Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
>>> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
>>> the particular implementation.
>> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
>> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
>> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
>> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
>>
>> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
>> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
>> figment of your imagination.
>
> Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas,
> particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I
> don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just
> as lions and monkeys.

Some of the monkeys (ok, apes) learned to walk upright and used their
now free forelimbs to make and hold weapons. The lions learned to stay
well away from these otherwise slow and weak creatures.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 2, 7:00 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Bill Z. wrote:
> >
> > > > [email protected] writes:
> >
> > > >>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
> > > >>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
> > > >>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
> > > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> > > > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> > > > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> > > > city he rode.
> >
> > > Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
> > > about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for
> > > many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.
> >
> > Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is
> > one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few
> > "discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading
> > some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the
> > U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many
> > newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising
> > with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it.
> > He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend
> > that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out
> > what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course,
> > Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post
> > because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove.
>
>
> Is there an official vocabulary term for the act of describing a years-
> old discussion in a totally biased way, and using that description as
> a supposed "proof"?

The bias, alas, was all from you, but your penchant for re-writting
history is well known.

In Message-ID <[email protected]>#1/1, Krygowski wrote (quoting
me):
: > The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an
: > article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother
: > taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed
: > someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the
: > example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to
: > not be worth bothering about.
:
: Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying
: nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise
: avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child
: fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In
: response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one
: of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was
: "trivial".

You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but
where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took
this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and
blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in
the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_
or _Newsweek_.

So as I said, Krygowski spins like crazy, and then tries to re-write
history as he just did. He's completely shameless about it, always
resorting to the "big lie" technique.

> If not, I propose we coin the term "Zaumenism."

No need to coin a term - they already have one for what you produce
and it is called "spin", which is a polite term for lies.
<snip>

My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Martin Dann wrote:
> ...
> 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....

Henceforth, I will write "GrEat Britain" and "UnitEd Kingdom".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> ...
> 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 ever[y]thing we post....

Usenet should be capitalized.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
> : > The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an
> : > article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother
> : > taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed
> : > someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the
> : > example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to
> : > not be worth bothering about.
> :
> : [FK:] Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying
> : nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise
> : avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child
> : fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In
> : response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one
> : of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was
> : "trivial".
>
> You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but
> where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took
> this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and
> blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in
> the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_
> or _Newsweek_.

Ah! Lose one argument, so resurrect an old one to save face, eh?
Problem is, you were wrong then, too, Bill.

Approximate circulation figures:

Bicycling magazine: 400,000
Popular Science: 1.5 million
ESPN magazine: 1.9 million
U.S. News : 2.0 million
Newsweek: 3.1 million
Sports Illustrated: 3.3 million
Time: 4.0 million
National Geographic: 5.4 million
Reader's Digest: 10.0 million
Parade magazine: 32 million

Hmm. Looks like Parade actually does have one of the largest - if not
_the_ largest - magazine circulation numbers in the country. Just
like I said!

Bill claims this doesn't count. I suppose that's because their
distribution channel is different and unusually successful. "Nobody
will look at a magazine with that much circulation!"

Likewise, he claims bike lane experiences outside San Francisco don't
count, because... um, well, I suppose because he says so!

You're fun to watch, Bill. ;-)

Now, can we get an explanation of why a white stripe on a roadway is
better than a wide lane, despite the fact that trash accumulates to
the right of the line?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
> > the area to know why.
>
> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.
>
Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.

But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
HOV lanes.

> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?

Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
> >> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
> >> the particular implementation.
> > Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
> > merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
> > I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
> > facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
> > Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
> > show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
> > figment of your imagination.
>
> Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less
> California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of
> right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries.

Tell that to a California judge if you get a ticket for a moving
violation while visiting. He may laugh at your silly name for the
region, but that won't get you out of a ticket, and he won't be amused
at your attitude regarding the CVC.

> Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC
> and Caltrans design standards.

If you expect anyone living in California to agree with you, you should
show what in the CVC and Caltrans design standards you object to: we are
not required to use any bike lane that was not installed in conformance
to state standards.

>
> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous
> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic).

Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to say.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> [Yawn]
> [Yawn]

(i.e., he has no legitimate response)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > ...
> > 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 ever[y]thing we post....
>
> Usenet should be capitalized.

Acutally it should if anything be in all upper case although a variety
of forms are used.

<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt> has one example (all upper case)
and <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg02039.html>
has some in upper case and some in lower case. When used as an
adjective, this RFC uses lower case for the word "usenet", although
usage is not consistent. The IETF is the official standards
organization for the Internet, in case you don't know.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > : > The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an
> > : > article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother
> > : > taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed
> > : > someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the
> > : > example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to
> > : > not be worth bothering about.
> > :
> > : [FK:] Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying
> > : nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise
> > : avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child
> > : fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In
> > : response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one
> > : of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was
> > : "trivial".
> >
> > You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but
> > where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took
> > this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and
> > blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in
> > the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_
> > or _Newsweek_.
>
> Ah! Lose one argument, so resurrect an old one to save face, eh?
> Problem is, you were wrong then, too, Bill.

More spin from Krygowski! He made a bogus claim, was called on it with
documentation showing that he had been lying, so he then tries to blame
the messenger for telling him what he actually had said.

>
> Approximate circulation figures:
>
> Bicycling magazine: 400,000
> Popular Science: 1.5 million
> ESPN magazine: 1.9 million
> U.S. News : 2.0 million
> Newsweek: 3.1 million
> Sports Illustrated: 3.3 million
> Time: 4.0 million
> National Geographic: 5.4 million
> Reader's Digest: 10.0 million
> Parade magazine: 32 million

An example of how to lie with statistics. Parade is a filler that
gets distributed with any number of newspapers. The others are
magazines that people explicitly buy. Just because Parade may be
distributed inside your favorite Sunday paper doesn't mean you want
it or read it. At least with the others, we know that someone contributing
to the magazine's circulation actually put down some hard cash for the
purpose of obtaining it.

>
> Hmm. Looks like Parade actually does have one of the largest - if not
> _the_ largest - magazine circulation numbers in the country. Just
> like I said!

Looks like Krygowski is once again showing his general inability to
produce a single post where he didn't dissemble - a true Karl Rove
wannabe.

> Bill claims this doesn't count. I suppose that's because their
> distribution channel is different and unusually successful. "Nobody
> will look at a magazine with that much circulation!"

More lies from Krygowski - he's assuming that Parade is actually read!
It simply has been more successful than some other newspaper-insert
magazines at getting itself inserted.

> Likewise, he claims bike lane experiences outside San Francisco don't
> count, because... um, well, I suppose because he says so!

Frank is lying once again, since I obviously mentioned bike lanes outside
of San Francisco (only mentioning San Francisco when Krygowski brought up
his strawmen about ill-maintained bike lanes he saw while visiting some
unspecified city, which he later claimed was Portland, but I had to
mention a specific city to get him to own up to it).

> You're fun to watch, Bill. ;-)

That's nice ... too bad the way you continually make a fool of
yourself isn't nice to watch.

> Now, can we get an explanation of why a white stripe on a roadway is
> better than a wide lane, despite the fact that trash accumulates to
> the right of the line?

Where's the trash? Certainly not around here. To be perfectly blunt,
Krygowski is lying as usual because that is all he knows how to do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I'd prefer not to have bike lanes, I'd much rather have wide curb
>> lanes without the magical paint stripe.
>> Paint doesn't actually stop reckless drivers from hitting things, but
>> it does stop careful drivers from driving to the right when there
>> isn't a bike present. That means the bike lane doesn't get swept by
>> passing cars, so it builds up broken glass and radial tire wires.

> Bike lanes collect debris? Preposterous!
>
> http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf (2.34 MB)

Fig 4 was interesting - you get the debris but at least the potholes
are out of your way.

But on balance I'd still rather do without the cycle lane - especially
with a 15-foot lane overall.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
>>> the area to know why.
>> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
>> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.
>>
> Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.

Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to
replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to
China, India and other low wage countries?

> But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> HOV lanes.
>
>> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?
>
> Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?

That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar.

