A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ouch. This happened to me once



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 21st 18, 04:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,767
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess
up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the
Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German
bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups.
By far.


We've just been looking at examples of American facilities
that did not work and British facilities that did not work.
Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of
Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to
reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.)
We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate
bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an
Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike
crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle
track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its
first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London
generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few
years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in
America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too
many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of
traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout.
And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent
crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.


+1

As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and
say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking
eggs" I note that there's never an omelette.

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


Ads
  #32  
Old February 21st 18, 04:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.

Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
drive is no longer necessary?

And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
makes no sense.


We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out
instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should
they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?


Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving
school teachers if the family uses that avenue.


Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense.

We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount
educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give
clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about
riding better?


Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah.


You're apparently in favor of ignorance.

Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have
mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people
watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There
are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online.

This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive
drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs
inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many
have helped significantly.

Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you
want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no
sense.

You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over
the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially
because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.


Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.


You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense.

And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have
to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists
who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and
motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You
shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They
don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to
learn about those complications.

You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff.


Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by
every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into
most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not
invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles.

But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the
cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this
really look
good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067


In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no.


OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle
tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need
them precisely there? Fine.

So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out
in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only
1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them?

Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They
are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by
hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.


Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or
killed.

"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm

I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news.


sigh I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It
doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the
largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what
competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how
many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science."

I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say:

You're Not Making Sense.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #33  
Old February 21st 18, 04:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:00:40 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess
up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the
Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German
bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups.
By far.


We've just been looking at examples of American facilities
that did not work and British facilities that did not work.
Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of
Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to
reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.)
We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate
bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an
Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike
crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle
track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its
first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London
generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few
years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in
America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too
many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of
traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout.
And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent
crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.


+1

As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and
say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking
eggs" I note that there's never an omelette.


The Communists, if they said that, were Johnny-come-lately as the
phrase seems to have originally been attributed François de Charette
in reference to the fatalities caused by his troops during the Vendee
war (revolt against the French First Republic).
"on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs" (1742 or
earlier),
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #34  
Old February 21st 18, 04:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,548
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather
concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of
the developed world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For
cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to
pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.


And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
makes no sense.


To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here
and ask them.


We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out
instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should
they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?


Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or
driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue.


Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense.


Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching
a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand. When that same
parent is on the way to work, daily grind, same old same old, he or she
will become ever more complacent, glance over who just might have texted
them ... OH DANG ... a cyclist ... I didn't see him!

[...]


You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all
over the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially
because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.


Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.


You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
while ignoring much less costly improvements.



_My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money.


You're not making sense.


Well, obviously you don't get it or don't want to so I'll end it here.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #35  
Old February 21st 18, 04:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,548
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess
up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the
Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German
bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups.
By far.


We've just been looking at examples of American facilities
that did not work and British facilities that did not work.
Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of
Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to
reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.)
We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate
bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an
Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike
crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle
track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its
first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London
generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few
years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in
America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too
many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of
traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout.
And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent
crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.


+1


Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and
undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the door are cyclists
(discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if
you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding
on bike paths or on roads?


As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well,
you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's
never an omelette.


Oh there is but it's always being eaten by the politically connected.
Regular people must stand in line to get one, only one per family, and
when it's their turn all omelettes are already gone.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #36  
Old February 21st 18, 06:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,329
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/21/2018 10:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess
up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the
Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German
bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups.
By far.

We've just been looking at examples of American facilities
that did not work and British facilities that did not work.
Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of
Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to
reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.)
We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate
bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an
Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike
crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle
track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its
first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London
generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few
years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in
America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too
many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of
traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout.
And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent
crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.


+1


Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and
undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the door are cyclists
(discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if
you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding
on bike paths or on roads?


What a nonsense response. Even if every one said "I'd prefer riding on a
bike path," what would that prove? That we must build bike paths
absolutely everywhere so they never have to ride on a road? It should be
obvious that such a thing is impossible. And if you build the typical
American bike path for them, it will probably increase the amount of
driving, because most path users drive to and from the paths in their cars.

