http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* University Medical Center Tucson Advertising - 7 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b79f4c9ea300020?hl=en
* Sending Undercover Cyclists Out There - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/67dbdbd33e799ecd?hl=en
* "Smart"Meters - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8ecfdafcedfca9fb?hl=en
* the gov. stole my hour. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/794bdd1248e0d054?hl=en
* OT: Nuclear Crisis in Japan - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
* Damn Pedestrians! - 5 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4486f5ab89c33d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: University Medical Center Tucson Advertising
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b79f4c9ea300020?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 10:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 12:16 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8u8bepF9ilU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
:)
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 12:16 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8u5ko5FmtfU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
:)
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 11:44 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 11:44 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 11:45 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8u9qcgFvjU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
:>)
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 11:19 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sending Undercover Cyclists Out There
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/67dbdbd33e799ecd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 6:57 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
(I want particular attention to this issue, which I haven't seen
addressed in these forums. Forget about prostitution and drugs. The
real issue is bike safety)
On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/2011 8:32 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/14/2011 8:14 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2011 10:11 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
> >>> On 3/13/2011 8:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Don't get me wrong. I don't want bike lanes or paths everywhere. Only
> >>>> where they can be useful. Mostly on busy roads in congested cities.
> >>>> Apparently this attitude is untenable to some. <Shrug>
>
> >>>> <snip>
>
> >>> How about a wider than normal inner lane with a lower speed limit?
>
> >> Sure. Not sure when that would happen though.
>
> > Makes more sense to lobby for, than for separate and unequal facilities.
>
> Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a regular
> lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.
> I like the idea.
I agree that they are necessary on many roads or that they could work
to bring people out, but first we solve the mystery of why they
disappear into thin air...
They go for a short distance, then you are on own your own in enemy
territory. Are the designers reckless or stupid? I guess there's a
difference b/ the two terms: reckless is when they don't care because
they don't ride it. Is someone trying to score points by counting the
miles of bike lanes in a given city?
And another problem is the lack of enforcement...
THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO SEND UNDERCOVER CYCLISTS ON THE ROAD. Those
bipedal cops are already out there but they are doing something else.
Don't worry about budget. We take the agents from prostitution and
narcotics, and I'm sure they can catch plenty of unlawful drivers to
feed the city coffers, which is the bottom line, right?
----------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 12:40 pm
From: Mike A Schwab
On Mar 15, 8:57 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the
Stop the Bullshit Campaign" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (I want particular attention to this issue, which I haven't seen
> addressed in these forums. Forget about prostitution and drugs. The
> real issue is bike safety)
>
> On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/14/2011 8:32 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
>
> > > On 3/14/2011 8:14 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> > >> On 3/13/2011 10:11 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
> > >>> On 3/13/2011 8:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>> Don't get me wrong. I don't want bike lanes or paths everywhere. Only
> > >>>> where they can be useful. Mostly on busy roads in congested cities.
> > >>>> Apparently this attitude is untenable to some. <Shrug>
>
> > >>>> <snip>
>
> > >>> How about a wider than normal inner lane with a lower speed limit?
>
> > >> Sure. Not sure when that would happen though.
>
> > > Makes more sense to lobby for, than for separate and unequal facilities.
>
> > Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a regular
> > lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.
> > I like the idea.
>
> I agree that they are necessary on many roads or that they could work
> to bring people out, but first we solve the mystery of why they
> disappear into thin air...
>
> They go for a short distance, then you are on own your own in enemy
> territory. Are the designers reckless or stupid? I guess there's a
> difference b/ the two terms: reckless is when they don't care because
> they don't ride it. Is someone trying to score points by counting the
> miles of bike lanes in a given city?
>
> And another problem is the lack of enforcement...
>
> http://miami.mybikelane.com/
>
> THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO SEND UNDERCOVER CYCLISTS ON THE ROAD. Those
> bipedal cops are already out there but they are doing something else.
>
> Don't worry about budget. We take the agents from prostitution and
> narcotics, and I'm sure they can catch plenty of unlawful drivers to
> feed the city coffers, which is the bottom line, right?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sharrows should be required in the outside lane whenever you apply
paint to the road surface. Bicycle with a slash across it where they
are not permitted.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 1:45 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 15, 3:40 pm, Mike A Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 8:57 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the
> Stop the Bullshit Campaign" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (I want particular attention to this issue, which I haven't seen
> > addressed in these forums. Forget about prostitution and drugs. The
> > real issue is bike safety)
>
> > On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 3/14/2011 8:32 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
>
> > > > On 3/14/2011 8:14 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> > > >> On 3/13/2011 10:11 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
> > > >>> On 3/13/2011 8:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> > > >>>> [...]
