Do dead cyclists go to Heaven or Hell?

On Jan 4, 6:15*pm, Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:





I'll give you an example. The California Vehicle Code contains the
following section:

* * * * 21758. *In the event any vehicle is being operated on any
* * * * grade outside of a business or residence district at a speed
* * * * of less than 20 miles per hour, no person operating any other
* * * * motor vehicle shall attempt to overtake and pass such slow
* * * * moving vehicle unless the overtaking vehicle is operated at a
* * * * speed of at least 10 miles per hour in excess of the speed of
* * * * the overtaken vehicle, nor unless the passing movement is
* * * * completed within a total distance not greater than one-quarter
* * * * of a mile.

Now, suppose you have a bicycle (let's make it a low-powered electric
bicycle) going up a grade a 10mph on a shoulder, and that traffic is
so heavy that cars are traveling at 15 mph. *If bicycles were
vehicles, Section 21758 would make it illegal for a motor vehicle to
pass the bicycle. even though it could be done safely.

Now, when you write something like Section 21758, do you want to have
to explicitly list bicycles and who knows what else in a series of
exceptions? *It simply becomes awkward and unreadable if you do that.

Why do they write such details into the law at all? It becomes
unmaintainable ...

I thoght the US had a case law system?-

The foxes know how to write laws that seem confusing. Though it's them
that most benefit from the laws...

HOW THE LAW WORKS... FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LION
One day the King of the Jungle, tired of being called AUTHORITARIAN,
gathered the most cunning animals in the kingdom, chief among them the
Foxes, and told them: "It's mighty unjust that I am not recognized for
what I am. You know full well that the best of my SCRAPS, after you,
go to the Little Animals... Well, I want you to write LAWS, so from
now on it'll be them, and not me, who would rule over this God chosen
kingdom..."

After a few months of hard deliberations (and a few "private parties"
and "business trips") the Foxes (now turned politicians) returned with
a long, long book of laws written in a language so hard to understand
to the Little Animals that they thought it was old Greek. After
translation, it started like this: "The animals with a mane will be
treated like kings; the animals with paws and teeth will be above the
Laws; and the animals who will represent the interests of the Little
Animals, us, will be granted a raise in benefits and status... Of
course, ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION will be considered ILLEGAL, and
will result in the Lion eating the Little Animal..." (Moral: The trick
is in the law.)

(Ekul Namsob) writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

(Ekul Namsob) writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

You'd have no way of knowing - I was referring to cutting through
neighborhoods, which is nearly always slower unless the arterials
are congested.

That would be why most SatNavs avoid such roads.

Except, of course, that those roads are not slower when the arterials
are congested, but your navigation system does not know about traffic
congestion at the time you are driving.

Actually, it does.

Actually it doesn't as we don't have ubiquitous traffic monitoring in
place - if there is an accident ahead on most roads, there is no way
the system is going to know given what is currently deployed.

Go to http://maps.google.com/. On the right hand side above the map,
you will see a link marked "Link to this page". What is that link?

What good will that do? It has nothing to do with Jack's URL and the
page I got did not show any map.

It will have a lot to do with Jack's URL. You, however, do not want help
in diagnosing your proplem so I shall offer no further assistance.

It had nothing to do with Jack's URL, and you are incapable of offering
me any assistance, which I really don't need. It's not like you can
fix the problem with Jack's URL.

With no map, there is not going to
be anything above the map. When I use google maps on my own, it
works.

And it will offer you a permalink which you refuse to share with others.

What are you babbling about? You gave a URL to google's map service.
Jack was giving one to a specific area. There was no city, state,
zip code, or any other data that would have allowed me to find what
he was talking about on my own. There's no way I'll get a link to
what Jack was talking about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

(Ekul Namsob) writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Except, of course, that those roads are not slower when the arterials
are congested, but your navigation system does not know about traffic
congestion at the time you are driving.

Actually, it does.

Actually it doesn't as we don't have ubiquitous traffic monitoring in
place - if there is an accident ahead on most roads, there is no way
the system is going to know given what is currently deployed.

No, sorry it does. What is currently deployed where I live is extremely
effective. I suspect you live somewhere where traffic monitoring is
rather less advanced than where I live.

Go to http://maps.google.com/. On the right hand side above the map,
you will see a link marked "Link to this page". What is that link?

What good will that do? It has nothing to do with Jack's URL and the
page I got did not show any map.

It will have a lot to do with Jack's URL. You, however, do not want help
in diagnosing your proplem so I shall offer no further assistance.

It had nothing to do with Jack's URL, and you are incapable of offering
me any assistance, which I really don't need. It's not like you can
fix the problem with Jack's URL.

As you wish. Your ignorance, which you demonstrate in more abundance
than most, is your wish.

Goodbye,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

(Ekul Namsob) writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

(Ekul Namsob) writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Except, of course, that those roads are not slower when the arterials
are congested, but your navigation system does not know about traffic
congestion at the time you are driving.

Actually, it does.

Actually it doesn't as we don't have ubiquitous traffic monitoring in
place - if there is an accident ahead on most roads, there is no way
the system is going to know given what is currently deployed.

No, sorry it does. What is currently deployed where I live is extremely
effective. I suspect you live somewhere where traffic monitoring is
rather less advanced than where I live.

Where you live is not the whole country. Given your comments about Jack's
URL and how Google works, I really don't believe you anyway.

It had nothing to do with Jack's URL, and you are incapable of offering
me any assistance, which I really don't need. It's not like you can
fix the problem with Jack's URL.

