Forester says...

On 2/4/2011 10:16 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be
restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was
considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I
lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio
guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside
Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar
laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many
lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

One of the defects of the US Constitution is that allows government
too much power over individuals.

Sure. Except for rights that can't be curtailed as guaranteed by the
Constitution. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No
mention of cycling there either.

Wish there was but there isn't. All that we need are a few loonies
cycling the center of the roads at rush hour, adding to the already
horrendous commutes and we'll see what happens there.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.


In reality, the government of the US restricts the rights of the
citizens in many immoral ways.

Absolutely. So what's your point? It's one thing to wish for a right
to be guaranteed and quite another to say that it is.

On Feb 6, 7:03*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:23 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 6, 2:00 am, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""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.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. *The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. *Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. *Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. *Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages.

As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:13:58 -0800, Chalo wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

Chalo wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and
if I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the
probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the
judge in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted
him. Would I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it
was beer, might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent.
In the moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Your life must be very cheap, for you to measure the lives of others so
cheaply.

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. I don't put a price on life.

Your comments on cycling and motoring do seem to bear that out.

I'm a very logical person. I also try and be law abiding. I see no reason
to end one life for something the law says was legal when it would have
no impact on the already dead person. That's just revenge. The thief
played russian roulette with his life and lost. The only ones I feel
sorry for are the people that were close to him. And while the whole
story is a sad one. Well, that's the way it goes. I just follow the law
of the land.

On 2/6/2011 9:11 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:16 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be
restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was
considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I
lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio
guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside
Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar
laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

One of the defects of the US Constitution is that allows government
too much power over individuals.

Sure. Except for rights that can't be curtailed as guaranteed by the
Constitution. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No
mention of cycling there either.

Wish there was but there isn't. All that we need are a few loonies
cycling the center of the roads at rush hour, adding to the already
horrendous commutes and we'll see what happens there.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.


In reality, the government of the US restricts the rights of the
citizens in many immoral ways.

Absolutely. So what's your point? It's one thing to wish for a right to
be guaranteed and quite another to say that it is.


I think, at least in my home state, it's really a gray area. It seems
that cycling is by default legal, but may be banned on certain grounds.
Whether those grounds are always entirely legal seems a bit fuzzy:

http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/vi.../circuitav.htm

I ran into similar ambiguities with the "private way" that borders one
side of my property. Some lawyers interpret the law to say that abutters
can block traffic if they wish, others say no. Some municipalities say
that private ways are outside of police jurisdiction, which has the
interesting consequence of perhaps meaning that I must allow traffic,
and those drivers can go as fast as they want with total impunity. Some
towns refuse to ticket illegal parking on private ways, others feel they
can. My town says it can, even though the street is maintained (paved)
by the abutters. They also say they can force me to fill potholes at my
own expense. My "rights" seem to be mostly determined by the city aldermen.

I guess it's possible really anywhere for local authorities to put any
kind of restrictions on cycling. Jaywalking ordinances restrict where
pedestrians may walk.

For many decades now, the US has followed a transportation policy that
has favored/subsidized motor vehicle traffic. Traffic engineers have
been more concerned with delays than anything else, and road designs and
policing policy has reflected that priority. This creates a sense of
moral high ground on the part of motorists when encountering slower
traffic. That in turn generates a certain amount of self-righteous
intolerance.

The universal vehicle code stipulates that the burden is on the slower
traffic to not unnecessarily impede the faster. That's pragmatic, but
the devil is in the interpretation. Even the staunchest vehicular
cyclists admit that involves a nearly constant "negotiation", that has
the potential to get sticky at times. As evidenced on this thread (and
many others), even cyclists disagree on what constitutes acceptable
cyclist and motorist behavior.

