. Unrealistic opinions have very little value to other people.

In that case, my opinion matters more.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > It's also "interesting" that you think his premise "You have no
>> > rights except for what the mob agrees to" is inconsequential
>> > since that explains his entire political philosophy.
>>
>> Since you don't know what my political philosophy is, that's a
>> pretty broad and inaccurate statement.
>
> Your premise is a broad (and inaccurate) statement--broad
> conclusions can be drawn from broad premises. I don't know every
> detail of your political philosophy, but I don't need to--that
> statement really says it all.

Then you really still don't get it. Oh well, ignorance can be fixed
but stupidity is forever.

> I do compliment you on your willingness to sum up your viewpoint so
> succinctly. Most collectivists are not as forthright and honest
> about the meaning of all of the verbiage they spew forth. If they
> would all be as honest then collectivism would quickly fade (I hope
> this doesn't prevent you from being as honest in the future).

"Collectivism would quickly fade..." Yes, I'm sure that thanks to my
honesty people will soon stop living in communities, sharing resources
to improve the quality of their lives, and abandon the rule of law.
Geez, Shayne, do you actually have any neighbors? Maybe live in a
community of some sort? If so, you're a collectivist too.
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
> >> >
> >> >Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
> >> >others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?
> >>
> >> I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.
> >
> >You would like communism. Only one option. ;)
>
> Nyet.

You guys need Perestroika... ;)
>
> >> operation and schedules, not to mention routing make them far less
> >> convenient than the automobile. Light rail and trolleys are transport
> >> with all the disadvantages of both buses and trains, except for the
> >> diesel stink. Trains solve nothing.
> >
> >Nothing except going 200mph... Can you beat that in your stupid SUV?
>
> Don't have one. But a train going 200mph from a place I don't want to
> be to a place I don't want to go doesn't help all that much. Such
> high-speed trains, if they existed, would be competition for air
> travel, not for driving, because of the distances and costs involved.

Man, if you have a fast train from Washington to Boston, you don't get
fewer vehicles on the road? It seems common sense to me...

Bullet Train Gets Rave Reviews
By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) - For decades, the people running Amtrak had to wince when
Americans returning from overseas train trips proclaimed: ``Why can't
you do that here?''

U.S. rail officials think they've finally got an answer: the Acela
Express, a 150 mph bullet train that hit record speeds and grabbed
rave reviews Thursday on its debut Washington-to-Boston run.

A full load of VIPs nibbled on salmon, filet mignon, prosciutto and
caviar hors d'oeuvres as they made history aboard the first of 20
sleek new trains that will barrel along Amtrak's Northeast Corridor at
speeds approaching those of trains in Japan, France and elsewhere.

``Today's inaugural run symbolizes the beginning of a new era of
American transportation,'' Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said
at a kickoff ceremony in Washington.

Regular service on the train begins Dec. 11 in the Northeast.
Legislation pending in Congress would help Amtrak raise $10 billion
over 10 years to construct other high-speed corridors around the
nation.

A nationwide system of high-speed rail would require billions of
public dollars to lay new track, straighten curves, eliminate highway
crossings and perform other upgrades of the nation's rail network.

``This is all about money,'' said Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, the
Amtrak chairman. He said the federal government gives short shrift to
railroads compared with its spending on highways and air travel.


http://www.trainweb.org/trainteam/railnews/story13.htm
>
> >> >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> >> >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> >> >wide use.
> >>
> >> Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> >> winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain. And your commute
> >> will likely take a lot longer, and forget about carrying anything
> >> significant.
> >
> >Good encouragement for Lance Armstrong, ah? You know what, he's riding
> >an obsolete transportation mode. And he ain't good at nothing. Are you
> >happy? ;)
>
> Armstrong races professionally; that's different than riding for
> transportation.
>
> >> >5. WALKING - An often forgotten way to get around because so many
> >> >places have been made hostle to pedestrians. Still the preferred
> >> >choice in dense urban areas.
> >>
> >> Great, if you ain't going far. Like from your car to the door.
> >
> >How can you walk if it is dangerous? Not an easy task in America...
>
> Actually, quite easy. The problem with walking isn't the danger, it's
> the fact that places are so damn far apart.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Perestroika, perestroika, perestroika... ;)
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Urban planners today are still planning for prairie schooners. If a
horse
> >is going to do any useful transporation today, the horse needs roads and
you
> >know it. But if you wish to keep living in 1700 or 1800, then you can be
a
> >new urbanist horse farmer.
> >
>
> I'll trade my car for a horse. Horses are great !!!!

I have a friend that has a horse. He talks a lot about how expensive it is
to own a horse. You may have to trade more than one car to afford a horse.

