Martin Dann <
[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Z. wrote:
> >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Martin Dann writes:
> >>> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
> >>> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
> >>> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
> >>> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
> >>> similar to racism.
>
> It is segregation, not racism that I was comparing to. Read the
> reference I supplied.
Segregation was caused by racism.
>
> >> As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase
> >> existed.
> > No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase
> > "normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic".
> > You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day
> > or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that.
>
> First you claim "normal speed of traffic" is a legal term, then you
> claim it is "standard english". Which is it?
Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.
The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California Vehicle
Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term "traffic" refers
to everything moving on the road - cars, bicycles, horses,
what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, "normal" modifies "speed",
not "traffic". Can you get that through your thick scull?
> And what is "standard english". I could claim that the lack of an
> Upper case E on the name of my country is as insulting and racist as
> using the word ****er.
ROTFLMAO! You can't be serious. People drop upper case letters every
so often when typing usenet posts because most of us aren't professional
typists and don't always proof read everthing we post.
> Once you start saying some traffic moves at normal speed, and other
> traffic does not, you immediately get normal and non-normal traffic.
No you don't. You get slower and faster traffic, with the "normal speed"
being an average.
> > In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be
> > driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one
> > lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a
> > slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first
> > reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more
> > vehicles are queued up behind.
>
> So when a queue of cars are moving slower than the normal speed, do
> they have to pull in for cyclist to over take or not? (Third time I
> have asked).
I gave you the answer, you moron - the slower traffic is expected to
move as far to the right on the roadway as is practicable (typicaly
that means moving into the rightmost lane), and if 5 or more vehicles
are queued up behind on a two-lane road where passing is not possible
(e.g., heavy traffic in the other direction or where passing is not
safe), the slow vehicle has to pull off the road at the first reasonable
opportunity.
>
> > No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what
> > you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as
> > long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that
> > I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show
> > where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be
> > installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities
> > don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according
> > the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed,
> > but that was before the standards existed).
>
> I have used many cycling lanes and routes in my country. I can
> honestly state that none of them are as safe as using the road, in my
> experience.
What the hell are you talking about? A bike lane *is* a lane on a
road. It is not a separate facility - those are called bike paths.
> Even properly designed facilities, swept and maintained regularly,
> increase the danger. If I keep just to these facilities I find them
> full of people and animals.
That sounds like a bike/pedestrian path, not a bike lane. We have some
paths naer where I live that are reasonably clean, crowded with
pedestrians on weekends, but more or less empty weekdays during
commute hours. These are reasonably safe - they are along a bay
so there are very few points where they intersect roads. Their main
advantage (aside from the view) is that you can bypass quite a few
traffic signals.
> If I have to go on the road in places where these facilities do not
> exist, then car drivers won't be expecting cyclists, and the danger
> goes up.
That one doesn't make sense at all. Are you saying that, if you use
road X, drivers won't expect to see any cyclist on road Y?
>
> Cycling on the road is the only answer.
How many times do I have to explain the difference between a bike lane
and a bike path to get it through your thick scull - it's not like this
is the first post where I've had to try to explain it.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
