What's wrong with diversity? Why do you argue that the US should be like the EU? If every country is the same, then there's no choice. I myself prefer the concepts of personal freedom and liberty over social welfare. But, I recognize that others feel the opposite. So I won't try to change your country's politics (what my country does in that respect, I do not support), you stay out of ours. OK?
You don't say whether you're driving a bike or a car. And that's exactly the point - why not just change all stop signs to yield signs and let everyone proceed after stopping at a light? Every argument you make applies to non-bike vehicles, it gets traffic moving faster.
All these claims that bikes have better vision, or better stopping, or xyz, ignore the fact that it all comes down to people being responsible for making good decisions, and cyclists are no better than drivers at making good decisions.
Of course, the answer is that there are already intersections with yield signs and blinking red lights (or stop signs) where it is appropriate, and no change is needed.
The article is full of rationalizations and assumptions, not facts. If the goal is to have bikers use side streets, then the author would support laws restricting bikes to side streets, right?
The problem is consistency - I often see riders switching between those modes (and acting as pedestrians using the sidewalks), and changing between them frequently and without warning.
Traffic laws are intended to make things consistent and predictable - something defeated by cyclists who frequently shift between those modes. It's not uncommon to see a cyclist using the sidewalk, then quickly entering and claiming a road lane when they encounter pedestrian traffic without signaling or yielding (meaning having an immediate impact on the flow of traffic).
Mine was not a truly serious comment, it was to be taken as a response to a typical cyclist argument: "We want to be treated the same as cars when it benefits us, but we want to ignore the rules for cars when it benefits us, and we also want special treatment which benefits us." They (not all, but a significant number) come off as self-centered assholes.
"Blinking red lights have not met the uniform traffic code for 50 years"
That's simply not true as a blanket statement. Where do you live? Certainly not in the US, where the current Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifically addresses this:
Flashing red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
1. Vehicular traffic, on an approach to an intersection, facing a flashing CIRCULAR RED signal
indication shall stop... The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules
applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign...
As a quick check, both CA and FL laws reflect that usage, as is to be expected.
I pass cyclists the same as I pass other vehicles - when there is no opposing traffic and it's safe to do so with ample clearance. And yes, if they arrive at the intersection first, they have right of way, just like any other vehicle. And I don't "pull up next to them," unless they're in a different lane. I treat bikes like any other vehicle, and expect them to behave by following the laws common to all vehicles in return.
Where I live, bikes are allowed to pass on the right. But, they are also required to obey lane laws. So, if there's a lane to my right, by all means pass on that side. But, if I'm in the right lane and a bike passes using the small space between me and the curb (not a designated bike lane), they're doing it illegally. And they do it all the time.
"having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them."
If the impatient cyclist hadn't just illegally passed them curbside while they were all waiting for their turn to proceed through the intersection, they wouldn't have a need to pass.
" perhaps my opinion is clouded as to their reasoning"
Their reasoning is that cyclists don't obey the rules anyway, so why not legalize the behavior so they have one more way to bitch about cars not yielding to them.
Seriously, I live near a university town, and cyclists are terrible about obeying traffic laws, they'll glide through stop signs, ride the sidewalks when convenient, etc. Then they'll turn around and complain that cars don't treat them as equals on the roadway. Well, you can't have it both ways, if you want to use the right-of-way, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. I have no sympathy for the self-righteous assholes. (not all, but a very large and visible number behave that way)
If it's safe for a bike to glide through stopsigns or treat all stoplights as signs, then it's safe for motor vehicles to do the same. In fact, it's recognized that this is sometimes the case - that's why there are blinking red lights. There's no reason to give bikes any special treatment.
I disagree, and I've never heard anyone give that as a definition of ethics. Often, "ethics" and "morals" are used interchangeably. But I believe that in common usage ethics implies following "the golden rule," whereas morality is based on a more personal (perhaps religious) belief. For example, some might believe sex outside of marriage to be immoral, but it would be rare to find someone claiming it to be unethical.
TPB offers their information (torrent files, last time I looked) freely. I assume you mean the content many/most of those torrents point people to... and yes, pirating things is also unethical. Having said that, I believe that an ethical violation for commercial gain is more egregious.
Slashdot Mirror
WordStar supported accented characters, you created them using overstrikes.
WordStar goes back to 64K (or less) CP/M. It has always (?) supported paging to disk.
Re-read the summary. It's $5 for 250 MB in a day, or $5 for 200 MB in a month. Looks like they have a range of plans, up to $150 for 10 GB in a year.
When is a lane not a lane? Since you don't know, I'll tell you. When it's not a lane.
Sounds like you're one of the asshole bikers who comes to a line of cars stopped for a light, and expects to cut in front of everyone. FU.
Nope. You don't get to make up laws.