> > > >>>> Don't get me wrong. I don't want bike lanes or paths everywhere. Only
> > > >>>> where they can be useful. Mostly on busy roads in congested cities.
> > > >>>> Apparently this attitude is untenable to some. <Shrug>
>
> > > >>>> <snip>
>
> > > >>> How about a wider than normal inner lane with a lower speed limit?
>
> > > >> Sure. Not sure when that would happen though.
>
> > > > Makes more sense to lobby for, than for separate and unequal facilities.
>
> > > Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a regular
> > > lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.
> > > I like the idea.
>
> > I agree that they are necessary on many roads or that they could work
> > to bring people out, but first we solve the mystery of why they
> > disappear into thin air...
>
> > They go for a short distance, then you are on own your own in enemy
> > territory. Are the designers reckless or stupid? I guess there's a
> > difference b/ the two terms: reckless is when they don't care because
> > they don't ride it. Is someone trying to score points by counting the
> > miles of bike lanes in a given city?
>
> > And another problem is the lack of enforcement...
>
> >http://miami.mybikelane.com/
>
> > THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO SEND UNDERCOVER CYCLISTS ON THE ROAD. Those
> > bipedal cops are already out there but they are doing something else.
>
> > Don't worry about budget. We take the agents from prostitution and
> > narcotics, and I'm sure they can catch plenty of unlawful drivers to
> > feed the city coffers, which is the bottom line, right?
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sharrows should be required in the "outside lane" whenever you apply
> paint to the road surface. Bicycle with a slash across it where they
> are not permitted.
You mean inside lane, right? That's also proper, and should encourage
the cyclist to TAKE THE LANE, which is the best approach.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 2:09 pm
From: "Mr Pounder"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1dbe26a-3a8b-4f6e-88fe-c36ea5221d86@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> (I want particular attention to this issue, which I haven't seen
> addressed in these forums. Forget about prostitution and drugs. The
> real issue is bike safety)
>
> <snip>
FOAD wacko.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 4:01 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 15, 5:09 pm, "Mr Pounder" <MrPoun...@RationalThought.com>
wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the BullshitCampaign" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d1dbe26a-3a8b-4f6e-88fe-c36ea5221d86@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (I want particular attention to this issue, which I haven't seen
> > addressed in these forums. Forget about prostitution and drugs. The
> > real issue is bike safety)
>
> > <snip>
>
> FOAD wacko.
http://img.wendmag.com/uploads/guns-and-bikes.jpg
Actually I find those cops chasing prostitution and drugs more wacko.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 4:08 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 15, 5:53 pm, Frank Galikanokus <FrankGalikano...@nospam.net>
wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante Banana" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 11:15 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a regular
> > > > lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.
>
> > > They give you the right to use the bike lane. They tend to take away
> > > your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
> > > for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.
>
> > > Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
> > > be ticketed for doing so.
>
> > > Sure, you may fight the ticket. You might even win; but you'll still
> > > be out the time and aggravation.
>
> > > But even more sure, the lane does _not_ prevent the motorist from
> > > access. Any painted line you can ride over, a motorist can drive
> > > over. Your dreaded attack from the rear is still possible.
>
> > > > I like the idea.
>
> > > We know. But it still makes little sense.
>
> > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...
>
> > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...
>
> > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > I quote:
>
> > The city hopes the new lanes will help Charleston motorists remember
> > that they are sharing the road with cyclists. "These bicycle guide
> > markings will create a designated place for bicyclists to ride
> > safely," says Mayor Joe Riley. "Cyclists operating carefully and
> > motorists operating carefully can coexist in a wonderful urban
> > environment."
>
> > ***
>
> > It's gonna be a hard sale, but inviting the Mayor and the rest of the
> > city planners to ride on said bike lanes once a week or at least once
> > a month, should go a long way toward SAFE BIKE LANES.
>
> > Say the voters make that a campaign issue.
>
> It seams that share the road is a one way street.
>
> Cyclists routinely run stop signs and red lights. They ride in any lane they chose, even
> bus lanes and sidewalks and pass on the white lines between traffic.
>
> Ya gotta love em cause you can't run em over.