As you wish. Your ignorance, which you demonstrate in more abundance
than most, is your wish.


Wow. Talk about idiocy! Typing http://maps.google.com into my browser
is not going to tell me anything about why Google didn't like Jack's
URL when used on my browser.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Well, some propose writing to your political representative (as if
they didn't know), others fault the law (as if what's written on piece
of paper would make a difference), but I blame DISCRIMINATION, a
system where cyclists are SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. You got an SUV? You
are someone. You only got a bike? Well, go and ride it --if you dare.
And not even bike lanes will make you safe...

"I guess they could give tickets..."

"no, we won't actually"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hcO3m_c_jM

In the German StVO we have something like "When overtaking,
keep sufficient space to the vehicle being overtaken.",
the interpretation being left to the courts.

=v= Most of our laws use the word "reasonable," leaving things
up to the courts, which are anything but reasonable.

=v= In some states there is a 3-foot minimum for cars passing
bikes, though a "reasonable" standard would be something that
would stipulate greater passing distances at higher speeds!
_Jym_

On Jan 6, 5:01 am, Jym Dyer wrote:
In the German StVO we have something like "When overtaking,
keep sufficient space to the vehicle being overtaken.",
the interpretation being left to the courts.

=v= Most of our laws use the word "reasonable," leaving things
up to the courts, which are anything but reasonable.

=v= In some states there is a 3-foot minimum for cars passing
bikes, though a "reasonable" standard would be something that
would stipulate greater passing distances at higher speeds!
_Jym_

The laws are out there --even in these lawless lands. The enforcement
though is nowhere to be seen. Notice the introduction, "The driver of
a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction
shall pass to the
left," as if anyone out there was praticing that or ever getting
ticketed for it. But I know some of you are getting tired of my
metaphorical jungle.

So I say now: WELCOME TO THE WILD, WILD WEST!

*OVERTAKING AND PASSING A VEHICLE
[§§316.083, 316.085, & 366.0875]
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle
proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the
left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again
drive to the right side of the roadway until safely
clear of the overtaken vehicle. A driver overtaking a
bicycle must maintain a horizontal clearance of at
least 3 feet [§316.083]. Three feet is a minimum
"safe distance" for passing a cyclist under typical
urban conditions; when the passing vehicle is large,
towing a trailer, or traveling at much higher speed,
greater lateral clearance is needed.

OK, allow me to go back to my favorite metaphor, the jungle and its
inhabitants, and we assume there's a lion in a cage...

http://www.weirdnewstoday.com/upload...ion-783568.jpg

You assume the lion is dangerous... but why? Maybe he's tamed, maybe
he's full, or maybe he's vegetarian. Whatever the reason, YOU REFUSE
TO GO IN BASED ON FEAR! Then everybody turns to you and say, "Hey, are
you ckicken or what!?" You doubt, but still you don't see people
walking into that cage. And from then on YOU LET FEAR RUN YOUR LIFE.

So FEAR IS WHAT KEEPS PEOPLE AWAY FROM CYCLING. And that the lion
roars is not helping it either...

(I capitalized some words that are key to understanding why there are
no bicycles out there)

"Further, we believe that cycling is an inherently enjoyable activity,
when the cyclist has at least a minimum amount of competence. No one
need be or ought to be compelled to bicycle. Nor should anyone be
dissuaded from bicycling due to
PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION, OR UNFOUNDED FEAR."

(nice website)
http://www.bicycledriving.com/use.htm

By the way, here's an strategy I've put together for dealing with a
Hungry Lion...

Who will put the bell on the cat? Well, only you can:
-DO NOT FEED THE LION* (we are confronting a Hungry Lion, so he's most
vulnerable to boycott)
-VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (leave a Hungry Lion --he needs you more than you
need him)
-NONVIOLENCE IS BETTER** (don't dress as a lion --he loves to have any
excuse to eat you)
-CRY LION! (the lion's success depends on camouflage, so your alarm
may save others)
-NO LION NO PROBLEM!*** (do not accept the beast mentally --mental
slavery-- in your life)
*see "The Role of Boycotts"... http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-24.htm
& "Enough"... http://www.enough.org.uk/index.html#cont
**"Violence used against oppression, Gandhi believed, was not only
wrong, it was a mistake." (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/
india/satyagraha.html)
***"Fear makes us the instruments of Power. When we are afraid, we
obey." (http://www.fragmentsweb.org/fourtx/powfertx.html)

donquijote1954 schrieb:
On Jan 3, 7:17 pm, Jens Müller wrote:
As I am currently sueing a German city in administrative court regarding
a cycle path usage obligation: I think I know a bit about safe cycling.


Good luck!

Thanks. I think I have a good position.

They changed their arguments several times during the administrative
proceedings, as I now got to know when I viewed the file:

The original order had no specific reasons at all ("The traffic signs
are ordered for regulating right-of-way in the roundabout", which has
nothing whatsoever to do with cycle path usage obligation). Then it was
uniform traffic regulations, HGV traffic, slope, and finally way to
school for children ... The file also says something about "political
wish of mayor and council", which seems to be the only relevant reason.

Furthermore, the file is IMO incomplete. A hearing (written, I suppose)
of relevant public authorities (like traffic police, ...) was conducted,
and there also have to be some papers about those political wishes. I
will point that out to the court and the rapporteur will probably demand
that papers from the city ...

Even better, their traffic law knowledge seems to be from 1998, they are
not willing to accept the relevant court rulings after that time ...