You have to pay for the horse, keep paying for the food, and keep paying for
the stable along with a lot of other items such as a saddle(s) for the
horse,

Its probably cheaper if you are not living in the Bay Area.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > It's also "interesting" that you think his premise "You have no
> >> > rights except for what the mob agrees to" is inconsequential
> >> > since that explains his entire political philosophy.
> >>
> >> Since you don't know what my political philosophy is, that's a
> >> pretty broad and inaccurate statement.
> >
> > Your premise is a broad (and inaccurate) statement--broad
> > conclusions can be drawn from broad premises. I don't know every
> > detail of your political philosophy, but I don't need to--that
> > statement really says it all.
>
> Then you really still don't get it. Oh well, ignorance can be fixed
> but stupidity is forever.

And just a while ago you were whining about ad hominem...

> > I do compliment you on your willingness to sum up your viewpoint so
> > succinctly. Most collectivists are not as forthright and honest
> > about the meaning of all of the verbiage they spew forth. If they
> > would all be as honest then collectivism would quickly fade (I hope
> > this doesn't prevent you from being as honest in the future).
>
> "Collectivism would quickly fade..." Yes, I'm sure that thanks to my
> honesty people will soon stop living in communities, sharing resources
> to improve the quality of their lives, and abandon the rule of law.

You sure do have a whacky interpretation of my position. Oh wait, it's just
a little strawman. I get it.

> Geez, Shayne, do you actually have any neighbors? Maybe live in a
> community of some sort? If so, you're a collectivist too.

I'm not shocked that you don't know what the word 'collectivism' means.


Shayne Wissler
 
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ah, DonQ, give it up. Those guys over in the car newsgroup are something
> else. Everyone from time to time falls into ego mind, because that's the way
> life works on the physical plane. Some people collapse and wallow in ego
> mind, mostly because they don't know there's any alternative. And then
> there's some who don't just wallow in ego mind, they get a mortgage and deed
> of trust in it, build a split-level daylight rambler in it, and call it
> home, and are proud of it. That's the way most of those posters are over
> there.
>
> I think people in rec.bicycles.misc are much more sane. Not universally so,
> and lord knows, we have our collection of eccentrics. But generally
> speaking, there's greater mental, emotional, and spiritual health among
> rec.bicycles.misc residents than I have ever seen in rec.autos.driving.

Why give up Claire? We may not getting anywhere as the powers that be,
rule over the land of the dinosaurs, but we are just having fun
throwing darts and arrows. Many in rec.bicycles are happy too being
stepped upon so we can't even speak of some resistance by the ants.
Everything is in the hands of the Supreme, Fate or whatever you call
it...

http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3021914257/fetch/330301/
 
[email protected] wrote:
>I'll trade my car for a horse. Horses are great !!!!

I take it you either don't ride often and when you do you don't do the
basic horsie maintainance involved.

I agree that horses are great. Love to ride when I get the chance and
know enough to be able to do the simple things involved in grooming,
care feeding, tack and such.

Horses are a ton of work and truck-load of money to maintain. If they
get sick (and they do) the bills skyrocket. They are also a bit
whacko from being associated with people for so long. A playfull nip,
shrug or flick kick can land you in the ER of the afternoon.

Give me a car for the most part.
;-)
--Don--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
 
"MZH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So to get back to the topic of land ownership, if I find a nice spot
> for a little house and a farm, and I built a little house and started
> farming, I would on the land the house is on and the area that I
> cultivated, right?

Yes.

> Let's say all the farming is done in back of the house, do I own any
> of the land in front?

Yes.

> If so, how much of it? 10 feet? 50 feet?

Assuming you have a frontier here, which is what I thought you were talking
about, why does it matter how many feet? If you are worried that someone is
going to build a house right in front of yours, put up a fence.

> Or does it depend on if I'm having friends over for a picnic in my
> front yard that day?

Is this what you mean by "get back to the topic of land ownership"?

> Now let's also say there are some woods where I hunt stuff to eat. I
> build a blind, do I own the land the blind is on? How about all land
> I can see from within the blind? Or would it just be the land within
> range of my gun?
>
> Does anybody own the forest? What about animals? Surely, lots of
> animals make their home in the forest. If they own a little part of
> it, what right do I have to clear a little of it and build a house?

I don't see what any of this has to do with the topic. You don't even agree
to the simple scenario of building a house and cultivating land. So there's
no point in arguing about this much narrower case.

In principle one can find even more complex cases that require legal theory
to deal with. The fact that one can find complex cases that would require
extended arguments to work out does not undercut the basic idea.


