Wow. Parents are pulling kids out of biology because of evolution?
Where have you been for the last 15 years? I only spent grade 9 and part of 10 in NC and part of grade 12 in Maine. Their school system is F'ed up, when I was in Maine there were people that didn't know where Nova Scotia was. I told them it's where all their lobster comes from... which is why I only spent part of grade 12 there.
I was both joking and not joking. I love cooking and especially baking. I know most kids don't enjoy school because it seems like schools just cram useless facts down kids throats without actually explaining why the facts useful to begin with. I think teaching kids would work much better if you showed them something they're interested in, then explained it works because...
Physics as an example was a class I wasn't mildly interested in in high school because it was all, If block A is placed on a wedge that has a 20 deg slope what are the component forces distributed in the X and Y directions, what factor does friction play blah, blah, blah. Had someone said sit on this slide, now tell me why you slid down and what determines the speed at which you slide, or compared using a swing to rotational forces, it might have made more sense as to why I needed to know what the component forces were in that block siting on a wedge.
Now if only someone could have came up with a reason I needed to know the actual dates of historical events I'd be all set. I mean sure it's important to know what happened in the past, but is it really necessary to know it happened Tuesday 24, February 1903? What's the point of memorizing dates when the point of history is to know what happened and the sequence of events that lead to it. Yet there it was on every history test "What days and year did Jean Carteaux fight against the rebels during the french revolution?", WHO FUCKING CARES!? It's not enough to know who he is and what he did when you don't even care about the French revolution in the first place!? What possible application does knowing he defeated a small royalist Provençal rebel force July 16, 1793 have?
It's been my experience that if you didn't force kids to take science classes most wouldn't for two reasons. 1) religion, and 2) because the don't want to.
I lived in the southern part of NC for awhile while in Junior High. It was extremely common for parents to write notes to get their kids out of Biology classes if the subject dealt with evolution. I spent most of the semester yucking it up with the other seven of 25 kids that didn't get out of Biology. So aside from the fact that most kids don't want to take science and math classes, because those classes tend to be harder than music appreciation, I think there could be pressure on other kids to skip science classes if the subject disagreed with a family members personal convictions.
I think in any situation where you have one central organization telling a shit load of followers to do something, and the followers blindly do what they're told, then good people will be far from in-between. This is what really makes religion dangerous. On the other hand your religion isn't being lead by a bunch of wack jobs that are more intent on remaining in power than doing actual good, religion could be a good thing.
And yes Government is just as bad as religion. Look at the war in Afghanistan to start with. Bush's excuse was weapons of mass destruction (WoMD). He had no evidence there were WoMD, but he sent the Americans to war anyway, and for the most part they went willingly. Now maybe some of that was because 9/11 was still fresh in many peoples minds, but I'm not entirely convinced that wasn't an inside job intended to get the people riled up to make going to war easier.
but! If it wasn't religious extremists our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!
I hate to say it, but most of the money Canada does spend on defense is mainly to keep the US from starting conflicts here. My Dad is retired Navy and has always told me most of our ships are required to keep the American's out of our arctic territories. I do believe the Americans are the biggest threat to Canada, as the state of the world currently stands. Of course there's always another bully waiting to take the current ones place.
Joking aside, we only had three snow storms here in Halifax, Nova Scotia last year, as opposed to near weekly snow storms twenty years ago. Hell, it's 15 deg C out right now (about 60 deg F), 10 deg C is coat weather, when I was young enough to go trick-or-treating, 20 to 25 years ago,I wore a winter coat and remember snow on the ground. I haven't seen snow before November 11th in at least five years and even then it was just one day snow fall, the next day warm and sunny no snow on the ground.
I don't disagree with anything you've written and I definitely agree with doing away with patents and copywrite, or at least reducing their terms. It becomes more of an incentive to just come up with a very vague abstract idea, patent it and wait for someone to want to do something similar enough and sue them into the ground or live off royalties of the hard work of someone else than to actually come up with something to advance mankind's technology and knowledge.
I see patents being used for exactly the opposite reason they were created for; they were supposed to be an incentive for someone to make money off something they invented and prevent someone from under cutting an idea before the inventor was able to recoup the R&D cost. What patents are being used for now is to prevent people from being inventive by pounding them into the ground through litigation. So basically corp-X doesn't have to actually do any real work and can prevent the formation or strengthening of a competitive entity.
