Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Citation?
Look up the term NIMBY. Or read up on any attempts to raise the
speed
limit on Embarcadero Rd in Palo Alto. The people living on it want
the speed limit to stay at 25. The police department would rather see
it raised to the point where they could use radar to catch people
going way above the normal speed of traffic, which is well above the
posted speed limit. It's a typical example.

Typical of what? Is Palo Alto the whole world, or even representative
of most places?

Are you really that stupid? If you want an example, I'll use one from
the area I live in - NIMBY squabbles tend to get reported in the local
press and are not national news.

Another non sequitur.

No Zaumen, you contended by implication that the majority could get
their wishes put into law. That requires democracy, therefore my point
is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Wrong. While money has way too much influence, politicians will still
pander on things that the super rich don't care about.

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.

Conspiracy theory.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California
Driver's Hand[b]ook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this
is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the
written test).

Not all the world lives in California (although Zaumen seems to think so).
Since our drivers hassle cyclists and behave as badly as drivers
anywhere
else in the U.S., the example I gave is quite relevant.

Please list your experiences that shows this to be true.
I already have. Go back to some previous posts not too long ago and
find it.

Please post links to those posts.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them
that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious
of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It
specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize
the point.
Note how he is ignoring that as it shows he is completely wrong.

What are you talking about?
Can we get some more indefinite pronouns in one sentence?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Do you (Bill Zaumen) have a writing problem in that you (Bill Zaumen)
do not recognize indefinite pronouns?

Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is
influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane".
Nonsense. They know better.

Who is they (indefinite pronoun)?
Sigh. The normal rule in English is that a pronoun refers to the
first
preceding noun that matches it. Scan backwards and see if you can find it.
So the bicycle lanes know better?
Try looking for a plural noun. Do I have to spell everything out for
you are are you just trolling by playing dumb.

Dumb means inability to speak, which would not be of import to the
ability to post to Usenet.

No, you are spouting nonsense. It is not that they don't know or
don't understand, it is that they don't care.

No, many people are not aware of basic rules of right-of-way.
Yes they are - they just choose to ignore them.

Citation?

No, they won't sideswipe you. They'd have to turn too sharply and to
do that they'd have to slow down to the point where they'd fall behind
you.

Zaumen must be describing some other scenario here - maybe one that
only happens in California?
No, one that happens everywhere. If you've shown that you have
trouble
with the English language. Perhaps you need some training to learn how
to ride a bicycle better as well.

Perhaps Zaumen needs to describe the scenario better - he (Zaumen)
makes the case that if the cyclist rides 14 feet to the right of the
left side lane marker of the rightmost lane, a right turning motor
vehicle can not strike the cyclist, which is obvious nonsense.

It doesn't influence them at all, your conspiracy theories
notwithstanding.

Zaumen needs to pay attention to the real world. I have had plenty of
cagers yell at me to get back in the "bicycle lane", even though
riding in the "bicycle lane" was not the correct place for me to be in
that particular circumstance.
So what? I've had the scream at me when I was riding in a bicycle
lane.

Did the cager scream at you to get in the bicycle lane? If not, the
above anecdote is irrelevant.

No, they wanted me off the road. One was mad because I stopped at a stop
sign. That one wanted to turn right and if I had ran the stop sign, I
would have been out of her way. She didn't like having to wait 2 seconds.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Citation?
Look up the term NIMBY. Or read up on any attempts to raise the
speed
limit on Embarcadero Rd in Palo Alto. The people living on it want
the speed limit to stay at 25. The police department would rather see
it raised to the point where they could use radar to catch people
going way above the normal speed of traffic, which is well above the
posted speed limit. It's a typical example.

Typical of what? Is Palo Alto the whole world, or even representative
of most places?

Are you really that stupid? If you want an example, I'll use one from
the area I live in - NIMBY squabbles tend to get reported in the local
press and are not national news.

Someone wants to build a natural gas fired electric plant in Palo Alto?
Those are the usual NIMBY things that happen around here.


Another non sequitur.

No Zaumen, you contended by implication that the majority could get
their wishes put into law. That requires democracy, therefore my point
is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Wrong. While money has way too much influence, politicians will still
pander on things that the super rich don't care about.

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.

Conspiracy theory.