>
> JAM
Actually many cyclists get run over, both reckless and law abiding.
Most though are intimidated onto sidewalks where they in turn
intimidate pedestrians.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Smart"Meters
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8ecfdafcedfca9fb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 1:02 pm
From: Karen Silkwood
a neighbor wanted a smart meter and when they came around to install
one, they declared the property had too many buildings for the "service"
and said building would have to torn down to get the "smart" meter.
I've heard there's a movement to allow people to choose an alternative
to said "Smart" meters. CA
--
Karma, What a concept!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the gov. stole my hour.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/794bdd1248e0d054?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 1:08 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/14/2011 4:01 PM, Lamumba wrote:
> In article<ilka9c$lqb$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Bob F"<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gordon"<gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9EA7DCE58237Dgreederxprtnet@94.75.214.90...
>>> Lamumba<georgeswk@toast.net> wrote in news:georgeswk-674480.12154813032011
>>> @news.toast.net:
>>>
>>>> maybe I was abducted by space aliens for exactly an hour. I dunno. that
>>>> hour is gone, I don't remember what happened.
>>>
>>> They just are borrowing it. You will get it back in the Fall.
>>
>> Hell he will. They gave it to me, and I'm keeping it.
>
> OH, No! I'm .......
Let's divide it up and everyone can get their 15 minutes like Warhol
talked about.
Jeff
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Nuclear Crisis in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 3:07 pm
From: Jeff Thies
Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised-concerns-1972_n_836227.html
Designs:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
Jeff
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Damn Pedestrians!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4486f5ab89c33d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 4:17 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
Here I am, a legitimate refugee from the mean roads riding my bike
down the sidewalk, I ring the bell twice and this pedestrian is faking
she doesn't listen to me because he's listening to her MP3, singing
and dancing!
I think it is time to settle once and for all who owns the road and
who own the sidewalks. And who are we supposed to be sharing with in
the first place?
There's no civility in this world or what?
------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 5:06 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 15, 7:52 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> On 3/15/11 7:19 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante
>
> Banana wrote:
> > Here I am, a legitimate refugee from the mean roads riding my bike
> > down the sidewalk, I ring the bell twice and this pedestrian is faking
> > she doesn't listen to me because he's listening to her MP3, singing
> > and dancing!
>
> > I think it is time to settle once and for all who owns the road and
> > who own the sidewalks. And who are we supposed to be sharing with in
> > the first place?
>
> > There's no civility in this world or what?
>
> In NYC and most parts of the United States, bicycles are legally
> vehicles, like cars. Their riders are required to obey all the road
> rules, like stop signs, yield signs, red lights and not driving on
> sidewalks. In addition, in NYC, bikes may not be riden on sidewalks. It
> is too dangerous for pedestrians and bike riders, alike. It is dangerous
> for bike riders because people backing cars or trucks out often don't
> expect fast moving things on sidewalks, so they don't look for bikes on
> sidewalks.
>
> In California, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, as well:http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm#bike
>
> California bicycle safety:http://dmv.ca.gov/about/bicycle.htm
I can buy that argument against bikes on sidewalks, but their legal
status on the roads is not backed up by facilities, enforcement or a
willingness to share by some drivers.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 5:34 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 15, 8:10 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> On 3/15/11 8:04 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante
>
>
>
> Banana wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 7:52 pm, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> On 3/15/11 7:19 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante
>
> >> Banana wrote:
> >>> Here I am, a legitimate refugee from the mean roads riding my bike
> >>> down the sidewalk, I ring the bell twice and this pedestrian is faking
> >>> she doesn't listen to me because he's listening to her MP3, singing
> >>> and dancing!
>
> >>> I think it is time to settle once and for all who owns the road and
> >>> who own the sidewalks. And who are we supposed to be sharing with in
> >>> the first place?
>
> >>> There's no civility in this world or what?
>
> >> In NYC and most parts of the United States, bicycles are legally
> >> vehicles, like cars. Their riders are required to obey all the road
> >> rules, like stop signs, yield signs, red lights and not driving on
> >> sidewalks. In addition, in NYC, bikes may not be riden on sidewalks. It
> >> is too dangerous for pedestrians and bike riders, alike. It is dangerous
> >> for bike riders because people backing cars or trucks out often don't
> >> expect fast moving things on sidewalks, so they don't look for bikes on
> >> sidewalks.
