Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 11, 9:39*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:14*am, Phil W Lee wrote:


But there IS a clear distinction between the use of "vehicles" which
is all encompassing, and "motor vehicles" which is not.
The statute you quote says you must conform to the requirements for
vehicles, but does not say that you must conform to those requirements
for motor vehicles.
Sadly, (and maybe not surprisingly) English is a foreign language to
Americans, so maybe that's why their lawyers have difficulties in
understanding it.

It is amazing that such a simple point causes confusion, isn't it?

Only for those who have no grasp of how law is written and
interpreted. You would do well to do some reading about statutory
interpretation and how the result of an appellate decision
interpreting a term forecloses rehashing arguments about what the term
means.

Simple example:
Older laws are often referred to as "motor vehicle codes" and
contained references to "motor vehicles." As those evolved typically
they dropped the title "motor vehicle code" in favor of the more
complete and/or accurate "vehicle code" or "traffic code."

But sometimes the older term "motor vehicle" still lingers in sections
of law that were not completely revised or rewritten. But, as we have
seen, the newer laws typically provide that bicycles are subject to
the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. So that,
and an appellate court saying "yes, the term 'motor vehicle' in that
section means bicycles, too," that's the end of it. "Motor vehicle"
means bicycles too.

DR

On Dec 9, 10:21*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:56*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



snip

No. *I could care less what he says, really. Why waste my time?

Is learning really considered a waste of time around here?

I hesitate to make my real point (for fear of sounding pompous), but I
was a partner in my firm for eight years and practicing for 14 years
before Bob even passed the bar. I know he is a national champion,
Olympian, etc., etc. I'm sure he's a good, smart guy, but I have
easy access to people I trust more (and who have far more experience
-- including the people who draft and enforce the laws). I have
already argued these issues with some of them. Also note that the
judge who issued the DUII opinion is a former partner in my firm and
someone I practiced with for years. So, I know the people making the
arguments and the people making the decisions, so making a call to Bob
isn't really going to teach me much except his spin on things. -- Jay
Beattie.

"Tºm ShermªnT °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/11/2010 8:29 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " wrote in
message ...
On 12/10/2010 11:28 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

Hmm. Given your fears, I suppose Quebec must have special Ground
Meat
Crews to scrape away all the dead cyclists!

- Frank Krygowski

**** you.

+1
DR

Good to see the maturity and civility of the group being preserved.

/sarcasm

Calling me a coward is bad enough but making light
of the dead cyclists here, some of which were friends
and all of which were persons, was a bit much.

And lying/libel is not a bit much?

Are you talking to me?

"Tºm ShermªnT °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/11/2010 8:36 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 7:55 pm, "Duane wrote:

Your response was much more polite than mine. You must be new dealing
with
this
guy.

Truthfully I first experienced the whole ordeal maybe 10 or more years
ago. The ordeal loses its effect after you've experienced it 30 or 40
times.

So you can eventually ignore him?


Frank Krygowski does not bother me, but then I had already come to the
same conclusions on Hell Mutts and farcilities (sic) before being a
regular on RBT.

Aside from your slightly repetetive foam hat thing you don't seem
to try to force your opinion on me WRT helmets. Bents are a different
story.

Maybe it takes an engineer to understand an engineer?

Doesn't work for me.

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/11/2010 11:06 AM, Dan 0vermªn wrote:
I didn't come here for the argument

Abuse is down the hall in Room 12.

This seems more like room 101.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
DirtRoadie considered Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:01:42
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 10, 10:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Look: When I take a typical bike ride, I'm probably passed by
hundreds of motorists. I know all about that situation. The typical
motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one cyclist per day.

Holy crap! No wonder you think you can get away with the **** you do.
On many of the roads around here a half hour drive would probably take
a driver past 50 or more cyclists. If even a few of them tried your
antics regularly there would be an army of hostile drivers.

It may seem strange, but it seems that the more cyclists there are on
the road, the more willing motorists are to give them proper
consideration.
Maybe it's just that as cycling increases, the chances of any
individual motorist being a cyclist as well also rise, along with the
chance of them knowing or being related to some number of cyclists.
It may also be that when there are a lot of cyclists, it becomes
obvious to more people that the road would not have the capacity for
the same number of cars, and it's the bikes they have to thank for
keeping the roads moving at all.

Bingo.

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 8:59 am, Phil W Lee wrote:

That's almost all roads here.
But can you explain how a driver is more inconvenienced by a cyclist
using the lane properly,

Properly? This is a trick question right? Properly means keeping to
the right (on this side of the Atlantic.
But a cyclist riding in the center of the lane can make a safe passing
opportunity less so.
As I said:
"(forcing the driver completely into the other lane in order to pass)"

That's been my experience.

The only reason drivers expect cyclists to hug the kerb is because so
many do.
Nobody said anything about "hugging a curb." There are no curbs on the
roads I described.

Apparently you're either in the middle of the lane or hugging the curb.
Boolean logic. You know, black/white, true/false no gray.
At least Phil doesn't say skulking in the gutter.

"Joy Beeson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:36:40 -0500, "Duane Hebert"
wrote:

So you can eventually ignore him?

It's quite easy. ^k, "mark read", "global", "until inactive", "apply
filters to folder now", enter

Well I had kill filed him but Andre Jute and Tom Sherman
(a very unlikely pair) convinced me to not do so.

Since I can't filter out all of the replies to his messages, I still
see them and get annoyed. If I kill file him I don't think that I should
bitch. I would like to reserve the right to do that g

On Dec 11, 10:09*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 10:28 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:



On Dec 11, 7:40 am, "Duane *wrote:
*wrote in message

....

On Dec 10, 7:55 pm, "Duane *wrote:

Your response was much more polite than mine. *You must be new dealing
with
this
guy.

Here's an old exchange with Frank where, in exasperation, I reply to
his formulaic spiel using using recycled responses from older threads..
In the recycled quotes there are references to still older threads.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...se_frm/thread/....

At least he's consistent. *Sounds pretty much like the same stuff that I was
greeted with
when I first posted here.

Frank Krygowski - once a ****tard, always a ****tard.

DirtRoadie - once a troll, always a troll.

And you bite at every cast.
DR

On Dec 11, 8:36*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

Frank Krygowski does not bother me, but then I had already come to the
same conclusions on Hell Mutts and farcilities (sic) before being a
regular on RBT.

Maybe it takes an engineer to understand an engineer?

There's a term for term for the commonality. It's not "engineer."
DR