I was looking at the original argument as from the preservative of a research scientist, probably working out of a university or other public institute, who is advancing a field of knowledge. In which case they work under very tight budgets and spend more time fundraising than actually doing the research. If you look at it from the perspective of "Big Pharma" developing some life saving cancer drug and patenting it, but instead of releasing it for the betterment of mankind, they prevent others from using it because they make more money of prolonging life than they would saving it. Yeah, you're entirely correct.
Although I understand what you're saying, I think the GP's issue is when you have to spend billions to get something like cold fusion working, then a million seems kind of anticlimactic.
I had the same thought when I watched the video. I'm sure there are people perfectly willing to go to Mars, literally just to die there, regardless of how difficult things will be.
Can you imagine what it would be like to live with the same three people in a tent and only going outside in a spacesuit for two years before your neighbors got there. And what happens when the life support unit breaks? where do they get the parts and who fixes it?
There probably isn't a shortage of volunteers, regardless It should be a good show to watch for awhile if it ever gets off the ground.
It looks kind of like a screw to me, but I guess we'll find out in a few days. It would be exciting if it was something more special and could maybe lead to more funding for programs like Mars One. If I wasn't married I'd volunteer for the Mars One program, but I think getting married puts me in the mentally unstable category. If it doesn't than being willing to go to Mars and live in what amounts to a large tent for the rest of my life certainly would... I guess they'll have a hard time finding qualified people.
Which is why no one convinces anyone on the internet
I don't know about that. I've had my mind changed about a topic before when someone pointed out how stupid my POV was. I'm not above admitting that I become emotionally invested in one side of an argument, but I don't see it that way until someone makes a good argument with citations. Then I can step back and see the facts for what they are and realize my "one-time" experience was just a fluke and it shouldn't be shaping my opinion.
On the other hand there are times when I'll post facts and citations in an argument only to have someone, "OMZG!!!! YOU FSKING MORION!! SUX COCKS!!" or some variation there of. As in the bicycle thread yesterday. what I read came off as "Cyclist don't have to follow the same laws as cars do. It's ok for them to run red lights and stop signs and pass the stopped traffic because if they had to stop it wouldn't be as easy to bike anywhere. Drivers need to learn to share the road and let us do whatever we want when it's convenient to us....", Ahhh, no i don't think so.
Can I just ask why you think it was deemed necessary to enforce a 1 metre berth for cyclists?
This I don't know. To my knowledge cyclists in Halifax don't have a high mortality rate. My best guess is a small vocal group lobbied the municipal government because they felt unconformable in the current situation. Being they want to use the road, but don't necessarily want to share it with motor vehicles. The rule basically means in any situation, even when it's them breaking the rules of conduct on the road, they have the right of way.
Why isn't it necessary to enforce a rule for cyclists to behave correctly?
It is necessary to enforce the rules for cyclists, it's just not easily done. If a car hits someone and a license plate is acquired the car can be tracked to a location registered with the DVM. If a cyclists is behaving erratically there is no way to identify or track them down unless there is a police officer immediately at hand. The problem here is you can't enforce rules for cyclists, they don't have to have a license or register their bikes. According to the Nova Scotia motor vehicle act bicycles must legally follow the same rules as motor vehicles, but if the cyclists doesn't, well tough shit. I've filmed a cyclist seriously misbehaving on a major artery street and sent it in to the response, "we can't identify the rider, sorry".
It's hard enough watch out for pedestrians jumping off sidewalks and other drivers who may not be paying attention or shouldn't be driving in the first place. We don't need other vehicles that are slightly faster than pedestrians, but still slow traffic to a crawl while they bob in and out of traffic. If they can't follow the rules they shouldn't be on the road and making a new rule that gives them the right of way in basically any situation was a terrible idea and there are a large group of councilors that will be losing their positions because of it.
Definition:
Line of communication (travelled way) using a stabilized base other than rails or air strips open to public traffic, primarily for the use of road motor vehicles running on their own wheels.
So once again, you're being arrogant and are just plain wrong. Roads are primary for motored vehicles and are not specifically designed for use by other traffic, but can be used by other traffic depending on the local area rules. AND when used by other forms of traffic, the other forms of traffic must adhere to the local motor vehicle regulations unless otherwise specified.