Have you ever wondered why the really big and important things never get
addressed while most inconsequential things get more than enough
attention? It's because the people with money like things that way and
don't want it changed. That's not conspiracy, that's the facts. And it
isn't just in this country, it is all over the world.

Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


Typical of what? Is Palo Alto the whole world, or even representative
of most places?
Are you really that stupid? If you want an example, I'll use one
from
the area I live in - NIMBY squabbles tend to get reported in the local
press and are not national news.

Someone wants to build a natural gas fired electric plant in Palo
Alto? Those are the usual NIMBY things that happen around here.

LOL. We have our own city utility. It's not going to do anything that
would create a political controversy. So we get our squabbles about
stop signs and speed limits. With a very engaged citizenry, nobody is
going to try to put an electric plant in anyone's back yard. Not in
our town, so it wouldn't even get off the ground.

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.
Conspiracy theory.

Have you ever wondered why the really big and important things never
get addressed while most inconsequential things get more than enough
attention? It's because the people with money like things that way and
don't want it changed. That's not conspiracy, that's the facts. And it
isn't just in this country, it is all over the world.

Ask Barry Bonds if laws are not enforced against the "super rich".
Also ask Charles Keating, Kenneth Lay (by seance), and a host of
others.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.
Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.
No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane
and do indirect left turns.
BZ still doesn't understand that since "they have their own lane"
motorists want cyclists to stay in those lanes. Turning left out of
that lane is the cyclist's problem, not theirs. "We can't go in their
bicycle lane, why do they think they can come into ours?"
Buses sometimes have their own lane, including bus lanes on the right
side of the raod, and drivers do not expect buses preparing for left
turns to make their turns from the rightmost lane.

Well gee. The bus, unlike the bicycle, is a motor vehicle.
The issue was the lanes and road design, not how a vehicle is
powered.

How the vehicle is powered makes a different in how fast it will go. Duh.
... you mean like a street sweepers? How it is powered and its peak
speed are not relevant to right-of-way rules.

But the vehicle speed is certainly relevant to what happens in the
real world (where the rest of us ride).

The bus, unlike the bicycle travels at roughly the same speeds as the
motor vehicles.
The bus, unlike the bicycle, will "win" in a collision between itself
and a personal motor vehicle.
So will a hummer versus a subcompact car.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unlike the bus or bicycle versus
SUV comparison.
No, quite relevant - I was pointing out that right of way rules do
not
depend on how well the vehicle does in a collision.

Zaumen is confusing legislative law with "street law" again. It may be
equally illegal to cut off a cyclist and a bus, but the cyclist will
do minor cosmetic damage to the SUV, while the bus will crush the SUV,
possibly injuring or killing the SUV driver and almost certainly
damaging the SUV to the point where the SUV can no longer be
driven. The SUV driver is well aware of the different potential
outcomes, since he/she drives in the real world.

The bus, unlike the bicycle, is big enough that it is hard for even an
inattentive motorist to miss.
Size has nothing to do with it.
Really? Even the most mentally dim cager can judge that the bus is
much bigger than the cyclist.
Non sequitur - if they can determine the size, they can tell what's
there.

But the cager is more likely to notice a bus than a cyclist, no? Or is
that different in California?

In conclusion, the bus differs from the bicycle in some important aspects.
The above should be obvious, even if not mentioned in the California
Statutes.
What should be obvious is that you are full of it.

It? INDEFINITE PRONOUN ALERT!
Is English your native language?

Yes, which is why I know about indefinite pronouns.


Idiot.

How many hours did Zaumen pour over the composition of this post? The
world wonders.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Citation?
Look up the term NIMBY. Or read up on any attempts to raise the
speed
limit on Embarcadero Rd in Palo Alto. The people living on it want
the speed limit to stay at 25. The police department would rather see
it raised to the point where they could use radar to catch people
going way above the normal speed of traffic, which is well above the
posted speed limit. It's a typical example.

Typical of what? Is Palo Alto the whole world, or even representative
of most places?

Are you really that stupid? If you want an example, I'll use one from
the area I live in - NIMBY squabbles tend to get reported in the local
press and are not national news.

Is a residential street typical of all roads?

Another non sequitur.

No Zaumen, you contended by implication that the majority could get
their wishes put into law. That requires democracy, therefore my point
is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Wrong. While money has way too much influence, politicians will still
pander on things that the super rich don't care about.

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.

Conspiracy theory.

Pay attention to the real world. Here is hint, the laws as written
are NOT the real world.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


Typical of what? Is Palo Alto the whole world, or even representative
of most places?
Are you really that stupid? If you want an example, I'll use one
from
the area I live in - NIMBY squabbles tend to get reported in the local
press and are not national news.
Someone wants to build a natural gas fired electric plant in Palo
Alto? Those are the usual NIMBY things that happen around here.

LOL. We have our own city utility. It's not going to do anything that
would create a political controversy. So we get our squabbles about
stop signs and speed limits. With a very engaged citizenry, nobody is
going to try to put an electric plant in anyone's back yard. Not in
our town, so it wouldn't even get off the ground.

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.
Conspiracy theory.
Have you ever wondered why the really big and important things never
get addressed while most inconsequential things get more than enough
attention? It's because the people with money like things that way and
don't want it changed. That's not conspiracy, that's the facts. And it
isn't just in this country, it is all over the world.

Ask Barry Bonds if laws are not enforced against the "super rich".
Also ask Charles Keating, Kenneth Lay (by seance), and a host of
others.

Barry Bonds is not a member of the "Super Rich" by any means - his
wealth would be sneered at by the real power brokers (e.g. Rothschild's,
Rockefeller's and their ilk).

Keating and Lay got slaps on the wrist - if a blue collar criminal stole
equal value, the combined sentences would run into the tens of thousands
of years.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California
Driver's Handook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this
is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the
written test).
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them
that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious
of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It
specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize
the point.
Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is
influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane".
Nonsense. They know better.
As Tom keeps saying over and over, we don't live in California and as
I keep saying, don't assume that the state laws are uniform, or in
this case the manuals.
Since California drivers are known to honk at cyclists for various
reasons, the URLs above are highly relevant - it shows that the
problem is not that drivers have not been educated. The problem
is something closer to read rage, and the only solution that will
work is to start lifting licenses.
You assume that by putting something in the driver's manual, that
"educates them" and it is nonsense that they don't know.
Bicycle questions are on the driver's test,
Not on any test I have taken given by a state licensing agency. To
repeat myself, California is not the world.

Maybe instead of whining on usenet, you should write to your elected
representatives.

But, what you fail to understand is that California is highly relevant:
even with what I described, drivers still harass cyclists. The problem is
obvious - it is not lack of education as the relevant facts are in
material they have to learn to get a license, but rather the drivers'
attitudes.

Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.

Note that I have not been made to take a written test in over two (2)
decades, and my experience is not unusual.

Not true here - but how often you get tested depends on how many moving
violations you get.

And what percentage of violation convictions of motorists are for
violating cyclists' rights?

and everyone knows you
have to read everything in the manual because anything in it might be
on the test - they ask picayune questions that require memorizing
silly numbers: given the rule, "The speed limit is 15 mph within 100
feet of a railroad crossing where you cannot see the tracks for 400
feet in both directions," they'll ask you if you have to be within
100 feet, 80 feet, or 120 feet, yet most driver's can't visually
distinguish these three distances. So you pretty much have to
read the whole thing and memorize all the numbers in it for the
test, after which you simply forget the numbers and drive so as to
leave adequate safety margins.

Why are only numbers forgotten, and not other parts? Citation to a
study that shows that only numbers from the driver's manual are
forgotten?

Ask 10 people and you'll find out. It should be obvious - those
numbers boil down to leaving reasonable safety margins and you don't
judge those by taking out a laser rangefinder or staring at your
speedometer when you should be looking at what is going on around
you. There's simply no reason to remember them.
The last time I sat down and studied the manual was over 35 years
ago. Do you think I know even 1/10th of what is in there? Yet my
license keeps getting renewed. Around here, they lift licenses
regularly and it stops very few people from driving.
Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.
whine snipped

And I was going to bring cheese.

Do you feel oompelled to comment when you can't think of anything
sensible to say?

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


It? INDEFINITE PRONOUN ALERT!
Is English your native language?

Yes, which is why I know about indefinite pronouns.

Idiot.

How many hours did Zaumen pour over the composition of this post? The
world wonders.

0.0003 hours, approximately, which is all you deserved.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.
Conspiracy theory.

Pay attention to the real world. Here is hint, the laws as written
are NOT the real world.

Non sequitur.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB