Bicycle Facilities

On 2017-05-11 07:53, wrote:
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 7:01:59 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 15:24, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 8:07:36 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:
There are more and more calls for bicycle facilities. While
this would be nice for those who are out for a Sunday ride of
a couple of miles I do not see this as an answer.

Bicyclists pay for the road as well as anyone else. Bicycles
do not wear the roads out. And roads are not built by gas
taxes - they aren't even used to repair the roads.

The real answer is to strongly enforce the traffic laws.
People are afraid to ride on roads because of not just
careless drivers but those who openly attempt to scare
cyclists off of "their" roads. I have watched this occur in
front of cops who took no actions whatsoever. And I watched a
direct assault on a cyclist who recorded the whole thing on
his GoPro and took it into the Highway Patrol office seconds
after he managed to shake the man off of his rear wheel who
actually chased him up a walking dirt path with trees on
either side.

The Highway Patrol watched the video which showed this
automobile driver breaking the law in several different ways
and then said, "We can't do anything unless and officer
observes this at the time of it happening."

And then shortly after that I watch the Highway Patrol do
nothing about an incident of like danger to a cyclist.


There you have your reason. Folks like Phil and some others do
not believe it but that's how it is. I personally took the
witness stand in court during a case about a trucker who had
brutally pushed a cyclist into the ditch with the side of his
truck. I saw it all because I was directly behind, he passed me
first and then chanced it on the next rider while another truck
coming from the other side was way too close. Luckily his truck
had under-ride protection on its side, else there might have
been a funeral first. Result: Acquittal! Unbelievable. All he
got was a verbal warning from the judge but without entry into
his driving record. That guy remained trucking on the roads.
Lesson learned: In the enforcement and judicial realm hitting a
cyclist often doesn't seem to be taken seriously.


No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only
thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that
includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or
aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed
to afford them. Same for some other cities. The easiest in
terms of cost and maintenance are often singletrack
connections. The main (long) singletrack going through our town
is maintained by volunteers. Gets me all the way to Placervile
and then some. Folsom in the other direction where I can
connect to a nice bike path system leading all the way to
Sacramento. There's other issues down there so I tend not to go
there but that's another story.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

We have a local group that has taken pictures of even cops
passing too close to cyclists and they have forced classes onto
the cops. Surprisingly enough the cops didn't know that they were
supposed to leave 3' of clearance or that THEY TOO were supposed
give the same clearance. And the man who had the problem with the
CHP had the CHP Headquarters and a COURT explain to them that
photographic evidence is admissible in court and so a GoPro or
some such of a bicycle being threatened demands attention of the
cops at the time of the event.


Legally yes but then try to get a judge to convict a cop. Unless
they shot someone dead from behind in cold blood that is very
unlikely.

Almost all of the problems with cops is training and demands from
commanders. If you're told to keep the traffic moving regardless you
don't hand out tickets that causes major traffic jams no matter how
far off the road you are.


Then when contesting a ticket in front of a judge there is the matter
that a huge "court fee" is now always tacked on to the fine. This "fee"
provides for lavish work palaces for people at courts, which includes
judges ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 5/10/2017 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:07:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.

I've commented on the lax enforcement of traffic laws in the U.S. (not
that they are so strictly enforced here ;-) and the responses I've
seen is "Oh, why should we do that. Oh it's is cruel. Oh, its a free
country, why can't I drive 90 MPH.".

Given that the U.S. is still a democracy it should be fairly easy to
have strictly enforced traffic laws. A delegation to the Mayor saying
"If you don't enforce the traffic laws we won't vote for you next
year" will usually do it.

Or even the way we do it here. Pass a law saying that in the event of
a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motor vehicle
is initially deemed to be at fault and will be responsible for any and
all costs involved in returning the rider to full health and repair of
any damaged equipment.

The difficulty comes from the fact that in this society, almost everyone
disobeys traffic laws. They seem to think there's a constitutional
right to go 5 mph over the speed limit and to squeeze through fresh red
lights.

My suburban village is called a speed trap. Why? Not because the cops
ticket motorists going 26 in a 25 zone. Instead, because the cops
ticket motorists going 35 in a 25 zone.

When our areas biggest city started using speed cameras to fine speeders
on the twisty inner freeway and in school zones, the outrage was
immense. That's despite the fact that they couldn't be ticketed unless
they were 11 mph over the limit. And in this forum we've seen the
outrage at the idea that a red light runner might automatically get a
ticket.

If a group descended on city hall and asked for strict enforcement of
traffic laws, they'd be followed by a group three times as large asking
the opposite.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-05-10 17:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that
includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or
aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a
local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on
the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a
couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive
safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit
tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car
seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of
thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a
65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it.
And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.


Ahm, I live there for decades and this is how I remember it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmYNptYtw5I

Note the 100km/h limit at 0:25min which the driver completely ignores.


I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.


Not so much in Germany. They go fast even on two wheels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTVlR7QD8ws

Similar on county road here. A key reason why I do not bicycle on Salmon
Falls Road anymore is too many close calls with motorcyclists. Guys like
this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkWWVryT1UE

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 9:12:21 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:07:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.

I've commented on the lax enforcement of traffic laws in the U.S. (not
that they are so strictly enforced here ;-) and the responses I've
seen is "Oh, why should we do that. Oh it's is cruel. Oh, its a free
country, why can't I drive 90 MPH.".

Given that the U.S. is still a democracy it should be fairly easy to
have strictly enforced traffic laws. A delegation to the Mayor saying
"If you don't enforce the traffic laws we won't vote for you next
year" will usually do it.

Or even the way we do it here. Pass a law saying that in the event of
a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motor vehicle
is initially deemed to be at fault and will be responsible for any and
all costs involved in returning the rider to full health and repair of
any damaged equipment.

The difficulty comes from the fact that in this society, almost everyone
disobeys traffic laws. They seem to think there's a constitutional
right to go 5 mph over the speed limit and to squeeze through fresh red
lights.

My suburban village is called a speed trap. Why? Not because the cops
ticket motorists going 26 in a 25 zone. Instead, because the cops
ticket motorists going 35 in a 25 zone.

When our areas biggest city started using speed cameras to fine speeders
on the twisty inner freeway and in school zones, the outrage was
immense. That's despite the fact that they couldn't be ticketed unless
they were 11 mph over the limit. And in this forum we've seen the
outrage at the idea that a red light runner might automatically get a
ticket.

If a group descended on city hall and asked for strict enforcement of
traffic laws, they'd be followed by a group three times as large asking
the opposite.

Yesterday I went to see my neurologist in Palo Alto and I was going the speed limit and could pull into the slow lane because I was being passed by cars bumper to bumper - and there were two lanes to the left of me.

This morning driving up to the eye doctor some jackass going 20 mph over the speed limit pulled over to the left of me and passed then crowded into my lane when there really wasn't any room. Then a couple of blocks later I had a green light and as I pulled into the intersection a woman in an SUV made a right turn right through the red light cutting me off.

This is why the accident rate keeps rising.

On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:12:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:07:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.

I've commented on the lax enforcement of traffic laws in the U.S. (not
that they are so strictly enforced here ;-) and the responses I've
seen is "Oh, why should we do that. Oh it's is cruel. Oh, its a free
country, why can't I drive 90 MPH.".

Given that the U.S. is still a democracy it should be fairly easy to
have strictly enforced traffic laws. A delegation to the Mayor saying
"If you don't enforce the traffic laws we won't vote for you next
year" will usually do it.

Or even the way we do it here. Pass a law saying that in the event of
a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motor vehicle
is initially deemed to be at fault and will be responsible for any and
all costs involved in returning the rider to full health and repair of
any damaged equipment.

The difficulty comes from the fact that in this society, almost everyone
disobeys traffic laws. They seem to think there's a constitutional
right to go 5 mph over the speed limit and to squeeze through fresh red
lights.

My suburban village is called a speed trap. Why? Not because the cops
ticket motorists going 26 in a 25 zone. Instead, because the cops
ticket motorists going 35 in a 25 zone.

When our areas biggest city started using speed cameras to fine speeders
on the twisty inner freeway and in school zones, the outrage was
immense. That's despite the fact that they couldn't be ticketed unless
they were 11 mph over the limit. And in this forum we've seen the
outrage at the idea that a red light runner might automatically get a
ticket.

If a group descended on city hall and asked for strict enforcement of
traffic laws, they'd be followed by a group three times as large asking
the opposite.

I believe I mentioned that "U.S. is still a democracy" thus the
majority rules, and quite literally minorities don't count. If the
majority want the law enforced then it will be. If not then not :-)

As an example, get the town/city to add a referendum to the next
election, "The town is considering building bicycle lanes restricted
to bicycle use only. We estimate that the cost will average $133,170
per mile (see reference). In order to pay for this special purpose
lane there will be, of course, an increase tax rates": Agree/Disagree"

Costing reference: http://tinyurl.com/l7l2s4c

A bit of a change in subject matter but likely a good example of the
realities of how a true democratic system would work.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 11:40:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:12:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:07:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.

I've commented on the lax enforcement of traffic laws in the U.S. (not
that they are so strictly enforced here ;-) and the responses I've
seen is "Oh, why should we do that. Oh it's is cruel. Oh, its a free
country, why can't I drive 90 MPH.".

Given that the U.S. is still a democracy it should be fairly easy to
have strictly enforced traffic laws. A delegation to the Mayor saying
"If you don't enforce the traffic laws we won't vote for you next
year" will usually do it.

Or even the way we do it here. Pass a law saying that in the event of
a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motor vehicle
is initially deemed to be at fault and will be responsible for any and
all costs involved in returning the rider to full health and repair of
any damaged equipment.

The difficulty comes from the fact that in this society, almost everyone
disobeys traffic laws. They seem to think there's a constitutional
right to go 5 mph over the speed limit and to squeeze through fresh red
lights.

My suburban village is called a speed trap. Why? Not because the cops
ticket motorists going 26 in a 25 zone. Instead, because the cops
ticket motorists going 35 in a 25 zone.

When our areas biggest city started using speed cameras to fine speeders
on the twisty inner freeway and in school zones, the outrage was
immense. That's despite the fact that they couldn't be ticketed unless
they were 11 mph over the limit. And in this forum we've seen the
outrage at the idea that a red light runner might automatically get a
ticket.

If a group descended on city hall and asked for strict enforcement of
traffic laws, they'd be followed by a group three times as large asking
the opposite.

I believe I mentioned that "U.S. is still a democracy" thus the
majority rules, and quite literally minorities don't count. If the
majority want the law enforced then it will be. If not then not :-)

As an example, get the town/city to add a referendum to the next
election, "The town is considering building bicycle lanes restricted
to bicycle use only. We estimate that the cost will average $133,170
per mile (see reference). In order to pay for this special purpose
lane there will be, of course, an increase tax rates": Agree/Disagree"

Costing reference: http://tinyurl.com/l7l2s4c

A bit of a change in subject matter but likely a good example of the
realities of how a true democratic system would work.

Sorry but in a properly run government minorities have a say in everything. At the moment the problem is letting minorities have far too much say.

On Fri, 12 May 2017 06:42:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 11:40:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:12:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:07:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.

I've commented on the lax enforcement of traffic laws in the U.S. (not
that they are so strictly enforced here ;-) and the responses I've
seen is "Oh, why should we do that. Oh it's is cruel. Oh, its a free
country, why can't I drive 90 MPH.".

Given that the U.S. is still a democracy it should be fairly easy to
have strictly enforced traffic laws. A delegation to the Mayor saying
"If you don't enforce the traffic laws we won't vote for you next
year" will usually do it.

Or even the way we do it here. Pass a law saying that in the event of
a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motor vehicle
is initially deemed to be at fault and will be responsible for any and
all costs involved in returning the rider to full health and repair of
any damaged equipment.

The difficulty comes from the fact that in this society, almost everyone
disobeys traffic laws. They seem to think there's a constitutional
right to go 5 mph over the speed limit and to squeeze through fresh red
lights.

My suburban village is called a speed trap. Why? Not because the cops
ticket motorists going 26 in a 25 zone. Instead, because the cops
ticket motorists going 35 in a 25 zone.

When our areas biggest city started using speed cameras to fine speeders
on the twisty inner freeway and in school zones, the outrage was
immense. That's despite the fact that they couldn't be ticketed unless
they were 11 mph over the limit. And in this forum we've seen the
outrage at the idea that a red light runner might automatically get a
ticket.

If a group descended on city hall and asked for strict enforcement of
traffic laws, they'd be followed by a group three times as large asking
the opposite.

I believe I mentioned that "U.S. is still a democracy" thus the
majority rules, and quite literally minorities don't count. If the
majority want the law enforced then it will be. If not then not :-)

As an example, get the town/city to add a referendum to the next
election, "The town is considering building bicycle lanes restricted
to bicycle use only. We estimate that the cost will average $133,170
per mile (see reference). In order to pay for this special purpose
lane there will be, of course, an increase tax rates": Agree/Disagree"

Costing reference: http://tinyurl.com/l7l2s4c

A bit of a change in subject matter but likely a good example of the
realities of how a true democratic system would work.

Sorry but in a properly run government minorities have a say in everything. At the moment the problem is letting minorities have far too much say.

Well, actually not. In fact one definition of a democracy is:
"the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
make decisions binding on the whole group".

The U.S. has not yet inaugurated a president that received a minority
of the states votes. We have, as far as I know no legislatures elected
by a minority of the votes of citizens that were enthusiastic enough
to get out of bed on election day.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:34 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 06:42:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Sorry but in a properly run government minorities have a say in everything. At the moment the problem is letting minorities have far too much say.

Well, actually not. In fact one definition of a democracy is:
"the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
make decisions binding on the whole group".

The U.S. has not yet inaugurated a president that received a minority
of the states votes. We have, as far as I know no legislatures elected
by a minority of the votes of citizens that were enthusiastic enough
to get out of bed on election day.

Did you notice the section that said "can"? Do you mistake that for "will"?

Having a say in NO MEANS is defined as having a government elected by minorities. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.

On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:34 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 06:42:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Sorry but in a properly run government minorities have a say in everything. At the moment the problem is letting minorities have far too much say.

Well, actually not. In fact one definition of a democracy is:
"the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
make decisions binding on the whole group".

The U.S. has not yet inaugurated a president that received a minority
of the states votes. We have, as far as I know no legislatures elected
by a minority of the votes of citizens that were enthusiastic enough
to get out of bed on election day.

Did you notice the section that said "can"? Do you mistake that for "will"?

You, perhaps, do not understand English usage? In the above "can"
means is allowed to, or has the ability to. Whether they "will" do it
or not is immaterial to the meaning.

As an example, the fact that you CAN drive a car does not mean that
you WILL drive a car.

Having a say in NO MEANS is defined as having a government elected by minorities. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.

Simply pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about :-)

Your "having a say" implies that somehow minorities have some control
in matters. Or did you mean that they get an egg crate and stand on
the corner shouting at passers by?

If you remember back in the days when California was debating the
motorcycle helmet law and the Hell's Angels testified that helmets
weren't necessary? They had their say.... and were ignored.

Or perhaps you believe that the Democrats can vote a motion into law
in the U.S. government? They will certainly have their say... But when
the vote is counted they lose.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:43:29 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:34 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 06:42:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Sorry but in a properly run government minorities have a say in everything. At the moment the problem is letting minorities have far too much say.

Well, actually not. In fact one definition of a democracy is:
"the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
make decisions binding on the whole group".

The U.S. has not yet inaugurated a president that received a minority
of the states votes. We have, as far as I know no legislatures elected
by a minority of the votes of citizens that were enthusiastic enough
to get out of bed on election day.

Did you notice the section that said "can"? Do you mistake that for "will"?

You, perhaps, do not understand English usage? In the above "can"
means is allowed to, or has the ability to. Whether they "will" do it
or not is immaterial to the meaning.

As an example, the fact that you CAN drive a car does not mean that
you WILL drive a car.

Having a say in NO MEANS is defined as having a government elected by minorities. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.

Simply pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about :-)

Your "having a say" implies that somehow minorities have some control
in matters. Or did you mean that they get an egg crate and stand on
the corner shouting at passers by?

If you remember back in the days when California was debating the
motorcycle helmet law and the Hell's Angels testified that helmets
weren't necessary? They had their say.... and were ignored.

Or perhaps you believe that the Democrats can vote a motion into law
in the U.S. government? They will certainly have their say... But when
the vote is counted they lose.

I might point out that when the Hell's Angels testified they were voted down by virtually every representative and a minority of a dozen does not require to be respected. I was the Safety Director of the American Federation of Motorcyclists at the time and even then I knew full well what a helmet was capable of and what it wasn't. But a crash on a motorcycle is totally different than one on a bicycle. Motorcycles inevitably have slide outs and a hard shell helmet only needs to protect you from bumping along the ground and friction burns on your head.

Your claim that most votes are one party against another is bull****. Most votes have votes from both sides of the aisle. Your idea that everyone should be happy all the time makes me wonder what goes on in your mind.