|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1111
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 12:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:08 am, Duane wrote: On 12/8/2010 8:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Do you not remember that one of your supporters in this discussion has frequently bragged about riding sidewalks? When he said he does, and you said "what I do depends..." then it certainly sounded to me like you might ride sidewalks as well. First, I don't have supporters here. I'm talking about James and Dan O. IIRC it was Dan in that case. Then say so. Second, your leap of logic is quite amazing. Just to clarify though, if I'm in the road and a truck is screaming up behind me and not going to stop, there is a possibility that I'm jumping on the sidewalk. Whereas by your interpretation, you are going to continue controlling the road. Good luck with that. You're describing a terror scene again, and one which I don't seem to experience. So just how often has that happened to you? Seriously - is a truck "screaming up behind and not going to stop" a once a week thing, or once a month, or once a year, or what? It happens. To put it in perspective: I recall _once_ having to ride onto the shoulder because an oncoming car didn't see me and passed another car, coming head-on at me. Similarly, I recall _once_ driving my car on a freeway and having to drive onto the shoulder because an incompetent semi driver didn't see my car and started merging into my lane. But those are each once-in-a-lifetime experiences for me, and NOBODY is saying not to take evasive maneuvers in emergency situations. You must have angels watching out for you or something. But every truck or car approaching from behind is NOT an emergency. It's a normal part of traffic, and I normally make use of my legal right to the road... You do not have a legal right to anything. Drivers don't have a right to the road unless they have a license. Any road can be restricted. For example, when the truck is tailgaiting me I'm going to pull to the side and give him **** as he passes. I'm not going to continue in the center of the lane ignoring him. ... whereas you apparently do cede your right to the road if a truck drives at your speed, but too closely for your comfort. You do not have a right to the road. And you still didn't read the original post. It's not the truck. You don't read very well do you? The truck driver is an idiot. It's the car passing him and pulling into you that's going to kill you. Stay there and become road kill then. Will that prove your point that you have a right to the road? I suppose if I do get killed, that will prove I was wrong in that instance. But let me ask the opposite question: If I have done that ever since, oh, 1980 or so and have never been killed in the way you describe, will that prove that I have a right to the road, and that what I do is safe? You do not have a right to the road. And no, it won't prove that what you do is safe, only that you didn't get killed. Seriously, what do you think the odds are? IOW, don't you see you're exaggerating a tiny danger yet again? I had the cars pulling in front of me with the asshole in the truck on my back. Don't you see that you're exaggerating your knowledge? Besides, check the link that I posted regarding the Quebec highway code. What you think of as your right to the road is seriously at odds with that. Actually, after reading that, I see why the truck was tailgaiting me. I was too far to the frigging left. I'm lucky I didn't get a ticket. |
Ads |
#1112
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 9:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Besides, law has many specialties. *I don't know what's your area of practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. *One lawyer I know well does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further indicate not all attorneys are equal! Always be sure to tell any professional you hire how bad the rest of them are. So, Frank, out of curiosity, what was the reason your were kicked out of your Dale Carnegie course? DR |
#1113
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
I have some questions for Frank.
As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5 feet from the right edge. Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you? What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you? What if the lane was 14 feet wide instead of 10 feet? In all of these cases, I think I'd ride in the same place - as far right as I deem practicable, probably about 3 feet from the edge if there are no issues with debris or road surface. Maybe a little closer if there's an unpaved shoulder instead of a curb. |
#1114
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 12:55 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:36:07 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 12/8/2010 11:26 AM, RobertH wrote: On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized traffic. False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings, watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore, when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles. Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing driver. Right. Here's a link that has some of the basic principles: http://www.allsands.com/howto/defens...vin_xwv_gn.htm Most of the suggestions make sense to me but particularly relevant to this thread a 5. Anticipate the mistakes or unsafe maneuvers of the other drivers. Notice that it doesn't say "unless you are controlling the lane" Anticipating the mistakes of other drivers includes making it more difficult for them to make those mistakes, rather than encouraging them to make them. That is exactly what taking the lane is all about. and 16. If a tailgater is following you, move to another lane if possible or pull to the side of the road and let the tailgater pass you. Could you leave the goalposts in place instead of moving them around? Nowhere has it previously been stated that this is a tailgater. We're talking about if the driver is driving dangerously. Frank is saying to control the lane. Others are saying that they would do whatever seems correct, including getting out of the street. Notice that it doesn't say to stay in the center of the road and maintain your right to be there. Nor does it say that you will be a cowardly, subservient wimp for getting out of the way of the guy behind you driving dangerously. You missed out: 18, Do not drive in another driver's blind spot. I don't see how I'm in his blind spot when I'm in front of him. If I move to the right to let him pass, he knows where I am. Otherwise, I'm in front of him. Being in the center of the lane doesn't do me any good. Remember there's not enough room to share the lane so I'm either in front of him, letting him pass or not on the road. 23. Stay in the middle of your lane in between the lines. Looks like you are cherry picking. By pointing out scenarios where "controlling the lane" doesn't work? I guess I could say that it never works but that would be wrong. Just as much as saying that it always does. |
#1115
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Medical Costs
Per Michael Press:
The bills stopped... And the police arrived. Actually not. I was surprised too. -- PeteCresswell |
#1116
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski seeks correction
On Dec 9, 9:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Hmm. *Correct me if I'm wrong; ..... Frank that has pretty much been the focus of this thread So let's at least get the proper theme into the subject line - at your request, of course. Everyone here HAS been correcting you, repeatedly. We had not fully appreciated the extent of your learning disorder. Correct? *Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. ..... Seems that O.R.S. § 814.400 covers that. Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously. The Court of Appeals has answered the question. *I don't need to talk to Bob... What Frank fails to understand is that the Court of Appeals decision IS a complete answer. Frank can rant all day about HOW he thinks it SHOULD be. What is clear is how it IS. Rather than waste the time of others, Frank can set up a test case (think Selz and a narrow 2-1 decision) if he wants or he can lobby the Oregon legislature. Although what he describes is already addressed in a clear and reasonable manner. .... I think it would be a really good idea. *If nothing else, ask him if he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. *Ask him why. You could then report back to us about what he says. *It would be interesting, don't you agree? Frank- YOU call Bob and bend his ear. Give him a link to this thread. Tell us what he says about the law. Not some silly carefully constructed hypothetical, ask about the big picture of what the law provides. No, on second thought, have him post here himself. You have not quoted anyone accurately yet. DR |
#1117
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Medical Costs
In article ,
Tºm Shermªn °_° " wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: In article , Jay wrote: On Dec 7, 4:27?pm, Tim wrote: In , ?T m Sherm n " wrote: On 12/6/2010 11:04 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , ? Peter ?wrote: [...] ?Medicine, in the US, via a number of mechanisms, is pretty much ?a cartel. Bull****. ?But you have to stop mixing things up to be able to understand that. The financing of medical care in the US is a cartel. You'd have to prove collusion between insurance companies to prevent competition or inflate prices to demonstrate that health care finance is a cartel. ?It may very well be, and if so it is one of many (along with the oil industry, the cell phone industry, the music industry, the movie industry, the...). ?Drug companies, OTOH, operate as monopolies rather than as cartels. Insurance policies and premiums are approved by state regulators. Premiums are set based on actuarial data, and annual increases must be approved. Insurance companies are treated like regulated utilities and not cartels in the sense that they are competitors engaged in illegal price fixing or other monopoly-like activity. The problem is that there are too few insurers competing for business, so there is no real choice for consumers. There are at least a dozen competing health insurance companies in my state. Four of them split up most of the market share Pretty much a cartel, then. Please look up the definition of a cartel. Spouting off like this just makes you look foolish. and another four or five take most of what's left with a few smaller players. What's the minimum threshold for effective competition? There are three times as many insurance companies as there are paid TV signal providers here (and many people spend as much or more on TV service than they do on health insurance premiums). Commercial television and radio broadcasting in the US is the government practically giving away a limited public resource to the well connected. *Paid* signal providers, Tom. In my neighborhood the options are Comcast, Qwest and IIRC two satellite providers. We have far more choices in health insurance. Patent rights may give drug companies "monopolies" on certain drugs in the same way that Shimano has a monopoly on Di2, but the drug companies are not "monopolies." Since we are talking about multiple competitors, it would have to be a trust or a cartel in any event. Drug companies have legal monopolies on drugs covered by patent protection, and then maintain those monopolies as long as possible once the patents expire by tying up the generic drug with lawsuits over things like pill coatings. Another favored technique is to modify the delivery system to get new patent protection for an old drug (Advair is a great example of this). The problem is that market forces are very, very weak in the health care industry. The capitalist model does not work well. I am pushing for a complete overhaul: socialized voo-doo. -- Jay Beattie. Fine by me. Simple, straightforward, universal coverage. Letting people die in the streets also works, as long as civil unrest is kept to level where it can be controlled by the military and government backed death squads. I guess that's an option. It's part of the health care system as it exists in the US now. They call it "freedom" apparently. -- Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe. |
#1118
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 12:59*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
You do not have a legal right to anything. *... You do not have a right to the road. ... You do not have a right to the road. *... Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree. - Frank Krygowski |
#1119
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 3:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, Duane wrote: You do not have a legal right to anything. ... You do not have a right to the road. ... You do not have a right to the road. ... You can't drive a car on a road without a license and your license can be suspended. Drivers don't have a right to the road. They have a privilege. You can't ride a bicycle on any road where the authority having jurisdiction prevents it. At the moment, it's probably mostly interstates in the US. The AHJ can mark any road that they want to prevent cycling. They can force you to ride in a bike lane or not use the road. They can force you to license your bike. Hell, you're even known to have ranted against facilities in part because you're afraid you will be forced to use them. How do you claim that you have a right? Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree. Finally something I can agree with. |
#1120
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing
On 2010-12-09, Michael Press wrote:
In article . org, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2010-12-09, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? "" wrote: On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote: On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote: On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane H?bert wrote: At home I use Outlook Express for a news reader.[...] Bill Gates holding a gun to your head? Huh? Why would anyone use a Micro$oft product when better, free alternatives are available? (Assuming that they are given a choice.) I haven't got around to installing TBird at home. Last year when I tried it, it sucked too much. The current version seems ok - I'm using it at work. The "Huh?" was more about you telling me to use a newsreader that will let me respond to your posts in lieu of you not doing funny things to your header. So huh? My header is UTF-8 compliant. Alas, usenet is not. It's a 7-bit medium. All headers must be ASCII. Header titles must be exactly as prescribed. HOWEVER... there are means to communicate and render glyphs outside ASCII. You have some reading to do, but I promise it is rewarding reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047 I'm aware of how MIME works. It doesn't change the underlying foundation of Usenet, it just makes it possible to piggyback non-ASCII content onto an ASCII medium of transport. -- Kristian Zoerhoff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 10 08:05 AM |
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. | Daniel Barlow | UK | 4 | July 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Child cyclist fatalities in London | Tom Crispin | UK | 13 | October 11th 08 05:12 PM |
Car washes for cyclist fatalities | Bobby | Social Issues | 4 | October 11th 04 07:13 PM |
web-site on road fatalities | cfsmtb | Australia | 4 | April 23rd 04 09:21 AM |