>
> >> In California, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, as well:http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm#bike
>
> >> California bicycle safety:http://dmv.ca.gov/about/bicycle.htm
>
> > I can buy that argument against bikes on sidewalks, but their legal
> > status on the roads is not backed up by facilities, enforcement or a
> > willingness to share by some drivers.
>
> Facilities, enforcement and willingness to share by some drivers has no
> effect on their legal status. Nor does the stupidity which some bike
> ride show when they ride.
To be honest, I expect not indifference nor a terrorized look, but
solidarity.
We and pedestrians should form a Bipedal Coalition both looking for
survival.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 7:35 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 15, 10:07 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> Asinine crossposting deleted.
>
> On 3/15/11 8:32 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante
>
>
>
> Banana wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 8:10 pm, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> On 3/15/11 8:04 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante
>
> >> Banana wrote:
> >>> On Mar 15, 7:52 pm, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On 3/15/11 7:19 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante
>
> >>>> Banana wrote:
> >>>>> Here I am, a legitimate refugee from the mean roads riding my bike
> >>>>> down the sidewalk, I ring the bell twice and this pedestrian is faking
> >>>>> she doesn't listen to me because he's listening to her MP3, singing
> >>>>> and dancing!
>
> >>>>> I think it is time to settle once and for all who owns the road and
> >>>>> who own the sidewalks. And who are we supposed to be sharing with in
> >>>>> the first place?
>
> >>>>> There's no civility in this world or what?
>
> >>>> In NYC and most parts of the United States, bicycles are legally
> >>>> vehicles, like cars. Their riders are required to obey all the road
> >>>> rules, like stop signs, yield signs, red lights and not driving on
> >>>> sidewalks. In addition, in NYC, bikes may not be riden on sidewalks. It
> >>>> is too dangerous for pedestrians and bike riders, alike. It is dangerous
> >>>> for bike riders because people backing cars or trucks out often don't
> >>>> expect fast moving things on sidewalks, so they don't look for bikes on
> >>>> sidewalks.
>
> >>>> In California, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, as well:http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm#bike
>
> >>>> California bicycle safety:http://dmv.ca.gov/about/bicycle.htm
>
> >>> I can buy that argument against bikes on sidewalks, but their legal
> >>> status on the roads is not backed up by facilities, enforcement or a
> >>> willingness to share by some drivers.
>
> >> Facilities, enforcement and willingness to share by some drivers has no
> >> effect on their legal status. Nor does the stupidity which some bike
> >> ride show when they ride.
>
> > To be honest, I expect not indifference nor a terrorized look, but
> > solidarity.
>
> > We and pedestrians should form a Bipedal Coalition both looking for
> > survival.
>
> Why? Can't we just do the right thing (ride or walk safely, follow the
> law, including bicyclers staying off the sidewalks)? Not everything has
> to be complicated.
Today I rode half of the way on sidewalks under dire conditions, and
then rode on the road still under dire conditions since there were no
rideable sidewalks. It's a thing you must evaluate constantly in order
to survive: sidewalk or no sidewalk.
I'm all for banning and impounding bikes on sidewalks but conditions
on the road must be secured first. Let's say the animals behind the
wheel are to be tamed.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 15 2011 10:45 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 16, 12:41 am, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante Banana" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> In NYC and most parts of the United States, bicycles are legally
> >> vehicles, like cars. Their riders are required to obey all the road
> >> rules, like stop signs, yield signs, red lights and not driving on
> >> sidewalks. In addition, in NYC, bikes may not be riden on sidewalks. It
> >> is too dangerous for pedestrians and bike riders, alike. It is dangerous
> >> for bike riders because people backing cars or trucks out often don't
> >> expect fast moving things on sidewalks, so they don't look for bikes on
> >> sidewalks.
>
> >> In California, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, as well:http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm#bike
>
> >> California bicycle safety:http://dmv.ca.gov/about/bicycle.htm
>
> >I can buy that argument against bikes on sidewalks, but their legal
> >status on the roads is not backed up by facilities, enforcement or a
> >willingness to share by some drivers.
>
> If bikers held me up back when I smoked, I'd get in front of them
> and flick lit Marlboros at them. Ten points for a face hit!
>
> Walk or drive a car, I don't care but GTF out of my way!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Won't you give room to a fellow cyclist who fears for his life? And
why don't you ride a bike on the sidewalk too?
Driving can never be a solution and instead you should encourage me to
walk.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment