Critical Mass Tunnel F*cks

(Fx199) wrote:

After all, the road was NOT constructed for cyclists it was constructed for
motor vehicles.

That's a pitifully weak troll, but I'll bite...

The road is for legally recognized vehicles, and bicycles are in that
category in every state in the country. If you've never heard of the
Good Roads movement or the L.A.W., you should look into them. It was
bicyclists who got the United States paved.

Cyclists have had an uninterrupted right to the roads for longer than
cars have been in general use. The fact that their right-of-way
preexisted cars is why they require no registration or licensing to
use the roads. The only roads that are off-limits to bikes are those
specifically marked that way, just like the ones that are off-limits
to trucks, through-traffic, slow vehicles, etc.

Chalo Colina

Subject: Critical Mass Tunnel F*cks
From: (Chalo)
Date: 9/28/2004 3:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

(Fx199) wrote:

After all, the road was NOT constructed for cyclists it was constructed for
motor vehicles.

That's a pitifully weak troll, but I'll bite...

The road is for legally recognized vehicles, and bicycles are in that
category in every state in the country. If you've never heard of the
Good Roads movement or the L.A.W., you should look into them. It was
bicyclists who got the United States paved.

Cyclists have had an uninterrupted right to the roads for longer than
cars have been in general use. The fact that their right-of-way
preexisted cars is why they require no registration or licensing to
use the roads. The only roads that are off-limits to bikes are those
specifically marked that way, just like the ones that are off-limits
to trucks, through-traffic, slow vehicles, etc.

Chalo Colina








Just because they have a right to use them, does not mean the roads were
expressly built FOR bicycles, and the pre car roads you speak of are a joke
compared to taday's roads. I'm not against more bike friendly roads BTW

(Fx199) wrote:

Just because they have a right to use them, does not mean the roads were
expressly built FOR bicycles, and the pre car roads you speak of are a joke
compared to taday's roads. I'm not against more bike friendly roads BTW

I don't know about you, but I live in a city platted and inhabited in
the 19th century, and almost all of the streets I use predate cars.
Many of them predate bicycles, and were paved first with bricks to
ease the passage of horse-drawn traffic.

Saying that roads were built for cars and not bicycles is like saying
that they were built for farmers and not commuters. For some
particular roads and streets, that might have been the case at the
time they were built. But the reason that roads are publically
financed and maintained is because they are for the use of anybody who
has a legal right to use them. Car drivers can't make a legitimate
claim to some special status over that of other road users any more
than truck drivers can claim precedence over car drivers.

Cyclists can make a claim to special status in principle, because
their access to the roads is a right, while motor traffic uses roads
as a privilege granted under license. Motorists require special
certification to make them equal to any cyclist in their access to the
roads.

Chalo Colina

Subject: Critical Mass Tunnel F*cks
From: (Chalo)
Date: 9/28/2004 1:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

(Fx199) wrote:

Just because they have a right to use them, does not mean the roads were
expressly built FOR bicycles, and the pre car roads you speak of are a joke
compared to taday's roads. I'm not against more bike friendly roads BTW

I don't know about you, but I live in a city platted and inhabited in
the 19th century, and almost all of the streets I use predate cars.
Many of them predate bicycles, and were paved first with bricks to
ease the passage of horse-drawn traffic.

Saying that roads were built for cars and not bicycles is like saying
that they were built for farmers and not commuters. For some
particular roads and streets, that might have been the case at the
time they were built. But the reason that roads are publically
financed and maintained is because they are for the use of anybody who
has a legal right to use them. Car drivers can't make a legitimate
claim to some special status over that of other road users any more
than truck drivers can claim precedence over car drivers.

Cyclists can make a claim to special status in principle, because
their access to the roads is a right, while motor traffic uses roads
as a privilege granted under license. Motorists require special
certification to make them equal to any cyclist in their access to the
roads.

Chalo Colina

hmm...but if a person loses their driver's license...they can ALWAYS drive a
bike..
So you can actually say they are relegated to "2nd class road use"

Actually most roads were built in the dawn of the automobilie age, I'm sure you
KNOW that, but you're a spinner.

28 Sep 2004 22:06:00 GMT,
, (Fx199)
wrote:

Cyclists can make a claim to special status in principle, because
their access to the roads is a right, while motor traffic uses roads
as a privilege granted under license. Motorists require special
certification to make them equal to any cyclist in their access to the
roads.

Chalo Colina

hmm...but if a person loses their driver's license...they can ALWAYS drive a
bike..
So you can actually say they are relegated to "2nd class road use"

They're exercising their right to mobility in the best way available
to them. Only apologist butt kissers would use the language you've
chosen for your petite harangue.
--
zk

Subject: Critical Mass Tunnel F*cks
From: Zoot Katz
Date: 9/28/2004 5:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

28 Sep 2004 22:06:00 GMT,
, (Fx199)
wrote:

Cyclists can make a claim to special status in principle, because
their access to the roads is a right, while motor traffic uses roads
as a privilege granted under license. Motorists require special
certification to make them equal to any cyclist in their access to the
roads.

Chalo Colina

hmm...but if a person loses their driver's license...they can ALWAYS drive a
bike..
So you can actually say they are relegated to "2nd class road use"

They're exercising their right to mobility in the best way available
to them. Only apologist butt kissers would use the language you've
chosen for your petite harangue.
--
zk


Yeah, right, I seem like a real butt kisser, right lardass?
What the hell do I seem like I'M APOLOGIZING FOR??

Not for driving a car, not for being a cyclist.

"petite harangue" LOL

So if others have many other ways available "for mobility" , they're just
"cager scum" Etc? It all has to be a according to a few politically correct
bullies.


They're in YOUR way...if not them, we can complain about other cyclists and
pedestrians and bitch and whine endlessly...YOU can anyway.

28 Sep 2004 23:47:22 GMT,
,
(Fx199) wrote:

So if others have many other ways available "for mobility" , they're just
"cager scum" Etc? It all has to be a according to a few politically correct
bullies.

You've no understanding of the term "basic mobility" or why that is my
right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Driving is a privilege and that privilege can be revoked. Sadly,
that's not done more often.
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message ...

You've no understanding of the term "basic mobility"

Funny for you to say that, wasn't it you that was
obsessing in here about the Maserati Quattroporte
a couple of nights ago?

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:21:33 GMT, hen6d.134585$%S.108349@pd7tw2no,
The Pro "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" possibly wrote:


"Zoot Katz" wrote in message ...

You've no understanding of the term "basic mobility"

Funny for you to say that, wasn't it you that was
obsessing in here about the Maserati Quattroporte
a couple of nights ago?

Could've been. I don't recall.
--
zk