Your question, Joerg, is like asking people in a grocery store "Would
you rather taste this ice cream, or these mashed potatoes?" We know how
the majority would answer. But basing dietary policy on it would result
in a grossly fat and unhealthy population, increasing societal medical
expense.

Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #37  
Old February 21st 18, 06:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,329
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/20/2018 10:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.

Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
drive is no longer necessary?


I think that public school driver's education classes are far less
common than they used to be. I took such a class as a summer option, but
that was over 50 years ago. AFAIK it's not available around here at all.
It's been replaced by for-profit driving schools and/or online classes.

And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and
dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence
them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc.
She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official
driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps
trying.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #38  
Old February 21st 18, 06:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,329
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/21/2018 10:29 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather
concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of
the developed world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For
cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to
pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.


Here's the problem: I've stopped kids riding facing traffic (because
they were headed directly at me) and was told "My parents told me to
ride on this side." I've seen two parents and their three kids riding
facing traffic (all wearing pretty helmets, so I guess they were
"safe.") I've ridden alongside other adults, me riding on the right,
they riding on the left, and had conversations about which side of the
road is proper. Heck, I had one conversation with a bike cop who asked
_me_ which side of the road was really legal!

It makes no sense to say the ignorant should do the educating.

And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
makes no sense.


To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here
and ask them.


Joerg, most bike trails might as well be paved circles in a big field,
for all the good they do. You should just lobby for those. The "vast
majority" of cyclists would like them just as well.

Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making
sense.


Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching
a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand.


I suspect you have no kids.

You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
while ignoring much less costly improvements.


_My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money.


If _your_ tax dollars can pay for even one mile of a segregated bike
facility, you must be paying millions in taxes.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #39  
Old February 21st 18, 06:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,428
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather
concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of
the developed world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For
cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to
pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.


I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free class along with health education (my generation in California) and then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student -- current practice in Oregon. Driver training is not required, but it makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers.

Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws applicable to bicycles.. Many parents are poor drivers themselves, talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly complain and fear.

BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection -- even in your CSD. You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you live in a development where you you have to select a house paint color from an approved pallet.. http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs...-9785b252-af54 It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #40  
Old February 21st 18, 07:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,548
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-21 09:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg
wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny
state or some "organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use
of the road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like
the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the
rules of cycling in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist
states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should
rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already
trail much of the developed world there.

But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating
vehicles properly in traffic?


As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state.
For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst)
need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.


I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools
have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free
class along with health education (my generation in California) and
then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student --
current practice in Oregon.



I know but AFAIK schools around here do not have such free service a
anymore.


... Driver training is not required, but it
makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and
it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers.


It is a good idea but should not be on the taxpayer dime. Besides,
driving is a privilege, not a right. When I was young I paid my driving
school fees myself. Every penny of it.


Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most
parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for
what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws
applicable to bicycles. Many parents are poor drivers themselves,
talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly
complain and fear.


Sure, just like there are parents who are abusive or have next to
nothing in social skills. It still does not warrant the state to barge
in and take over unless it's really bad and dangerous.


BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you
use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection --
even in your CSD.



As I said that is because I do not have the right to hop on an excavator
and tear up some turf in the wilderness. In the old days people could do
that but not anymore.

For example, just a few miles from here people pump their own water and
operate septic tanks. We live in a more urban area where that right is
not afforded to residents.


... You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you
live in a development where you you have to select a house paint
color from an approved pallet.



They do not. We went to Sherwin-Williams, picked a color and painted the
house.


http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs...-9785b252-af54
It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state.


The reason we live in California was job-related and we stayed (so far).
We don't like moving. However, if we ever want to downsize while getting
older my sights are on the southern parts of Utah. Good weather,
conservative area, pristine mountain biking.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OUCH Nuxx Bar UK 56 March 11th 11 09:56 PM
Ouch! B. Lafferty Racing 0 August 30th 06 01:16 PM
Ouch! Danny Colyer UK 0 January 11th 06 10:41 PM
Ouch again! Bill C Racing 0 July 15th 05 11:55 PM
ouch audrey UK 5 May 11th 05 11:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.