Forester says...

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:10:51 -0800, kolldata wrote:

LOCAL ROADS ARE STATE ROADS. What other type of road would they be ?

I don't know how it's handled in other states, but here, a local road is
within the city limits of a town and maintained by the city. County roads
are maintained by the county. State roads are maintained by the state.
And Interstate roads are maintained by the state also. Generally, with
exceptions, local and county roads don't get state or federal funds.
Residential streets or normally paid for by the developer and then
maintained by the city. AFAIK, city streets are the only ones that use
local property taxes for maintenance. County roads use a combination of
local and state funds. The major roads fall under the state
transportation board, and are funded either all or in part by state fuel
taxes. 75% going for roads and 25% going to education. Gasoline taxes
here are 20 cents per gallon plus 6.x%. There are also taxes on all the
other fuels and lubricants that go into this fund. As does vehicle
license fees.

So, as I stated earlier. Automobile drivers do pay for the roads. Cyclist
don't.

On 2/5/2011 2:20 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:10:51 -0800, kolldata wrote:

LOCAL ROADS ARE STATE ROADS. What other type of road would they be ?

I don't know how it's handled in other states, but here, a local road is
within the city limits of a town and maintained by the city. County roads
are maintained by the county. State roads are maintained by the state.
And Interstate roads are maintained by the state also. Generally, with
exceptions, local and county roads don't get state or federal funds.
Residential streets or normally paid for by the developer and then
maintained by the city. AFAIK, city streets are the only ones that use
local property taxes for maintenance. County roads use a combination of
local and state funds. The major roads fall under the state
transportation board, and are funded either all or in part by state fuel
taxes. 75% going for roads and 25% going to education. Gasoline taxes
here are 20 cents per gallon plus 6.x%. There are also taxes on all the
other fuels and lubricants that go into this fund. As does vehicle
license fees.

So, as I stated earlier. Automobile drivers do pay for the roads. Cyclist
don't.

Your post is self-contradictory.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:29:01 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

What are you talking about? I think my state (Texas) is still part of the
US, and if you come on to my property without my permission I can shoot
you dead. I've traveled coast to coast and border to border and know of
no place in th US where you have the right to travel on private property
without the land owners permission. The law is called trespassing. And
here you can legally shoot someone for it under certain circumstances.
And with some of nuts in the world, I wouldn't test it.:-)

On Feb 5, 2:29*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?



--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/5/2011 2:33 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:29:01 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

What are you talking about? I think my state (Texas) is still part of the
US, and if you come on to my property without my permission I can shoot
you dead. I've traveled coast to coast and border to border and know of
no place in th US where you have the right to travel on private property
without the land owners permission. The law is called trespassing. And
here you can legally shoot someone for it under certain circumstances.
And with some of nuts in the world, I wouldn't test it.:-)

Mr. Newell displays a lack of reading comprehension here, as he is
responding to something he imagined I wrote, and not anything I actually
wrote.

yawn

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Feb 5, 8:51*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage..

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.


And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

--
T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.


And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:29:01 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

What are you talking about? I think my state (Texas) is still part of the
US, and if you come on to my property without my permission I can shoot
you dead. I've traveled coast to coast and border to border and know of
no place in th US where you have the right to travel on private property
without the land owners permission. The law is called trespassing. And
here you can legally shoot someone for it under certain circumstances.
And with some of nuts in the world, I wouldn't test it.:-)

That's only because Texas is civilized.

In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots
first. That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to
liberty, which begins at the individual in his person and
property. I assume the state fears we'll remove one of their
social services clients.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality.
I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the
city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.


Passage and especially hunting are traditionally 'by
permission of owner'. Perhaps Mr Beattie might contribute.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971