If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> > (Brent P) wrote: > > > Scott en Aztlán wrote: > >> > >> (Brent P) wrote: > > > >>>Keep right except to pass. Otherwise your just a pedestrian LLB. > >> > >> Bull****. > >> > >> Cite the law (in any state you like) that tells pedestrians which > >> "lane" they need to walk in. Answer: YOU CAN'T because no such law > >> exists. > > > >I didn't claim there was a law. > > > >It's sad considerate behavior requires laws these days. > > This morning as I was walking to the train station (alone), I was > keeping right except to pass when I encountered two powerwalking > ladies approaching from the opposite direction, walking side-by-side > and fully "blocking" the entire width of the narrow sidewalk (on the > same street, as it happens, that I wrote about last weekend). They > remained abreast until they got within about eight feet of meeting me, > at which time one of them fell in line behind the other while we > passed. > > I suppose you think these women were inconsiderate? Of course not, they got out of the way, didn't they? Moreover, they recognized that you were intelligent enough to realize that you didn't have to panic just because they were 10 feet away. -- Cheers, Bev ************************************************** *************** "...and then I'll become a veterinarian because I love children." -- Julie Brown |
Ads |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote: > fbloogyudsr wrote: > > > > I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like > > your paraphrase directly above. > > > > Floyd > > I said "any delay is significant so get the hell off the road" SEEMS to > be your position. If it isn't then I apologize for misinterpreting your > post. Fair enough? And I'd suggest that Floyd explain his position on this point. Either several people have misinterpreted his meaning, or his meaning has shifted as the thread progressed. Personally, I maintain that some traffic delays are negligible, i.e. insignificant. Furthermore, I believe that nearly all delays of motorists by cyclists are insignificant. Do you agree, Floyd? - Frank Krygowski |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>I didn't claim there was a law. >> >>It's sad considerate behavior requires laws these days. > > This morning as I was walking to the train station (alone), I was > keeping right except to pass when I encountered two powerwalking > ladies approaching from the opposite direction, walking side-by-side > and fully "blocking" the entire width of the narrow sidewalk (on the > same street, as it happens, that I wrote about last weekend). They > remained abreast until they got within about eight feet of meeting me, > at which time one of them fell in line behind the other while we > passed. > > I suppose you think these women were inconsiderate? Much like someone who cruises in the left lane and moves over when they notice someone faster coming up from behind. People walk like nobody should be going faster than they do..... Had you been catching up from behind, you would have had to go around on the grass because she would not have noticed you. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: >In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think >> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates? > >The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the >surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the >surface when it hardens. That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously. >> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths. >> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds >> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a >> rut in fairly short order. > >Some of the best and fastest trails are ones that are just smoothly >dished 'rut'. Are you talking mountain bike trail or road bike trail? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Wayne Pein > wrote: > >As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first >formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and >freezes. Freezing not only works from the surface, but from the soil beneath and around the road. Frost heaves can damage the surface themselves, and also cause cracking allowing further damage. >I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in >NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that >it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a >function of mere heat. You'd be wrong. Enough heat can force segments of concrete highways above neighboring ones. >by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster >can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just >sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones. This is true on a road which is used by heavy vehicles, because that's the fastest method of deterioration from such roads. An unused Interstate-quality highway will last a good long time, because its base is too deep to allow vegetation to get a foothold, and it's well-drained (hopefully) and generally very thick. But eventually it will deteriorate. Lesser-quality roads will deteriorate much faster, particularly where freezes occur. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >, > Brent P > wrote: >>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote: >> >>> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think >>> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates? >> >>The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the >>surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the >>surface when it hardens. > > That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt > softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously. And I know of road surfaces that potholed like the moon in the first winter. So your point is that contractors often do poor work and/or cheat on specifications. As if this somehow reflects on the needs of bicycling. >>> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths. >>> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds >>> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a >>> rut in fairly short order. >> >>Some of the best and fastest trails are ones that are just smoothly >>dished 'rut'. > Are you talking mountain bike trail or road bike trail? There was no designation. It was a trail to get from A to B. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:03:33 -0700, John David Galt wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of >> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for >> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that is >> all that matters. > > That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of "playing > the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the hard way -- > that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must give way to > faster, includes them. The claim that your position is a 'universal moral principal' is *very* highly debatable. It's not universal, hard to see where 'moral' comes into it, and it's certainly not a principle. What is not debatable is that it is *not* a _legal_ principal that slower traffic must yeild to faster traffic. Mark |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:05:08 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not. Autos move more commerce than > bikes,too. My family owns 5 bicycles, and 2 cars. We pay licensing fees and gas taxes on our cars. Please explain how I haven't paid for the roads I and my family ride our bikes on. Mark |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Mitchell wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:03:33 -0700, John David Galt wrote: > > > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > >> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of > >> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for > >> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that is > >> all that matters. > > > > That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of "playing > > the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the hard way -- > > that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must give way to > > faster, includes them. > > The claim that your position is a 'universal moral principal' is *very* > highly debatable. It's not universal, hard to see where 'moral' comes > into it, and it's certainly not a principle. > > What is not debatable is that it is *not* a _legal_ principal that slower > traffic must yeild to faster traffic. FYI: Look up statutes that use the phrases "slower traffic keep right," or "keep right except to pass." In addition, in WA state, the delay of five or more vehicles requires that the slow vehicle operator turn out to let the faster vehicles pass. HTH, E.P. |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: >In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote: >> In article >, >> Brent P > wrote: >>>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote: >>> >>>> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think >>>> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates? >>> >>>The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the >>>surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the >>>surface when it hardens. >> >> That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt >> softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously. > >And I know of road surfaces that potholed like the moon in the first >winter. I'm in Pennsylvania; I could throw a chunk of asphalt from any given location and hit at least three such. >So your point is that contractors often do poor work and/or cheat >on specifications. As if this somehow reflects on the needs of bicycling. My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable maintenance-free meccas you make them out to be. A paved bike path will be destroyed not by the bikes but by the winter and vegetation. An unpaved one will become rutted by the bikes and washed out in rain. A crushed-gravel one will need the gravel periodically replenished (particularly after winter) and will also wash out in heavy rain (I've seen it happen). Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow for him. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Action | John Harlow | Driving | 8 | April 15th 05 01:55 AM |
Go Ahead, Try to Justify This Pedalcyclist Behavior | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Driving | 4 | April 9th 05 07:05 PM |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Training | Brent P | Driving | 6 | April 3rd 05 12:14 AM |
Someone's Taking the Piss | SteveH | Alfa Romeo | 11 | July 30th 04 02:36 PM |