Where I'm from, cyclists in general ignore all motor vehicle rules and cause head aches for others that are following the rules. However, cyclists have one special rule stating that motor vehicles must give them a 1 metre berth, which was only enacted this year, that automatically make their stupidity the fault of the motor vehicle drivers. As our city councilors have discovered the 1 metre rule is falling apart because when a car is stopped, it cannot move to make room for cyclists who are ignoring traffic when they should also be stopped. It seems to be a big topic of debate right now as there's a municipal election October 10, and several candidates have promised to overturn the bylaw if elected. Not to sound cynical, but we all know what a politicians promise is worth and I'm sure the second they're elected they'll forget all about the issue.
Why do you think you can endanger people's lives just so that you can get from A to B quicker?
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I did say was:
Nothing is wrong with giving 1 metre berth if the room is available, however in Halifax the space is not available. and the 1 metre is mandated by law and carries a fine and loss of points on a driving record if violated.
It is easy to pass a cyclists who is only traveling 2 KM/H going up hill. If the cyclists is at the side of the road the 1 metre berth is easy. When they ride in the middle of the road it can't be done.
'm also puzzled as to why you criticise cyclist for going too slow uphill and also complain that they "whizz by" in snowy conditions - which is it? Too slow or too fast?
When going up hill moving away from the harbor cyclists hold up traffic on the narrow streets and can't travel at any thing resembling a reasonable speed. When driving parallel to the harbor the road is relatively flat and when stopped at a light a cyclists traveling at 5 to 10 KM/H can easily past three or four stopped cars in a few seconds.
I think there are multiple issues with your understanding here or your being purposely dense. Cyclists can be traveling too slow in one situation and too fast in others kind of like how 50 KM/H is too slow for highway speeds (120 KM/H), but is too fast for a school zone (30 KM/H as of last month).
1) When I say hill I'm not talking about an ant hill. This image gives a good idea of the slope of the hill. Streets from the harbor up to the hill have that slope, some are steeper. Streets on the other side of the hill have a similar slope some are a little less steep. NO cyclist can climb that hill on their bike at what is a reasonable speed for someone in a car or even a moped, and anyone foolish enough to drive a manual transmission car will have trouble keeping their car from stalling when stuck behind a cyclists attempting to do so.
2) "wizz by" is a relative term intended to describe a cyclists passing two to tree stopped cars in the time it would take to move your foot from the gas to the break. When I'm stopped the cars in front of me must move before I can move. If they start rolling forward as the cars in front of them start moving and a cyclists "wizzes by" me, there is no time for the car(s) in front of me to stop or speed up before the cyclists overtakes them. Even looking in your passenger side mirror you wouldn't see the cyclist before they caught up to your car in this situation.
Also, for your information, it's often safer for cyclists to not "hide" at the side of the road so that cars can easily overtake them, but instead if they take up more room, it forces car drivers to notice them. It does infuriate car drivers, but I often take up more room than required if the road is a particularly dangerous one. I'd rather get into a shouting match with angry drivers than be in a hospital bed.
This is the typical arrogant bull shit that causes road rage and gets people killed. Roads are designed for cars and cyclists must share the road with motor vehicles, that means not purposely blocking traffic intentionally angering drivers because you don't want them to pass you. Cyclists are small enough to ride on the shoulder and provide plenty of room for cars to pass safely, which will mean fewer enraged drivers. As an experiment, next time you're walking down a busy narrow hallway, move to the centre of the hall and slow down to one step every five seconds, I bet there will be people that will push you out of the way because your slowing them down from a walking pace. This is similar to how a cyclists drastically slows a car down while providing no room to get by, and the other pedestrians in the hall with you will exhibit the same WTF symptoms as drivers exhibit. Except if the driver was to push past the cyclists and knock them over the consequences would be much worse.
There is a huge lack of understanding of the area in your post.
What is so wrong about giving another road user a 1 metre berth when overtaking them?
Nothing is wrong with giving 1 metre berth if the room is available, however in Halifax the space is not available. and the 1 metre is mandated by law and carries a fine and loss of points on a driving record if violated.
If your car is too wide for the road, then either wait behind the slower vehicle.
