Andrew Muzi are you ok?

On Sep 2, 11:45 pm, jim beam wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Sep 2, 3:34 pm, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:06 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:

Max Otter wrote:
Dang--not only do you complain to me personally for using the nickname
I've been using for years and years--you feel the need to "out" me by
****ing up your attribution. Get checked for dementia and illusions of
grandeur.

He is "Brandt, the Great and Terrible", the once and (in his mind)
future king of rec.bicycles.* Don't f*** with him!! ;-)

the "great and mighty" jobst brandt is a pathetic old fool. not only
is he no good at math, he's a bull****ter of the highest order. for
instance, his version of his "porsche" experience has him leading the
fundamental redesign of their braking and suspension systems. reality
is, he spent a few months there one summer - a kind of working
vacation. his "stanford engineering" contribution is nothing you
could ever see on any vehicle - it was merely to drink their coffee,
**** everyone off, and **** off back home to the states with
frankfurters shoved so far up his ass by his former coworkers anxious
to see him leave, he still hasn't been able to **** them out. hence
his attitude.

Your claim would indicate much personal knowledge of Jobst Brandt. Any
proof to back up these allegations?

what kind of "proof" do you want tom? I ride bike and i chat with
people here in the bay area. seems some people know jobst better than
he wants to be known.

Are you saying they discovered this about Brandt?

http://tinyurl.com/mluno3

On 3 Sep, 03:31, RonSonic wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:40:27 -0700 (PDT), someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 21:36, someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 20:06, Jobst Brandt wrote:

Max Otter wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758
Didn't look like Andy. *However that motorist needs to get a
suspended license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.

Cheese! *He was only on the phone, minding his own conversation. *He
obviously meant no harm! *However, when I see such videos or witness
such an incident, I wonder how these folks don't get hit by a full
readymix truck on occasion if they are so oblivious to traffic lights.
I suspect they are more aware of cross traffic than they want to
admit, and that a bicycle does not threaten their own bodily safety.
The illogic of that doesn't surface.

Jobst Brandt

He saw the bus and thought he could safely jump the lights, the
cyclist was not in view because he was masked by the bus when the SUV
driver made his decision to jump the lights.

Day-glo flourescent kit may help the stupid cyclist in these
instances. *

Only if drivers can see through buses.

I'd considered that thought, the cyclist would appear in front of the
bus at some point before being struck else the bus would have struck
the car. Using dayglo catches peripheral vision, the earlier
recognition may encourage earlier braking by the car driver (the
wearer would hope).


Don't overtake through junctions.

I'll frequently use cars for blocking, but don't know if I'd follow your rule
consistently. It is best to not pass in intersections when you're going to be
re-passed in another few yards,.

Cars you are running paralell with may also turn on you, use the lane
when crossing junctions.

On 3 Sep, 03:27, RonSonic wrote:
On 02 Sep 2009 19:06:41 GMT, Jobst Brandt wrote:

Max Otter wrote:

http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758

Didn't look like Andy. *However that motorist needs to get a
suspended license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.

Cheese! *He was only on the phone, minding his own conversation. *He
obviously meant no harm! *However, when I see such videos or witness
such an incident, I wonder how these folks don't get hit by a full
readymix truck on occasion if they are so oblivious to traffic lights.

They do, just not often enough for justice.

I suspect they are more aware of cross traffic than they want to
admit, and that a bicycle does not threaten their own bodily safety.

One of the things at play and it is visible in the video but indirectly is that
the bus was obstructing the view. The cyclist never had a chance to see the car
coming from the other side of the bus and the driver couldn't see the cyclist
until he was right there.

JB dont like dealing with the obvious.

On 3 Sep, 05:32, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:35, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:11 pm, " wrote:

http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758
Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a suspended
license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.

The cyclist was overtaking a slow moving bus at a junction, he should
have made sure it was safe. *The SUV driver did well to brake at all
given the lack of visibility due to the positioning of the cyclist.
The driver should be held 100% liable, he should have been paying
attention and stopped at the red light or approached with caution if
the light had failed.

Not.
I know that corner. There's a long period of red both ways
between changes. Truck ran a light.


Likely. But the light could have been out or there was a bird in
front, etc.

someone wrote:
On 3 Sep, 05:32, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:35, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:11 pm, " wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758
Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a suspended
license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist was overtaking a slow moving bus at a junction, he should
have made sure it was safe. The SUV driver did well to brake at all
given the lack of visibility due to the positioning of the cyclist.
The driver should be held 100% liable, he should have been paying
attention and stopped at the red light or approached with caution if
the light had failed.
Not.
I know that corner. There's a long period of red both ways
between changes. Truck ran a light.