I agree that if cyclists become too much of a perceived nuisance,
draconian anti-cyclist measures may be enacted on a local level. There
are some, if not exactly abundant, examples of that. While that's a
threat that can't be entirely dismissed, the prevailing attitudes of
placing motorist delays at the top of the priority list really need to
be challenged (IMHO). That said, it seems that policy, statutes and
enforcement are local issues mostly, and attitudes and realities vary
too much from locale to locale to really generalize. It seems that in
many urban areas in the US (and Canada), there's an increasing
recognition for the need to better accommodate alternative transport and
street use, not only for cyclists, but also for bus lanes and pedestrian
areas (e.g. NYC). Not surprisingly, these reassessments don't seem to be
as common in the suburbs, where motor culture seems to still be
unchallenged.

I think a good part of the disagreement in this NG is people
misunderstanding or not appreciating the local context. What seems fair
and pragmatic on the streets of Boston may not be so in a hamlet in
Ohio, or among the hog farms of Iowa. "All politics is local", perhaps
bike policy, too.

I don't see any possibility of "facility backlash" in the form of
mandatory sidepath laws in my area, that's not the prevailing sentiment.
Motorists bitch here like everywhere, but they seem, at least in part,
to have finally accepted that they are the problem with congestion and
delays and that increasing motor vehicle capacity isn't the long term
solution. Particularly in urban areas, city planners seem to categorize
cycling as an activity to promote rather than discourage, both to cater
to a growing constituency, but mostly to more gracefully cope with real
capacity problems. That's been a real and striking change. The "one
less car" argument has finally gained traction, even among many
motorists -- at least here. Hardly Copenhagen/Amsterdam, but attitudes
are shifting.

With most US cycling being recreational in nature, motorists tend to see
bikes as toys (somewhat accurately, IMHO) and cyclists as "playing" in
the road. Unfortunately, I think those attitudes carry over even to
those who are obviously commuting to work or school. When motorists
encounter a pack of cyclists in "team kit" sprawled across the road,
it's obvious that those cyclists are just there for fun and exercise. At
any time, some proportion of motorists may be using the road for equally
non-utilitarian purposes, but it's not so obvious. I can understand, and
even agree with the frustration. To the extent that such behavior is
unnecessary (and it usually is), it pretty much constitutes at least
rudeness, and frequently violation of the law. Opinions vary, but I
don't think those particular laws need challenging or changing.

Similarly, I agree that traffic segregation makes sense in certain
contexts. I have no desire to ride my bike on limited access highways,
nor do I pine for bike lanes in the countryside. I'm an anarchistic
cyclist in the sense that, if the government steps in to regulate an
activity, I feel the burden of proof on the need/fairness for that
regulation falls on the government. I regard motor vehicle traffic as
being somewhat under-regulated, while attempting to cover cycling under
the same body of principles (rules and design) is a compromise that
serves cyclists poorly in specific contexts -- particularly urban ones.

If infrastructure and ordinances don't serve cyclists well in the
streets of Boston, changes ought to be made, but those changes are not
necessarily applicable to other contexts, so the debate over any
universal principles is mostly pointless. Issues like "Idaho stops",
dooring, and riding abreast simply don't come up in many contexts.
Likewise, there may be some areas where cyclists are considered enough
of a nuisance by the residents to precipitate bans and restrictions.
Living or riding in such areas will undoubtedly influence opinions on
cycling/cyclists, but that doesn't have universal significance.

I oppose, in general, the categorization of bicycles as vehicles. There
are advantages to that, but I find them outweighed by the potential
downsides. While vehicular status may be seen as having some sort of
implicit promise of equal "right" to use the road, I see "right" as a
mirage, while right of way may be a true "right", any particular mode of
conveyance may be arbitrarily regulated, so not only does vehicular
status offer no protection from regulation, it generally is associated
with the need for very intrusive regulation (license, registration,
compulsory insurance, safety codes and inspections, etc.) and
"regression to the mean" carries more regulatory burdens for cyclists
than can be reasonably justified. Cycling may not be a true right at
all, but "vehicular status" would seem to take it further into the
domain of privilege.

On 2/6/2011 11:01 AM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:03 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:23 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 6, 2:00 am, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, T m Sherm n _""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.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages.

As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

JPs are made up, generally from what is considered the lower class
society.

There is not generally the bias assumed against the working/lazy class
in the police courts. By "the law is enforced" I can only assume you
mean criminal law, as 'enforcement' does not attatch itself to civil
action.

County court considers actions of tort, and again, it is difficult to
show bias when the majority of evidence is paper based and clear
cut. Claims are usually settled within twenty minutes.

Note past tense.

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

Please honor the signature separator (i.e. "-- ").

Note you are delusional.

Note that I live in a different Universe from Trevor.

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

On 2/6/2011 12:34 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:13:58 -0800, Chalo wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

Chalo wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and
if I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the
probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the
judge in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted
him. Would I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it
was beer, might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent.
In the moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Your life must be very cheap, for you to measure the lives of others so
cheaply.

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. I don't put a price on life.

You are not well educated if you do not know what Chalo means.

Your comments on cycling and motoring do seem to bear that out.

I'm a very logical person.

But you fail to read what people are saying, and respond as if they had
written the opposite.

I also try and be law abiding. I see no reason
to end one life for something the law says was legal when it would have
no impact on the already dead person. That's just revenge. The thief
played russian roulette with his life and lost. The only ones I feel
sorry for are the people that were close to him. And while the whole
story is a sad one. Well, that's the way it goes. I just follow the law
of the land.

Mr. Newell apparently has no inkling that legal and moral are *not*
synonyms.

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

On 2/6/2011 3:13 AM, Chalo Colina wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:

Chalo wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...k-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is in
Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and if
I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the
probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the judge
in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted him. Would
I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it was beer,
might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent. In the
moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Your life must be very cheap, for you to measure the lives of others
so cheaply.

Your comments on cycling and motoring do seem to bear that out.

+1 x 10^6

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

On 2/6/2011 8:11 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:16 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be
restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was
considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I
lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio
guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside
Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar
laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

One of the defects of the US Constitution is that allows government
too much power over individuals.

Sure. Except for rights that can't be curtailed as guaranteed by the
Constitution. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No
mention of cycling there either.

Wish there was but there isn't. All that we need are a few loonies
cycling the center of the roads at rush hour, adding to the already
horrendous commutes and we'll see what happens there.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.


In reality, the government of the US restricts the rights of the
citizens in many immoral ways.

Absolutely. So what's your point? It's one thing to wish for a right to
be guaranteed and quite another to say that it is.

Why do you have a problem with injustice being pointed out?

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

On 2/6/2011 7:57 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:22 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 1:17 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 12:24 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:32:02 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:30 am, Wes wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:46:49 -0800, Chalo wrote:
It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the
spell.

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation.

In your case, several months was obviously not enough. You still
suffer
from delusions of privilege, you seem unable to comprehend written
laws,
you have grossly inflated ideas on the minimal risks of bicycling,
you're ignorant of infrastructure funding, and your attitude needs
improvement. You have a LOT to learn.

I suggest giving up your car for two solid years, and spending that
time
a) riding a bike, and b) trying to learn.

- Frank Krygowski

I can now see why I was warned about you. You're arrogant, rude, and
obviously have delusions of grandeur. In reality, you're probably
just a
self centered nut with a below average IQ. Ah, a quick search shows you
as a prof of ME. That explains it.

Aside from your questionable attack on hapless MEs everywhere, I'd say
you got that pretty much straight. And in record time. It took me nearly
2 weeks to tell him to f*ck off.

The greatest Usenet offense of Frank Krygowski was that for a long
time he had his email address as his user name. All the other
complaints are people not liking having their opinions challenged by
rational argument.


You seem capable of challenging my opinions repeatedly with rational or
irrational arguments and it's not a problem. Are you saying that you
don't notice his intentional insults to anyone disagreeing with him? Fine.

Yet where are the complaints of much worse behavior? The silence is
deafening.

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

On 2/6/2011 3:03 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:03:00 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is in
Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and if

While failing to see the immorality of the Texas law.

I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the

Jurors do not have to vote for conviction if the law is unjust (but the
prosecutors and judges will go to great lengths to suppress this
information).

probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the judge
in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted him. Would
I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it was beer,
might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent. In the
moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Ooh, you are a tough guy. At least on the Internet.

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