Shayne Wissler
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Man, if you have a fast train from Washington to Boston, you don't get
>fewer vehicles on the road? It seems common sense to me...

The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday
through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362
passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a fairly
small number of SUVs. The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
 
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:34:24 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Man, if you have a fast train from Washington to Boston, you don't get
>>fewer vehicles on the road? It seems common sense to me...
>
> The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday through
> Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362 passengers.

IOW, each train pulls about 362 vehicles off the road. That is much more
than a mile worth of traffic.

> I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a fairly small number of
> SUVs. The train is also $178 round trip, per person.

IOW, the train costs about $0.21 per person per mile - a bargain compared
to driving.

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ **** Cheney
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:34:24 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>Man, if you have a fast train from Washington to Boston, you don't get
> >>fewer vehicles on the road? It seems common sense to me...
> >
> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday through
> > Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362 passengers.
>
> IOW, each train pulls about 362 vehicles off the road. That is much more
> than a mile worth of traffic.

And guess what: you have to run the trains much farther apart than you'd
run cars on a highway. Don't forget to factor that in...

>
> > I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a fairly small number of
> > SUVs. The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
>
> IOW, the train costs about $0.21 per person per mile - a bargain compared
> to driving.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...

> IOW, each train pulls about 362 vehicles off the road. That is much more
> than a mile worth of traffic.

That says the total system handles about one hour of half a lane of traffic
each way even if you use full loaded figures. Actual loads will of course
be lower. Acela seem to have a tiny effect on traffic.

>
> > I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a fairly small number of
> > SUVs. The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
>
> IOW, the train costs about $0.21 per person per mile - a bargain compared
> to driving.

Estimate assume full trains all the time which is unlikely and uses ticket
price, not cost of running the train which is higher. A worthless cost
estimate.
 
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > But generally
> > speaking, there's greater mental, emotional, and spiritual health among
> > rec.bicycles.misc residents than I have ever seen in rec.autos.driving.
>
> Maybe that's because we get more vitamin D.
> Good stuff, that.
>

That's because CYCLISTS KNOW HOW TO BURN THE CALORIES. People in SUVs
can only wish for something so exciting. ;)
 
> > Fact is, Key West had both a train and a trolley, that were
> > respectively destroyed by nature and General Motors in the 1930s.
> >
>
> Trolley cars failed due to high costs. Their revenues peaked in 1914,
> and after that, there was no real way to pay for expensive track repairs and
> keep going. Governments in the 1930s did not have the tax revenue to
> subsidize trolley cars.

The didn't die a natural death. They were killed...

'Despite the success of the PCC car trolleys continued to decline.
There was a brief respite during World War II when every trolley that
could be found was pressed into service but after the war ended people
began to enjoy the freedom provided by their automobiles. Economics,
and effective lobbying by the rubber and oil interests, convinced many
interurban and city trolley operators to abandon the rails for buses.

The award winning system In Washington DC was forced to close by order
of Congress. Several of Washington's downtown lines operated on
reservations in the center of the street and many suburban lines ran
on private rights of way through the woods, making them ideal
candidates for incorporation into an upgraded transit system. DC
Transit modernized and air conditioned one car to demonstrate what
could be done with the system but Congress had its way, as it usually
does, and the system closed after almost 100 years of faithful
service. I was on the last car when it rolled into Navy Yard car house
on January 28, 1962.'

and...

'Anyone who believes more highways will solve the problem should visit
Dallas TX, Atlanta GA, or Los Angeles CA for a little reality check.
These towns are a monument to what should not be done.'

By the way, what do YOU propose?

http://www.eagle-wing.net/Railways/Interurban/Interurban1.shtml
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > It's also "interesting" that you think his premise "You have
>> >> > no rights except for what the mob agrees to" is
>> >> > inconsequential since that explains his entire political
>> >> > philosophy.
>> >>
>> >> Since you don't know what my political philosophy is, that's a
>> >> pretty broad and inaccurate statement.
>> >
>> > Your premise is a broad (and inaccurate) statement--broad
>> > conclusions can be drawn from broad premises. I don't know every
>> > detail of your political philosophy, but I don't need to--that
>> > statement really says it all.
>>
>> Then you really still don't get it. Oh well, ignorance can be
>> fixed but stupidity is forever.
>
> And just a while ago you were whining about ad hominem...

Cheers, mate.

>> > I do compliment you on your willingness to sum up your viewpoint
>> > so succinctly. Most collectivists are not as forthright and
>> > honest about the meaning of all of the verbiage they spew
>> > forth. If they would all be as honest then collectivism would
>> > quickly fade (I hope this doesn't prevent you from being as
>> > honest in the future).
>>
>> "Collectivism would quickly fade..." Yes, I'm sure that thanks to
>> my honesty people will soon stop living in communities, sharing
>> resources to improve the quality of their lives, and abandon the
>> rule of law.
>
> You sure do have a whacky interpretation of my position. Oh wait,
> it's just a little strawman. I get it.