Likely. But the light could have been out or there was a bird in
front, etc.

A bird? There are four lights facing each street. I would
expect that argument from my defense attorney but not form a
normal person.

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

On 3 Sep, 19:52, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 3 Sep, 05:32, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:35, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:11 pm, " wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758
Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a suspended
license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist was overtaking a slow moving bus at a junction, he should
have made sure it was safe. *The SUV driver did well to brake at all
given the lack of visibility due to the positioning of the cyclist.
The driver should be held 100% liable, he should have been paying
attention and stopped at the red light or approached with caution if
the light had failed.
Not.
I know that corner. There's a long period of red both ways
between changes. Truck ran a light.

Likely. *But the light could have been out or there was a bird in
front, etc.

A bird? There are four lights facing each street. I would
expect that argument from my defense attorney but not form a
normal person.


The driver may also have glaucoma. The birds mate was in front of
the other light which the driver could have expected to see. Britney
was on the radio. First time eating rum 'n' raisin chocolate. (must
find local source for this delicacy) (wonder could I mix it without
messing up the chocolate?)

On 3 Sep, 20:02, someone wrote:
On 3 Sep, 19:52, AMuzi wrote:



someone wrote:
On 3 Sep, 05:32, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:35, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:11 pm, " wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758
Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a suspended
license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist was overtaking a slow moving bus at a junction, he should
have made sure it was safe. *The SUV driver did well to brake at all
given the lack of visibility due to the positioning of the cyclist.
The driver should be held 100% liable, he should have been paying
attention and stopped at the red light or approached with caution if
the light had failed.
Not.
I know that corner. There's a long period of red both ways
between changes. Truck ran a light.

Likely. *But the light could have been out or there was a bird in
front, etc.

A bird? There are four lights facing each street. I would
expect that argument from my defense attorney but not form a
normal person.

The driver may also have glaucoma. * The birds mate was in front of
the other light which the driver could have expected to see. * Britney
was on the radio. *First time eating rum 'n' raisin chocolate. *(must
find local source for this delicacy) *(wonder could I mix it without
messing up the chocolate?)

Oh yes, it was a big bird. I believe Sesame sStreet is around the
corner.

Andrew Muzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 3 Sep, 05:32, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:35, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:11 pm, " wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758

Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a suspended
license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist was overtaking a slow moving bus at a junction, he should
have made sure it was safe. The SUV driver did well to brake at all
given the lack of visibility due to the positioning of the cyclist.
The driver should be held 100% liable, he should have been paying
attention and stopped at the red light or approached with caution if
the light had failed.
Not.
I know that corner. There's a long period of red both ways
between changes. Truck ran a light.


Likely. But the light could have been out or there was a bird in
front, etc.

A bird? There are four lights facing each street. I would expect that
argument from my defense attorney but not form a normal person.

But from Trevor?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths

someone aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On 3 Sep, 05:32, AMuzi wrote:
someone wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:35, landotter wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:11 pm, " wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...er-fred/650758
Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a suspended
license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist was overtaking a slow moving bus at a junction, he should
have made sure it was safe. The SUV driver did well to brake at all
given the lack of visibility due to the positioning of the cyclist.
The driver should be held 100% liable, he should have been paying
attention and stopped at the red light or approached with caution if
the light had failed.
Not.
I know that corner. There's a long period of red both ways
between changes. Truck ran a light.


Likely. But the light could have been out or there was a bird in
front, etc.

Birds are persona non grata in Madison.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths

In article ,
RonSonic wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:36:33 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article
,
landotter wrote:

On Sep 2, 1:11*pm, "
wrote:
http://news.aol.com/article/video-sh...awmaker-fred/6
507 58

Didn't look like Andy. However that motorist needs to get a
suspended license and jail time for assault with a deadly weapon.

And maybe a little extra time for being a lawmaker and setting such
a bad example.

The fundamental problem of earthly justice is that to be perfect we
would have to know the intent and state of mind of the accused and we
cannot. In this case I'd feel differently about him if he simply
spaced on the red light than if he saw the light, deliberately burned
it and calculated that he'd make it past the bus.

I don't see a lot of difference there.