Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/15/2019 12:14 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

A "chain saw helmet"? I understand the face shield, but the helmet?
Maybe cut down a tree and it falls on your head?

I could have sworn that many years ago someone in r.b.t. said that they
carried clippers to trim branches that were in their way. I will search
for that post in Google Groups.

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait
until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.



Of course. Though I don?t know what the highway system has to do with
anything.

Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that
one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can,
of course, ride a bicycle.
--
cheers,

John B.



Let me rephrase. I donÂ’t know what the highway system has to do with bike
paths needing trees to be trimmed.

Well, O.K. we'll use your terms. Pick one to describe the network of
roads, streets, lanes, highways, toll roads and all the other
designated places to drive a wheeled vehicle, that exist in a country?
--
cheers,

John B.



Again, you were referring to his comment about trees overhanging bike
paths. Though that initial post seems to have disappeared from this
thread. You were apparently disagreeing by saying that where you are the
highways don’t have overhanging trees.

There is also mention, much later of having to call the city out to remove
a branch of a low hanging tree that interfered with riding on a road
shoulder. Are you claiming such things don’t exist?

FWIW I’ve been on rural highways in Quebec where there are trees
overhanging the road shoulder. As recent as last Sunday. So even given
your highway comment, you are wrong.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:26:58 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait
until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.



Of course. Though I don?t know what the highway system has to do with
anything.

Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that
one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can,
of course, ride a bicycle.
--
cheers,

John B.



Let me rephrase. I don?t know what the highway system has to do with bike
paths needing trees to be trimmed.

Well, O.K. we'll use your terms. Pick one to describe the network of
roads, streets, lanes, highways, toll roads and all the other
designated places to drive a wheeled vehicle, that exist in a country?
--
cheers,

John B.



Again, you were referring to his comment about trees overhanging bike
paths. Though that initial post seems to have disappeared from this
thread. You were apparently disagreeing by saying that where you are the
highways don’t have overhanging trees.

There is also mention, much later of having to call the city out to remove
a branch of a low hanging tree that interfered with riding on a road
shoulder. Are you claiming such things don’t exist?

FWIW I’ve been on rural highways in Quebec where there are trees
overhanging the road shoulder. As recent as last Sunday. So even given
your highway comment, you are wrong.


I wrote, "But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here"

The reply was,"Though I don't know what the highway system has to do
with anything. "

And it digressed from there.

But if " rural highways in Quebec where there are trees overhanging
the road shoulder" I would have to say that Canada must be a far more
backward place than here.

Admittedly the area I live in has tree limbs overhanging the road in
places but the branches are probably 12 - 15 feet in the air,
certainly higher than a school bus van. Nothing to create fear in the
cyclist's breast.

To be honest, the reason for no low overhanging branches is probably
the , literally, hordes of small motorcycles we have here. If a branch
is low enough to interfere with motorcycle passage someone will cut it
down.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/14/2019 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 06:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:13:56 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.


Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads
that were cow paths or even logging roads :-)

I doubt that you would remember them as such, unless you have a memory that predates your existence.

Tell me more about the cow paths that grew into roads and highways? I
really can't imagine why in the world anyone would want to have a road
from the South Pasture to the back of the barn. As for logging roads,
well that were usually sort of single ended. From the paved road to
somewhere up in the woods. Maybe well enough to drive a few yards off
the highway if you wanted to "have it off" with your girlfriend in
the back seat but hardly a means to get anywhere.

As for memory, well one can recount things that they saw with their
own eyes with a certain amount of veracity. But perhaps I should have
specified that my memory also included things that were told to me by
others. My maternal grandfather was born in 1875 and I would assume
that by the time he was ten he probably was reasonably alert and in
later years he made his fortune in the lumber business and he never
told any stories about logging roads and cow paths turning into roads.
So we are back to, say, 1885.

No, I think that you exaggerate :-)


Quite the apposite and
some of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure
(the town was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt,
secondary road, and there wasn't any low branches and overhanging
vegetation. Big tall maple and elm trees, yes, but no bushes.
http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/
Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical
of the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging
branches.

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.

I wouldn't argue that where you go there are overhanging limbs and
bushes. Mostly I'm arguing that New England roads did not evolve from
cow paths and logging roads, although I will admit that saying so does
add a bit of color to one's otherwise rather drab tales.
--
cheers,

John B.


It's unclear but not certainly wrong:
http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/cow-paths.htm

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

On 10/15/2019 7:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Don't make it political. All of us make pronouncements based on our personal experience, and Frank is fundamentally right that on most paved streets, branches are rarely a problem.