There is plenty of room for cars to travel in both directions on the road when driving when no cyclist are present and there is no need to over take slow motor powered vehicles as they travel at acceptable speeds even when driving slow. Cyclist are not motor powered vehicles and should get off their bikes and walk them up the hills on the sidewalks as it would be faster than them trying to peddle them up the hill in the lowest gear, which bears the risk of snapping their chain anyway. Instead they feel obligated to crawl up the hill and block traffic. So much for being green by taking your bike. I'm pretty sure the precession of traffic being held up by a single cyclist negates all the good all the cyclist in the city do by taking their bikes.
or get a smaller vehicle that is better suited for your roads
I drive a Toyota Yaris, I would drive a smart car except I have a 1 year old and there's no room for her and my wife in a smart car. It is impractical to drive anything without an enclosed space for the driver in Halifax when traveling any significant distance.
If you're stuck in a line of traffic that is incapable of overtaking due to being the wrong size for the roads, then either wait or use different roads
Oh, you mean all those roads that were converted to one way streets so there would be room for cyclist to drive down the middle of the lane and block traffic. yeah regardless of what direction you're traveling the one way streets always point into the main arteries, which means there is no avoiding the precession of traffic and Halifax, which as I described, is a peninsula so there are limited routes to get to and from the downtown core. Waiting in traffic is the only option when you live outside the city, and I'm not about to spend $1 to $2 million to by a half sized town house in the city so I don't have to drive the 20 minutes it takes me (in the absents of cycles) to cross the bridge to where I live in Dartmouth.
If a cyclist hits a chunk of ice and slides out - try using your brakes
Great advice, breaks work instantly on roads covered in ice and snow. I've got some news for you since you don't drive in a northern coastal climate, even driving at 10 KM/H with studs on my tires, my car doesn't stop instantly.
If you can't stop in time, then you're too close and are rightly at fault for dangerous driving.
At times when I'm driving <= 10KM/H in the snow it isn't difficult for a cyclist to wizz by, and they do. The incident I spoke of occurred when the traffic I was in was stopped at a red light. The cyclist drove down the right hand side of the traffic up to the stop light. The cars were not moving so there was no way for the driver of the car that hit the cyclist to provide the space. When the light turned green the first two cars, that were still in front of the cyclist, started going through the intersection. The cyclist overtook the second car as it entered the intersection and just as he passed the car he hit a lump of ice which caused him to slide under the front wheel of the car. Last I heard the cyclist was fine and only his bike was damaged, but the driver was charged with failing to provide the 1 metre berth to the cyclist. I saw the incident happen and can 100% say there was nothing the driver could have done other than to have stopped in the middle of the intersection and allow the cyclist to overtake him, that
I think what he means with "is usually someone else responsibility to deal with your actions" is if while driving my car I hit a cyclist I'm at fault and I get a fine and maybe lose my license for awhile. If that cyclist dies due to a brain injury then it's vehicular man slaughter and I go to prison. Where I'm from Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, cars and cyclist must share the roads, unless it's inconvenient for the cyclist it seems. On top of that there are laws that say I may not pass a cyclist unless I can give them a 1 metre birth, which is very difficult to do in our downtown core on busy streets built over 150 years ago to accommodate horse and buggy.
I do get a laugh when people complain about traffic in my city and claim encouraging cyclist is the solution because when I'm stuck in a line of traffic following a cyclist going up hill at 2 KM/H it seems to me the cyclist is the cause of the traffic congestion. Halifax is literally one big hill formed by glaciers. The city was built on a peninsula around a fort that sits on top of citadel hill, so it doesn't matter if you're driving away from the harbor in the downtown core or you're going into the downtown core you're going up hill. There has been some progress in building bike lanes by making some streets one way only and removing the parking on other streets. This video gives a good sense of the terrine in Halifax, the girl in the video is carrying her bike for most of it, it is not a city for cycling. I'm just ranting now so I'll stop there.
The point is if a cyclist in the middle of winter hits a chunk of ice and slides out in traffic and gets hit by a car, I've seen it happen, the driver of the car is at fault, and the consequences are compounded if that cyclist dies as a result. So yes, If I'm going to be held accountable for the poor choices of someone else (cycling in the winter being one of the more mild things I've seen) then they should be very strictly regulated by law to ware safety gear.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Parents are pulling kids out of biology because of evolution?
Where have you been for the last 15 years? I only spent grade 9 and part of 10 in NC and part of grade 12 in Maine. Their school system is F'ed up, when I was in Maine there were people that didn't know where Nova Scotia was. I told them it's where all their lobster comes from... which is why I only spent part of grade 12 there.
I was both joking and not joking. I love cooking and especially baking. I know most kids don't enjoy school because it seems like schools just cram useless facts down kids throats without actually explaining why the facts useful to begin with. I think teaching kids would work much better if you showed them something they're interested in, then explained it works because...
Physics as an example was a class I wasn't mildly interested in in high school because it was all, If block A is placed on a wedge that has a 20 deg slope what are the component forces distributed in the X and Y directions, what factor does friction play blah, blah, blah. Had someone said sit on this slide, now tell me why you slid down and what determines the speed at which you slide, or compared using a swing to rotational forces, it might have made more sense as to why I needed to know what the component forces were in that block siting on a wedge.
Now if only someone could have came up with a reason I needed to know the actual dates of historical events I'd be all set. I mean sure it's important to know what happened in the past, but is it really necessary to know it happened Tuesday 24, February 1903? What's the point of memorizing dates when the point of history is to know what happened and the sequence of events that lead to it. Yet there it was on every history test "What days and year did Jean Carteaux fight against the rebels during the french revolution?", WHO FUCKING CARES!? It's not enough to know who he is and what he did when you don't even care about the French revolution in the first place!? What possible application does knowing he defeated a small royalist Provençal rebel force July 16, 1793 have?
I've got to cut back on the coffee.
It's been my experience that if you didn't force kids to take science classes most wouldn't for two reasons. 1) religion, and 2) because the don't want to.
I lived in the southern part of NC for awhile while in Junior High. It was extremely common for parents to write notes to get their kids out of Biology classes if the subject dealt with evolution. I spent most of the semester yucking it up with the other seven of 25 kids that didn't get out of Biology. So aside from the fact that most kids don't want to take science and math classes, because those classes tend to be harder than music appreciation, I think there could be pressure on other kids to skip science classes if the subject disagreed with a family members personal convictions.
You forgot baking! Cookies and cake are the two most important things to use chemistry for.
I think in any situation where you have one central organization telling a shit load of followers to do something, and the followers blindly do what they're told, then good people will be far from in-between. This is what really makes religion dangerous. On the other hand your religion isn't being lead by a bunch of wack jobs that are more intent on remaining in power than doing actual good, religion could be a good thing.
And yes Government is just as bad as religion. Look at the war in Afghanistan to start with. Bush's excuse was weapons of mass destruction (WoMD). He had no evidence there were WoMD, but he sent the Americans to war anyway, and for the most part they went willingly. Now maybe some of that was because 9/11 was still fresh in many peoples minds, but I'm not entirely convinced that wasn't an inside job intended to get the people riled up to make going to war easier.
but! If it wasn't religious extremists our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!
FTFY
That would be a great substitute for a home gym... if it's less than a few thousand dollars, which I doubt it is.
Didn't Artie receive one of these on Glee two seasons ago?
rooting around your room for pocket change.
Well you won't find it, we spent it on a nerf baseball bat for defense.
You make an excellent point.
I hate to say it, but most of the money Canada does spend on defense is mainly to keep the US from starting conflicts here. My Dad is retired Navy and has always told me most of our ships are required to keep the American's out of our arctic territories. I do believe the Americans are the biggest threat to Canada, as the state of the world currently stands. Of course there's always another bully waiting to take the current ones place.
With global warming Canada is the place to be.
Joking aside, we only had three snow storms here in Halifax, Nova Scotia last year, as opposed to near weekly snow storms twenty years ago. Hell, it's 15 deg C out right now (about 60 deg F), 10 deg C is coat weather, when I was young enough to go trick-or-treating, 20 to 25 years ago,I wore a winter coat and remember snow on the ground. I haven't seen snow before November 11th in at least five years and even then it was just one day snow fall, the next day warm and sunny no snow on the ground.
I don't disagree with anything you've written and I definitely agree with doing away with patents and copywrite, or at least reducing their terms. It becomes more of an incentive to just come up with a very vague abstract idea, patent it and wait for someone to want to do something similar enough and sue them into the ground or live off royalties of the hard work of someone else than to actually come up with something to advance mankind's technology and knowledge.
I see patents being used for exactly the opposite reason they were created for; they were supposed to be an incentive for someone to make money off something they invented and prevent someone from under cutting an idea before the inventor was able to recoup the R&D cost. What patents are being used for now is to prevent people from being inventive by pounding them into the ground through litigation. So basically corp-X doesn't have to actually do any real work and can prevent the formation or strengthening of a competitive entity.
I was looking at the original argument as from the preservative of a research scientist, probably working out of a university or other public institute, who is advancing a field of knowledge. In which case they work under very tight budgets and spend more time fundraising than actually doing the research. If you look at it from the perspective of "Big Pharma" developing some life saving cancer drug and patenting it, but instead of releasing it for the betterment of mankind, they prevent others from using it because they make more money of prolonging life than they would saving it. Yeah, you're entirely correct.
Although I understand what you're saying, I think the GP's issue is when you have to spend billions to get something like cold fusion working, then a million seems kind of anticlimactic.
I had the same thought when I watched the video. I'm sure there are people perfectly willing to go to Mars, literally just to die there, regardless of how difficult things will be.
Can you imagine what it would be like to live with the same three people in a tent and only going outside in a spacesuit for two years before your neighbors got there. And what happens when the life support unit breaks? where do they get the parts and who fixes it?
There probably isn't a shortage of volunteers, regardless It should be a good show to watch for awhile if it ever gets off the ground.
It looks kind of like a screw to me, but I guess we'll find out in a few days. It would be exciting if it was something more special and could maybe lead to more funding for programs like Mars One. If I wasn't married I'd volunteer for the Mars One program, but I think getting married puts me in the mentally unstable category. If it doesn't than being willing to go to Mars and live in what amounts to a large tent for the rest of my life certainly would... I guess they'll have a hard time finding qualified people.
Purple is the new transparent!
Which is why no one convinces anyone on the internet
I don't know about that. I've had my mind changed about a topic before when someone pointed out how stupid my POV was. I'm not above admitting that I become emotionally invested in one side of an argument, but I don't see it that way until someone makes a good argument with citations. Then I can step back and see the facts for what they are and realize my "one-time" experience was just a fluke and it shouldn't be shaping my opinion.
On the other hand there are times when I'll post facts and citations in an argument only to have someone, "OMZG!!!! YOU FSKING MORION!! SUX COCKS!!" or some variation there of. As in the bicycle thread yesterday. what I read came off as "Cyclist don't have to follow the same laws as cars do. It's ok for them to run red lights and stop signs and pass the stopped traffic because if they had to stop it wouldn't be as easy to bike anywhere. Drivers need to learn to share the road and let us do whatever we want when it's convenient to us....", Ahhh, no i don't think so.
Can I just ask why you think it was deemed necessary to enforce a 1 metre berth for cyclists?
This I don't know. To my knowledge cyclists in Halifax don't have a high mortality rate. My best guess is a small vocal group lobbied the municipal government because they felt unconformable in the current situation. Being they want to use the road, but don't necessarily want to share it with motor vehicles. The rule basically means in any situation, even when it's them breaking the rules of conduct on the road, they have the right of way.
Why isn't it necessary to enforce a rule for cyclists to behave correctly?
It is necessary to enforce the rules for cyclists, it's just not easily done. If a car hits someone and a license plate is acquired the car can be tracked to a location registered with the DVM. If a cyclists is behaving erratically there is no way to identify or track them down unless there is a police officer immediately at hand. The problem here is you can't enforce rules for cyclists, they don't have to have a license or register their bikes. According to the Nova Scotia motor vehicle act bicycles must legally follow the same rules as motor vehicles, but if the cyclists doesn't, well tough shit. I've filmed a cyclist seriously misbehaving on a major artery street and sent it in to the response, "we can't identify the rider, sorry".
It's hard enough watch out for pedestrians jumping off sidewalks and other drivers who may not be paying attention or shouldn't be driving in the first place. We don't need other vehicles that are slightly faster than pedestrians, but still slow traffic to a crawl while they bob in and out of traffic. If they can't follow the rules they shouldn't be on the road and making a new rule that gives them the right of way in basically any situation was a terrible idea and there are a large group of councilors that will be losing their positions because of it.
Roads were not designed for cars - they were designed for horse and carts (think Roman times).
Then go back to the roman times and ride your bicycle.
Roads are designed for automobiles, but CAN be used by other types of traffic when allowed.
From the OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms:
Definition:
Line of communication (travelled way) using a stabilized base other than rails or air strips open to public traffic, primarily for the use of road motor vehicles running on their own wheels.
So once again, you're being arrogant and are just plain wrong. Roads are primary for motored vehicles and are not specifically designed for use by other traffic, but can be used by other traffic depending on the local area rules. AND when used by other forms of traffic, the other forms of traffic must adhere to the local motor vehicle regulations unless otherwise specified.
Where I'm from, cyclists in general ignore all motor vehicle rules and cause head aches for others that are following the rules. However, cyclists have one special rule stating that motor vehicles must give them a 1 metre berth, which was only enacted this year, that automatically make their stupidity the fault of the motor vehicle drivers. As our city councilors have discovered the 1 metre rule is falling apart because when a car is stopped, it cannot move to make room for cyclists who are ignoring traffic when they should also be stopped. It seems to be a big topic of debate right now as there's a municipal election October 10, and several candidates have promised to overturn the bylaw if elected. Not to sound cynical, but we all know what a politicians promise is worth and I'm sure the second they're elected they'll forget all about the issue.
Why do you think you can endanger people's lives just so that you can get from A to B quicker?
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I did say was:
Nothing is wrong with giving 1 metre berth if the room is available, however in Halifax the space is not available. and the 1 metre is mandated by law and carries a fine and loss of points on a driving record if violated.
It is easy to pass a cyclists who is only traveling 2 KM/H going up hill. If the cyclists is at the side of the road the 1 metre berth is easy. When they ride in the middle of the road it can't be done.
'm also puzzled as to why you criticise cyclist for going too slow uphill and also complain that they "whizz by" in snowy conditions - which is it? Too slow or too fast?
When going up hill moving away from the harbor cyclists hold up traffic on the narrow streets and can't travel at any thing resembling a reasonable speed. When driving parallel to the harbor the road is relatively flat and when stopped at a light a cyclists traveling at 5 to 10 KM/H can easily past three or four stopped cars in a few seconds.
I think there are multiple issues with your understanding here or your being purposely dense. Cyclists can be traveling too slow in one situation and too fast in others kind of like how 50 KM/H is too slow for highway speeds (120 KM/H), but is too fast for a school zone (30 KM/H as of last month).
1) When I say hill I'm not talking about an ant hill. This image gives a good idea of the slope of the hill. Streets from the harbor up to the hill have that slope, some are steeper. Streets on the other side of the hill have a similar slope some are a little less steep. NO cyclist can climb that hill on their bike at what is a reasonable speed for someone in a car or even a moped, and anyone foolish enough to drive a manual transmission car will have trouble keeping their car from stalling when stuck behind a cyclists attempting to do so.
2) "wizz by" is a relative term intended to describe a cyclists passing two to tree stopped cars in the time it would take to move your foot from the gas to the break. When I'm stopped the cars in front of me must move before I can move. If they start rolling forward as the cars in front of them start moving and a cyclists "wizzes by" me, there is no time for the car(s) in front of me to stop or speed up before the cyclists overtakes them. Even looking in your passenger side mirror you wouldn't see the cyclist before they caught up to your car in this situation.
Also, for your information, it's often safer for cyclists to not "hide" at the side of the road so that cars can easily overtake them, but instead if they take up more room, it forces car drivers to notice them. It does infuriate car drivers, but I often take up more room than required if the road is a particularly dangerous one. I'd rather get into a shouting match with angry drivers than be in a hospital bed.
This is the typical arrogant bull shit that causes road rage and gets people killed. Roads are designed for cars and cyclists must share the road with motor vehicles, that means not purposely blocking traffic intentionally angering drivers because you don't want them to pass you. Cyclists are small enough to ride on the shoulder and provide plenty of room for cars to pass safely, which will mean fewer enraged drivers. As an experiment, next time you're walking down a busy narrow hallway, move to the centre of the hall and slow down to one step every five seconds, I bet there will be people that will push you out of the way because your slowing them down from a walking pace. This is similar to how a cyclists drastically slows a car down while providing no room to get by, and the other pedestrians in the hall with you will exhibit the same WTF symptoms as drivers exhibit. Except if the driver was to push past the cyclists and knock them over the consequences would be much worse.
What is so wrong about giving another road user a 1 metre berth when overtaking them?
Nothing is wrong with giving 1 metre berth if the room is available, however in Halifax the space is not available. and the 1 metre is mandated by law and carries a fine and loss of points on a driving record if violated.
If your car is too wide for the road, then either wait behind the slower vehicle.
There is plenty of room for cars to travel in both directions on the road when driving when no cyclist are present and there is no need to over take slow motor powered vehicles as they travel at acceptable speeds even when driving slow. Cyclist are not motor powered vehicles and should get off their bikes and walk them up the hills on the sidewalks as it would be faster than them trying to peddle them up the hill in the lowest gear, which bears the risk of snapping their chain anyway. Instead they feel obligated to crawl up the hill and block traffic. So much for being green by taking your bike. I'm pretty sure the precession of traffic being held up by a single cyclist negates all the good all the cyclist in the city do by taking their bikes.
or get a smaller vehicle that is better suited for your roads
I drive a Toyota Yaris, I would drive a smart car except I have a 1 year old and there's no room for her and my wife in a smart car. It is impractical to drive anything without an enclosed space for the driver in Halifax when traveling any significant distance.
If you're stuck in a line of traffic that is incapable of overtaking due to being the wrong size for the roads, then either wait or use different roads
Oh, you mean all those roads that were converted to one way streets so there would be room for cyclist to drive down the middle of the lane and block traffic. yeah regardless of what direction you're traveling the one way streets always point into the main arteries, which means there is no avoiding the precession of traffic and Halifax, which as I described, is a peninsula so there are limited routes to get to and from the downtown core. Waiting in traffic is the only option when you live outside the city, and I'm not about to spend $1 to $2 million to by a half sized town house in the city so I don't have to drive the 20 minutes it takes me (in the absents of cycles) to cross the bridge to where I live in Dartmouth.
If a cyclist hits a chunk of ice and slides out - try using your brakes
Great advice, breaks work instantly on roads covered in ice and snow. I've got some news for you since you don't drive in a northern coastal climate, even driving at 10 KM/H with studs on my tires, my car doesn't stop instantly.
If you can't stop in time, then you're too close and are rightly at fault for dangerous driving.
At times when I'm driving <= 10KM/H in the snow it isn't difficult for a cyclist to wizz by, and they do. The incident I spoke of occurred when the traffic I was in was stopped at a red light. The cyclist drove down the right hand side of the traffic up to the stop light. The cars were not moving so there was no way for the driver of the car that hit the cyclist to provide the space. When the light turned green the first two cars, that were still in front of the cyclist, started going through the intersection. The cyclist overtook the second car as it entered the intersection and just as he passed the car he hit a lump of ice which caused him to slide under the front wheel of the car. Last I heard the cyclist was fine and only his bike was damaged, but the driver was charged with failing to provide the 1 metre berth to the cyclist. I saw the incident happen and can 100% say there was nothing the driver could have done other than to have stopped in the middle of the intersection and allow the cyclist to overtake him, that
I think what he means with "is usually someone else responsibility to deal with your actions" is if while driving my car I hit a cyclist I'm at fault and I get a fine and maybe lose my license for awhile. If that cyclist dies due to a brain injury then it's vehicular man slaughter and I go to prison. Where I'm from Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, cars and cyclist must share the roads, unless it's inconvenient for the cyclist it seems. On top of that there are laws that say I may not pass a cyclist unless I can give them a 1 metre birth, which is very difficult to do in our downtown core on busy streets built over 150 years ago to accommodate horse and buggy.
I do get a laugh when people complain about traffic in my city and claim encouraging cyclist is the solution because when I'm stuck in a line of traffic following a cyclist going up hill at 2 KM/H it seems to me the cyclist is the cause of the traffic congestion. Halifax is literally one big hill formed by glaciers. The city was built on a peninsula around a fort that sits on top of citadel hill, so it doesn't matter if you're driving away from the harbor in the downtown core or you're going into the downtown core you're going up hill. There has been some progress in building bike lanes by making some streets one way only and removing the parking on other streets. This video gives a good sense of the terrine in Halifax, the girl in the video is carrying her bike for most of it, it is not a city for cycling. I'm just ranting now so I'll stop there.
The point is if a cyclist in the middle of winter hits a chunk of ice and slides out in traffic and gets hit by a car, I've seen it happen, the driver of the car is at fault, and the consequences are compounded if that cyclist dies as a result. So yes, If I'm going to be held accountable for the poor choices of someone else (cycling in the winter being one of the more mild things I've seen) then they should be very strictly regulated by law to ware safety gear.
there's just the simple fact that climate changes happen in geologic time frames, and we literally don't have any direct measurements of that scale.
I'm sitting less that 250 metres away from a giant freezer full of Ice and sediment core samples that would disagree with your statement.
You're right, and it's obviously not a coincidence. I for one, welcome our new Windows 8 Style UI Overlords!
FTFY