No, it was sarcasm.

>> Geez, Shayne, do you actually have any neighbors? Maybe live in a
>> community of some sort? If so, you're a collectivist too.
>
> I'm not shocked that you don't know what the word 'collectivism'
> means.

I know what it means. What you mean it to be is a mystery.
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Man, if you have a fast train from Washington to Boston, you don't
>>get fewer vehicles on the road? It seems common sense to me...
>
> The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday
> through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362
> passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a
> fairly small number of SUVs.

Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers. The vast
majority of Americans drive one to a car.

> The train is also $178 round trip, per person.

The costs of such train use is much more of a user fee than is the
case with roads. OTOH, the commuter trains I grew up with in the
Chicago area were both faster and much cheaper than driving into the
Loop. Not to mention a whole lot less stressful.

If road users paid actual costs on a per-use basis, the immediate
out-of-pocket cost would be much higher. Costs for urban road
building have been as high as $1 billion per mile (Boston- presumably
the Big Dig) to $333 million per mile (New York City) to $127 million
per mile (LA Century Freeway) to as low as $19 million per mile
(somewhere in New England). Interstates are relatively cheap, at $1
million to $5 million per mile; urban highways are more expensive. If
that money was recouped directly from the people driving over it, the
costs would be high and there'd probably be rioting on the roads.
Geez, people complain about $2 gasoline!

http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume2/v2i1a3s2.html

As a society we have chosen to subsidize road costs via taxes,
considering roads a public good, rather than with user fees. On the
whole, this is a system that has worked out fairly advantageously
(especially for business and industry, at very minimal cost to them).
It has also become something of a sacred cow, and the allocation of
new monies for other modes of transportation is apt to raise the ire
of the pro-roads lobbyists who (locally) are more than happy to raise
the straw man of "social engineering." However, light rail recently
opened with very promising results and a few confounds (mainly
intersections with roads that were not well thought out, given that
the trains run every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour):

http://www.metrocouncil.org/transportation/lrt/lrt-overview.htm

http://www.metrocouncil.org/news/2004/news_447.htm

http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2004/07/05/daily9.html

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2288/lrt_myths.htm
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday
> > through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362
> > passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a
> > fairly small number of SUVs.
>
> Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers. The vast
> majority of Americans drive one to a car.
>
> > The train is also $178 round trip, per person.

The comparison was with unrealistic with always fully loaded trains. As
long as he uses train lies as examples, it is also then fair to use fully
loaded SUVs lies as examples.
 
> >"Once more the special interests stand in the way of progress!"
> >
> >How are planes alleviating the long line of predeluvian SUVs between
> >Miami and Key West? Dinosaurs in Paradise, we may call them. ;)
>
> You're advocating TRAINS, and calling SUV's "predeluvian" (the usual
> term is "antedeluvian", BTW)?
>
> Nobody's going to build a train from Miami to Key West, because such a
> train would cost more than taking a plane out there.

I'm only going to reply to the "predeluvian" question...

"God had been forced to exterminate the *predeluvian* world, because
it had been made unclean by angel hybrids, and now also the nations of
Canaan, with their hybrid races, were doomed to destruction."

http://bibeltemplet.net/1295en.html

So God didn't like the predeluvian world. I guess we can learn a
lesson of two... ;)

Lance replies to the subject of the train beautifully, but our friend
Ian doesn't really know how congested this *single-lane road* is and
how often the Keys are absolutely cut off because of some accident.
Building a train could only help the environment as well as the
economy, safety and the comfort of those travelling to Paradise.

As it is now, you only got Greyhound buses to Key West, vintage 1950s.
Oh, $35 one way to/from Miami...

Truck Dangles From Keys Bridge After Accident

POSTED: 8:40 am EDT July 26, 2004
UPDATED: 8:59 am EDT July 26, 2004

ISLAMORADA, Fla. -- The main road through the Florida Keys is closed
Monday morning after an accident near mile marker 71.


The crash happened on U.S. Highway 1 just before 7 a.m. Several
vehicles were apparently involved, and there is no word yet on any
injuries.

A tractor-trailer is dangling from the side of a bridge. It's hanging
by only one of its rear tires, which is still hooked onto a concrete
guardrail. The truck's cab did not go over the guardrail.

Police officials said traffic may be tied up for several hours in both
directions on the north-south road linking the Florida Keys to the
mainland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back