Sorry, but when most of us make pronouncements we don't try to
extrapolate our own personal experience onto the rest of the world
unless there's no doubt that it's applicable. And if we happen to make a
mistake and do that, we don't double-down, we gracefully admit the error
and move on.

Some of us may see exceptions to the rule more often than others -- maybe a lot more often. Those people would benefit from a non-StVZO light. Having used a StVZO Luxos B -- a well respected dyno light with reportedly good light output -- it falls short for me in many places, but then again, I often commute on trail or narrow roads with trees and really bad pavement. Most urban riders on MUPs and flat, well paved streets would be well served by a dyno light with cut-off. The people I see on the super-colossal bicycle facility through the South Waterfront with mega lights should be shot -- in a humane fashion, of course. Dynos are perfect for that facility, particularly with all the traffic.

OMG, I would dispute that part about "flat, well paved streets." Are you
familiar with "PCI" Pavement Condition Index? It varies wildly between
cities, even adjacent cities. Ride from Cupertino, where I believe our
average is about 85 now, with only a handful of streets in poor
condition across the border into San Jose which has many streets with a
PCI of 49 or less, and an average of about 70.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/02/nearly-400-miles-of-san-jose-road-are-in-bad-shape/

San Francisco is so bad that I stopped using my Brompton there because
the potholes are so big that it could be swallowed up whole.

On 10/15/2019 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small
switch on the handle bars.

Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights mounted on my
commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other experiments. These
were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's still in use on
another bike.

I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select either headlamp or
both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch controlled the
taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s) of turning it
on and off.

Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that
experimenting. I judged the problem solved.

But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't keep the streets
clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment.

Well, why not. The new LED lights are so small and light that one
could have several mounted on the handle bars. High beam, low beam,
beam in the middle beam, flash his eyes beam, watch out for the branch
beam. The mind boggles.

There's chatter about new technology for auto headlight beams. Instead
of the currently common scheme of one light source (whether tungsten,
LED or whatever) there would be an array of light sources each focused
on a small area forward of the car. This would be coupled with a vision
system that would instantaneously dim only that portion of the forward
beam that would dazzle an oncoming driver. You'd have high beams
everywhere except where they'd blind motorists.

I haven't read anything about that system mentioning bicyclists or
pedestrians, so I don't know if it would blind them. This would be an
even worse problem in those areas where bike paths and sidewalks have
bicyclists traveling contraflow and close to oncoming cars.

The other night, I did have a problem with a motorist (driving a pickup
truck, naturally) on a quiet, dark residential street. He kept his high
beams and his auxiliary lights on while driving toward me.

I'm sure his bilateral optical system detected our tandem. I'm sure his
jelly-like CPU recognized it as an oncoming bicycle. But his software
lacked the "elementary courtesy" module that should have dimmed his lights.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 6:10 AM, sms wrote:

I've never subscribed to the whole "Danger Danger" philosophy that we
see one person incessantly repeating. Bicycling is not that dangerous!

Again, we're deeply into the surreal. Mayor Scharf is now agreeing with
my main arguments - that bicycling is not very dangerous - while somehow
pretending he's arguing against me.

He is the person who has argued longest and hardest for bicycle helmet
use, saying that riding without one is foolish.

He has argued long and hard for blinding headlights and even marine
strobe taillights, night and day, saying that riding without them is
foolish.

He has argued long and hard for bike segregation, for keeping bikes off
roadways.

He has shilled for flags sticking out laterally from bicycles, to keep
cars away.

He has touted the electric horn he cobbled together for his bike as an
additional safety necessity.

He has mocked my comparisons of bicycling data vs. data for other
activities, comparisons that prove that cycling is not dangerous. (See
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm for example, an
article I wrote decades ago.)

Those are the sorts of statements that I've characterized as "Danger!
Danger!" warnings. He now pretends I was saying precisely the opposite.

Scharf is doing what so many politicians do: lying blatantly and
repeatedly. I wouldn't be surprised if his skin tone was turning orange.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 6:26 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait
until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.



Of course. Though I don?t know what the highway system has to do with
anything.

Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that
one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can,
of course, ride a bicycle.
--
cheers,

John B.



Let me rephrase. I donÂ’t know what the highway system has to do with bike
paths needing trees to be trimmed.

Well, O.K. we'll use your terms. Pick one to describe the network of
roads, streets, lanes, highways, toll roads and all the other
designated places to drive a wheeled vehicle, that exist in a country?
--
cheers,

John B.



Again, you were referring to his comment about trees overhanging bike
paths. Though that initial post seems to have disappeared from this
thread. You were apparently disagreeing by saying that where you are the
highways don’t have overhanging trees.

There is also mention, much later of having to call the city out to remove
a branch of a low hanging tree that interfered with riding on a road
shoulder. Are you claiming such things don’t exist?

FWIW I’ve been on rural highways in Quebec where there are trees
overhanging the road shoulder. As recent as last Sunday. So even given
your highway comment, you are wrong.

Duane, you're simply not keeping the conversation straight in your mind.

Everyone agrees that backwoods paths can have tree branches lower than
six feet above the surface. That's what it takes to whack a cyclist's
head, but off-road bikers know that. It's part of the game.

Scharf and others have claimed that branches lower than six feet are to
be expected on roads, or perhaps on MUPs.

Design standards and elementary practicality say that's got to be false
on roads, except in very unusual situations. Yes, there may be branches
over a road; but they are normally 14 feet high or higher.

Even MUPs, as badly as they are sometimes maintained, only rarely have
hazardous overhead branches. Even the worst maintained typically have
users who will voluntarily fix such problems.

If you have public roads where branches are six feet or less above the
road surface, please post photos. And please explain how such a thing is
allowed to remain, given that many motor vehicles are far taller than that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2019 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most
urban settings and certainly not a justification for
retina burning mega lights on city streets and in
bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true
low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings --
and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something
to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light
sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on
the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark
sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere
with a small
switch on the handle bars.

Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights
mounted on my
commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other
experiments. These
were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's
still in use on
another bike.

I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select
either headlamp or
both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch
controlled the
taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s)
of turning it
on and off.

Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that
experimenting. I judged the problem solved.

But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't
keep the streets
clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment.

Well, why not. The new LED lights are so small and light
that one
could have several mounted on the handle bars. High beam,
low beam,
beam in the middle beam, flash his eyes beam, watch out
for the branch
beam. The mind boggles.

There's chatter about new technology for auto headlight
beams. Instead of the currently common scheme of one light
source (whether tungsten, LED or whatever) there would be an
array of light sources each focused on a small area forward
of the car. This would be coupled with a vision system that
would instantaneously dim only that portion of the forward
beam that would dazzle an oncoming driver. You'd have high
beams everywhere except where they'd blind motorists.

I haven't read anything about that system mentioning
bicyclists or pedestrians, so I don't know if it would blind
them. This would be an even worse problem in those areas
where bike paths and sidewalks have bicyclists traveling
contraflow and close to oncoming cars.

The other night, I did have a problem with a motorist
(driving a pickup truck, naturally) on a quiet, dark
residential street. He kept his high beams and his auxiliary
lights on while driving toward me.

I'm sure his bilateral optical system detected our tandem.
I'm sure his jelly-like CPU recognized it as an oncoming
bicycle. But his software lacked the "elementary courtesy"
module that should have dimmed his lights.



"naturally" ??

I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups
sold than sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck driver
behavior spans the full range from inexplicable to
abhorrent, just like every other vehicle with 2 or more wheels.

https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png

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

On 10/15/2019 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2019 6:10 AM, sms wrote:

I've never subscribed to the whole "Danger Danger"
philosophy that we see one person incessantly repeating.
Bicycling is not that dangerous!

Again, we're deeply into the surreal. Mayor Scharf is now
agreeing with my main arguments - that bicycling is not very
dangerous - while somehow pretending he's arguing against me.

He is the person who has argued longest and hardest for
bicycle helmet use, saying that riding without one is foolish.

He has argued long and hard for blinding headlights and even
marine strobe taillights, night and day, saying that riding
without them is foolish.

He has argued long and hard for bike segregation, for
keeping bikes off roadways.

He has shilled for flags sticking out laterally from
bicycles, to keep cars away.

He has touted the electric horn he cobbled together for his
bike as an additional safety necessity.

He has mocked my comparisons of bicycling data vs. data for
other activities, comparisons that prove that cycling is not
dangerous. (See
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm for
example, an article I wrote decades ago.)

Those are the sorts of statements that I've characterized as
"Danger! Danger!" warnings. He now pretends I was saying
precisely the opposite.

Scharf is doing what so many politicians do: lying blatantly
and repeatedly. I wouldn't be surprised if his skin tone was
turning orange.



Add to list: you're both on the "Orange Man Bad" team.

But hey Hizzoner is Mayor and you're not!

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