What's wrong with diversity? Why do you argue that the US should be like the EU? If every country is the same, then there's no choice. I myself prefer the concepts of personal freedom and liberty over social welfare. But, I recognize that others feel the opposite. So I won't try to change your country's politics (what my country does in that respect, I do not support), you stay out of ours. OK?
" cyclists actually save the government money"
Nice try. Similarly, the government often claims you're getting a tax cut when they raise your taxes less than originally planned.
Perhaps I have a Jeep, and don't need no stinkin' roads.
You don't say whether you're driving a bike or a car. And that's exactly the point - why not just change all stop signs to yield signs and let everyone proceed after stopping at a light? Every argument you make applies to non-bike vehicles, it gets traffic moving faster.
All these claims that bikes have better vision, or better stopping, or xyz, ignore the fact that it all comes down to people being responsible for making good decisions, and cyclists are no better than drivers at making good decisions.
Of course, the answer is that there are already intersections with yield signs and blinking red lights (or stop signs) where it is appropriate, and no change is needed.
The article is full of rationalizations and assumptions, not facts. If the goal is to have bikers use side streets, then the author would support laws restricting bikes to side streets, right?
If he gets others to wear his face mask, he can go around without one and be hidden in the crowd. He should be paying others to wear these.
The problem is consistency - I often see riders switching between those modes (and acting as pedestrians using the sidewalks), and changing between them frequently and without warning.
Traffic laws are intended to make things consistent and predictable - something defeated by cyclists who frequently shift between those modes. It's not uncommon to see a cyclist using the sidewalk, then quickly entering and claiming a road lane when they encounter pedestrian traffic without signaling or yielding (meaning having an immediate impact on the flow of traffic).
Mine was not a truly serious comment, it was to be taken as a response to a typical cyclist argument: "We want to be treated the same as cars when it benefits us, but we want to ignore the rules for cars when it benefits us, and we also want special treatment which benefits us." They (not all, but a significant number) come off as self-centered assholes.
"What could be fairer than basing it on how much damage a vehicle does to the road?"
Recognize that there are costs associated with building and maintaining roads which are entirely independent of the wear caused by vehicles.
Your straw man dies a horrible death.
That's simply not true as a blanket statement. Where do you live? Certainly not in the US, where the current Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifically addresses this:
As a quick check, both CA and FL laws reflect that usage, as is to be expected.
I pass cyclists the same as I pass other vehicles - when there is no opposing traffic and it's safe to do so with ample clearance. And yes, if they arrive at the intersection first, they have right of way, just like any other vehicle. And I don't "pull up next to them," unless they're in a different lane. I treat bikes like any other vehicle, and expect them to behave by following the laws common to all vehicles in return.
Where I live, bikes are allowed to pass on the right. But, they are also required to obey lane laws. So, if there's a lane to my right, by all means pass on that side. But, if I'm in the right lane and a bike passes using the small space between me and the curb (not a designated bike lane), they're doing it illegally. And they do it all the time.
OK. Rule 1 - you don't pay road taxes, you don't get to use the road.
"having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them."
If the impatient cyclist hadn't just illegally passed them curbside while they were all waiting for their turn to proceed through the intersection, they wouldn't have a need to pass.
" perhaps my opinion is clouded as to their reasoning"
Their reasoning is that cyclists don't obey the rules anyway, so why not legalize the behavior so they have one more way to bitch about cars not yielding to them.
Seriously, I live near a university town, and cyclists are terrible about obeying traffic laws, they'll glide through stop signs, ride the sidewalks when convenient, etc. Then they'll turn around and complain that cars don't treat them as equals on the roadway. Well, you can't have it both ways, if you want to use the right-of-way, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. I have no sympathy for the self-righteous assholes. (not all, but a very large and visible number behave that way)
If it's safe for a bike to glide through stopsigns or treat all stoplights as signs, then it's safe for motor vehicles to do the same. In fact, it's recognized that this is sometimes the case - that's why there are blinking red lights. There's no reason to give bikes any special treatment.
It's dynamic within a population. If more members of the next generation have the gene, the intelligence of the population is boosted.
Nothing implies a change in an individual. The difference is within a population.
You're right. Lack of this gene depresses intelligence. Feel better?
I disagree, and I've never heard anyone give that as a definition of ethics. Often, "ethics" and "morals" are used interchangeably. But I believe that in common usage ethics implies following "the golden rule," whereas morality is based on a more personal (perhaps religious) belief. For example, some might believe sex outside of marriage to be immoral, but it would be rare to find someone claiming it to be unethical.
TPB offers their information (torrent files, last time I looked) freely. I assume you mean the content many/most of those torrents point people to... and yes, pirating things is also unethical. Having said that, I believe that an ethical violation for commercial gain is more egregious.
They offer the info free for personal use, but expect commercial users to pay to support their efforts. McAfee knew this.
Regardless of the legality, it was ethically wrong.