I will be checking Zaumen's posts for perfection in spelling and grammar
from now on.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
>>>> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
>>>> the particular implementation.
>>> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
>>> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
>>> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
>>> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
>>> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
>>> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
>>> figment of your imagination.
>> Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less
>> California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of
>> right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries.
>
> Tell that to a California judge if you get a ticket for a moving
> violation while visiting. He may laugh at your silly name for the
> region, but that won't get you out of a ticket, and he won't be amused
> at your attitude regarding the CVC.
>
>> Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC
>> and Caltrans design standards.
>
> If you expect anyone living in California to agree with you, you should
> show what in the CVC and Caltrans design standards you object to: we are
> not required to use any bike lane that was not installed in conformance
> to state standards.
>
>> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
>> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous
>> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
>> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic).
>
> Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to say.

Whoosh!

Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than
regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not establish
the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle lanes" affect
the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way fundamentalists
cite the religious tract of their preference, as being some infallible
word from on high that is universally applicable is humorous, however.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[William]

> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
> the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
> walking.
> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.

Except the fact that your going a lot faster with a lot less
control....

 

[Peter Clinch]

William wrote:
>> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
>> the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
>> walking.
>> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.
>
> Except the fact that your going a lot faster with a lot less
> control....

However fast and control free you might be, it doesn't alter the fact
that wearing a helmet has a track record of not improving serious head
injury rates in populations that adopt them.

That's what happens. It's what has always happened anywhere we look.
"Not safer" is "not safer". It's not "not safer, except...", it's "not
safer". And that's based on their actual, real world performance, not a
pious hope or a theory.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:50 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
> >> them through bike lanes.
>
> I think letting you loose out of your cell would be dangerous.

Sorry, cell phones are mostly dangerous when driving an SUV.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

> As I don't live in the USA, I

Maybe that's why you don't understand what's going on here. Slower
vehicles don't have to drive on the right at all, nor should drivers
pay be paying attention to driving, simply you get these SUV behemoths
whistling past you that leave you shaking in your commitment to ride
anymore.

>
> It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that
> cycles should be on the main road, not segregated and
> pushed onto poor facilities.

Why do they have to be poor?

>
> > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
> > It is completely dishonest.
>
> What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling
> facilities as a good idea.-

Are you actually saying that Holland is a very discriminatory country?
They got something like 20,000km of bike lanes and seem pretty
democratic to me. Actually they are much more democratic than those
places where SUVs and rule the roads.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 6:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to
> > use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic
> > and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot
> > on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It
> > simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something
> > incredibly stupid regardless.
>
> You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues
> against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated
> from cars by a white line, I'd be safe."
>
> In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely
> shows where the glass and gravel begin.

Don't be such a pessimist. Our cities don't have to be like Mexico.
And you can have lots of people to go out and try a new sport. The
chihuahua says, "Amigo, I want bike lanes!"

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>>The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane.
>>>>
>>>>16' lane:
>>>>- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other
>>>>operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge
>>>>under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as
>>>>a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed.
>>>
>>>.... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding
>>>at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally
>>>14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you
>>>a couple of feet inside the bike lane.
>>
>>YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from
>>edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from
>>edge of pavement.
>
>
> Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the
> only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe
> (on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple
> of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane
> stripe, which can be quite far from the curb.

Are you a moron?

In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement.



>
>
>>If you are less than 12 feet
>>
>>>from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane)
>>>you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific
>>>hazard (which the bike lane rules allow).
>>
>>Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my
>>speed is.
>
>
> More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4'
> from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane.

You are a moron.


>
>
>
>>>>Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing
>>>>lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle
>>>>operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space
>>>>since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist
>>>>within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist
>>>>traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor
>>>>vehicles.
>>>
>>>The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway
>>>unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you
>>>were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you
>>>do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not.
>>
>>I don't care about the CVC.
>
>
> If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable
> effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike
> and not driving a car.


Moron. I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC!

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

>>Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
>>about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for
>>many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.
>
>
> Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is
> one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few
> "discussions" with him.

Zauman, from my current "discussion" with you, I conclude that you are a
moron. I've had numerous discussions with Frank, and he doesn't
misinterpret me like you do, or distort what I say, or say anything
dishonest. Over the years I've read hundreds of his posts on usenet and
have never read anything dishonest. You are a fruit cake. You need
professional help.

Wayne