Hit and Run Drivers: Most Wanted Terrorists

Suzy wrote:
"you bring up another heated topic with having big brother at every
light.

There are those that say it will increase accidents as people will now
slam on their brakes at yellow lights, possibly causing them to be
rear-ended by a tailgating driver ALSO trying to make the light,
instead of just zipping through.

Granted, there are those* that say implementation elsewhere has proved
that theory wrong.

*’Those’ comments come from municipalities and entities receiving LOTS
o’ cash from the revenues being generated from these tickets."


Big brother is everywhere anyway, from airports to your computer, so
we may as well use him for something good. Even all that cash flow may
be good for building something up, like bike facilities.

That a good idea, LAWBREAKERS HELPING BUILD BIKE FACILITIES AND ROAD
INFRASTRUCTURE.

Instead of TERRORISTS they may earn the title of PATRIOTS.

Twibil Who? wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:11 am, wrote:

but from the point of view of a cyclist, careless drivers are creating
an undue fear; before an act of criminality, there is the terror of
becoming a victim by virtue of engaging in a normal activity.

Er, the "normal" activity you're enganging in means that you're
*willingly* placing yourself in the position of being the most
vulnerable vehicle on the road. And then you say "But I shouldn't have
to exposed to risks just because I choose to do this dangerous thing".

This places you in the same ethical position as a rock climber who
thinks God should negate gravity so that he won't fall while engaged
in doing something he enjoys.

Listen up: if you choose to undertake a risky hobby, you'd better be
prepared to accept the responsibility for the predictable results of
same: and this includes things such as drunk and/or innattentive
drivers. You *knew* they were out there on the roads before you ever
threw a leg over the saddle, and imagining that anything is going to
change just because you choose to put yourself in harm's way is
sophomoric at best.

There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
*them*.

We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".

Hobby? Hobby?

Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

Tom Keats wrote:
[...]
Hey! You've got a cock up your ass.[...]

Just so I understand this properly, you are saying a male chicken is
riding his donkey?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

In article ,
Twibil writes:

How would you feel if you unintentionally ran over someone?
Again, see "specious, disjointed, and incoherent". (Add "non
sequitur", as well.)
By the way -- you've got a cock in your ass.
I just thought you should be informed of that.
What a Bozo. Can't support his end of an argument, so resorts to
"you're a homo" insults that even 5th graders know better than to try
these days.

Thank goodness I'm a non-driver.

Unlike you, I don't have a cock in my ass.

So I'm able to sit back, relax, and watch others
get all steamed up. It's kinda like watching
The Three Stooges, or motorized traffic in general.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:

There are essentially two sorts of people in the world: Those who look
at reality and deal with it as it is: risky and uncaring, and those
who think that the world should change to make life more appealing for
*them*.

We call the first sort "survivors", and we call the second sort "you".

Hobby? Hobby?

Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

Here in Vancouver we've been beset by a number of
heavy snowfalls.

It seems it's considered to be the Important Thing
to clear the sreets so cars can get through.

Here's the rub -- the snowplows go through, and heave
all the snow from the streets onto the sidewalks,
so pedestrians can't get anywhere.

The cars can go, so long as they keep on going, and
don't stop, and nobody gets out of the cars to
buy stuff or anything. Just have to keep those cars
moving, in one side of the city, and out the other.


It's more important to expiditiously route cars
through the city, than to allow people to patronize
local business. Go figure.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.

Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
forms of transit combined.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
"ton" is.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:
Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.

Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
forms of transit combined.

For every such cyclist, there are hundred or thousands of motorists who
believe bicycles are only children's toys and should NOT be used on
public roads.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
"ton" is.

Well, larger sedans and some smaller SUV's and pick-em-up trucks have
weights over 4000 pounds, and the largest SUV's and dually pickups are
over 8000 pounds. Heck, even my Civic is over 1-1/4 tons.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:
Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:
Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.

Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
forms of transit combined.

For every such cyclist, there are hundred or thousands of motorists who
believe bicycles are only children's toys and should NOT be used on
public roads.

But most of them keep their beliefs to themselves, or express them to
one cyclist at a time. Sanctimonious cyclists pollute Usenet, letters
to the editor, and even cycling forums, with their hatred of motorists.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.

And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
"ton" is.

Well, larger sedans and some smaller SUV's and pick-em-up trucks have
weights over 4000 pounds, and the largest SUV's and dually pickups are
over 8000 pounds. Heck, even my Civic is over 1-1/4 tons.

So what you are saying is that your range was wrong on both ends?

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:
Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:
Transportational cyclists travel the farthest per unit energy of ANY
type of transportation, and also impose lower negative externalities on
society than any form of motorized transportation.
Not true; in sanctimony alone their externalities dwarf all motorized
forms of transit combined.

For every such cyclist, there are hundred or thousands of motorists who
believe bicycles are only children's toys and should NOT be used on
public roads.

But most of them keep their beliefs to themselves, or express them to
one cyclist at a time. Sanctimonious cyclists pollute Usenet, letters
to the editor, and even cycling forums, with their hatred of motorists.

Words do not hurt me, but being hit by a motorist trying to "brush pass"
on purpose or even a glass bottle thrown from a vehicle that is closing
at 150 kph can kill. And yes, I have had a couple of close call with
motorists suffering from anti-cyclist personality disorder.

Selfish motorists wish to hinder this most sustainable form of
transportation, so they can "multi-task", while maintaining marginal
control at best over a 2 to 4 ton vehicle.
And apparently they're bad at math too, or just don't know what a
"ton" is.
Well, larger sedans and some smaller SUV's and pick-em-up trucks have
weights over 4000 pounds, and the largest SUV's and dually pickups are
over 8000 pounds. Heck, even my Civic is over 1-1/4 tons.

So what you are saying is that your range was wrong on both ends?

Read it again. Many passenger vehicles sold in recent years in the US
weight between 2 and 4 tons, particularly those favored by MiFFY drivers.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll