Yes, parents are the single greatest influence on a child's life. Yes parents have a lot of control. No, that doesn't change the fact that as things are today, kids are being sold things by complete strangers that their parents would rightfully object to.
It certainly does. You child can't get the money to buy the objectional game, or even the game system, without the parent. Your child probably won't go to the store by themselves to do so. If a parent finds a game he doesn't want his child playing, he can return it to the store. You act like you can buy a video game for 50 cents, when the reality is that they are $50. As a parent you should know what your kid is doing; if you don't know they have a violent video game, thats your fault, and no one elses.
We have to realize that we are in part responsible for other peoples' children.
Wrong, we are not. I don't get a say in who has a child, where the child goes to school, waht religion the child will be raised in, what the child will eat.. I get NO say whatsoever. And nor should I have one. The reverse is that I'm not responsible for anyone else but my family. If you want me to participate in raising someone else's child, then I want more control over how they are raised.
. We're not responsible for raising them or feeding them or teaching them right from wrong, but we are responsible for not undermining those exact things being done by their parents. Right now we're a nation of enablers.
See above, I cover this. If you raise your kid properly then games, TV, music and just about anything else shouldn't be able to undermine what the parents are teaching. Its not any one elses job to raise someone else's kid. If a kid buys a game the parents woudl object to, THEN IT IS THE PARENTS FAULT for allowing the kid the ability to do so.
Nope, he's quite under control, thanks.
I doubt it, since you seem to need everyone else to do your job for you.
It's not my kid who's out of control. It was me. Despite the best efforts of my parents, I was quite the accomplished criminal by the time I was 17...largely because of some peers and a handful of adults, and just generally growing up in the culture we live in today.
Bullshit. I grew up in the same culture and I wasn't a criminal by 17. There were bad influences around me, but I knew, because of how my parents raised me, to avoid them. If you were a criminal by 17, IT WAS YOUR PARENTS FAULT. I know you love them and its hard to accept, but you had bad parents that didn't raise you right.
I know how quickly the best-intentioned parents can lose control of their child, and it's time the rest of us recognized that we play a part in that child's education whether we want to or not.
You can have the best intentions all you want, that doesn't mean you know what you're doing. If parents lose control, its thier own fault. Any child psychologist will tell you that. Hell, you can figure that out just by watching something like Nanny 911. The parents are directly responsible for thier children, and I'd say so is the immediate family. But thats where it stops.
Please, stop with that 'not a parent crap.' My wife has kids from a previous marriage and feels the same as I do. I don't have kids but I do have parents. And when my mom was worried about the video games I was playing, she talked to me. She wanted to make sure that I understood whats ok in a game is not ok in real life. But she didn't even have to tell me; I already learned before that the difference between right and wrong.
And I read the rest of your post. Its mindless junk. Let me clue you in on something they discovered in research; parents are the most influential people in a childs life. Their influence has the power to override anything that kids see on TV, in games, and from their friends.
You've spoken as a parent with out of control children. If you need help raising your kids, ask your family (parents, siblings, aunts, etc.). Leave the rest of us out of it.
The people who are driving too fast are just as capable of matching the legal speed.
Guess what? If 90% of the people are speeding, nothing you say or do will stop them.
Accidents are their fault. Not the guy who is "blocking" the lane by driving the legal limit.
Wrong; its for the ass who thinks he's on some moral high ground. If a majority of people are violating the speed limit in a certain area, the the limit is wrong.
I would also argue that faster speeds, even in straight lines and in conforming groups, not only cause greater damage in accidents, but increase accident rates due to decreased handling ability and reaction timing.
And you'd be wrong regarding the accident rates. They've already done studies; raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 had no affect on the rate of accidents. The study is probably about 6 years old now. It will have an affect on morality of those in the accident, but so does skydiving, and no one is banning that. Driving has risks. Accept them or take the train.
Oh, and IIRC, the speed limits on interstates in FL is 75 I believe. Their high accident rate is due to elderly drivers that don't have the reaction time to drive at 25 MPH.
You all can continue to make all the excuses for your lawless anti-social (and deadly) behavior you want
Wow, you're pretty good with those logical fallacies aren't you? I don't think speeding is a problem there for I want no laws whatsoever. There's nothing anti-social about speeding. There is something anti-social from trying to force everyone else to do what you want.
There can be no excuse for 75-99% of motorists simply breaking the law like they do.
Some laws have moral backings to them, like murder and robbery laws. Some laws exist just so things work smoothly. If 75-99% of the people are speeding, then it seems obvious the limit should be raised. There's nothing morally wrong about breaking an arbitrary limit.
If speeding was the cause of accidents, then almost everyone would be having one everyday (going by your figure of 75-99% of people breaking the limits). But thats not what I see. You know when I see accidents increase? When the roads are icy. I've been drivign interstates to work everyday for 10 years, where the average speed is 80, and accidents are pretty rare. I haven't seen one to and from work where I live now in 3 years, excluding those caused by icy conditions.
Blaming the one guy who is following the law for accidents is ridiculous and simply demonstrates the level of denial you all are engaged in as to your own culpability in the situation.
Actually the guy isn't following the law; THE LAW SAYS TO KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT FOR PASSING. And he isn't doing that, therefore he's breaking the law. Get over yourself.
This is not anarcho-capitalism, the market does not get to decide whether or not EA can coerce its employees into working unreasonable hours without additional pay - we have laws against that sort of thing.
It is people like you who have made unions necessary because your cult of the invisible hand blinds you to the immorality of mistreating other people. Your dogma says the market will decide all but the market is inhuman - if the market had its way we would all work 14 hour days without time off, including children. There would be no genuine safety regulations, there would be no weekends or paid sick leave, there would be no healthcare or retirement, there would be nothing but misery. Without restraint your invisible hand removes the things which civilize our society.
Oh, and then lets not forget... once you have a majority of the people in this situation, they WILL overthrow those in power in an attempt to make something better for themselves. While that might not be a bad thing, you may end up being lead by Washington and Franklin type people, or you may be lead by Stalin type people.
Yay! Lets get rid of all labor laws. I can't wait until we have the working conditions that existed in the early 1900s. Whats with this enjoyment thing anyway? You're supposed to work nonstop until you die, there is no other purpose in life! Only the factory owners should be able to enjoy anything nice in this life.
It shouldnt be a surprise that if you want people to work longer than a 40-hour week but you don't pay them for overtime
Personally I think that if you don't control how many hours a week you put in, then you are automatically an hourly employee. That would solve all these abuse problems. Only after you stop 'offshoring' though.
Excuse me, Mr. Citizen? Would you mind not giving my child ready access to content he is not emotionally mature enough to handle? Thanks, I appreciate it.
Excuse me, Mr. Parent? Would you mind actually doing your parenting job and stop trying to get others to do it for you?
I was outside all the time. Thats some logic there by the way; telling you that parents should keep an eye on their kids if they are worried about them and then you assuming thats how i was raised. Quite the leap.
Please also tell me where a 10 yr old will get $50 to buy a violent video game in the first place? How do they get to the store?
Oh, and a 15 year old that earns his own money by holding down a job, ya, i'd say he has the right to buy that game if he wants.
My understanding is that there is a direct correlation between increases in speed and increases in fatality levels when accidents do happen.
Ya, so? If you're being a slow poke and forcing everyone to swerve around you, you're increasing the chance of an accident. Then when it happens it will more likely be fatal.
However, if you keep with the flow (even if it is 10 over) you're decreasing the chance there will be an accident at all.
So basically, not only is it okay for motorists to break the law, but law-abiding motorists should take special care to help them do it easily?
You're not abiding the law if you're in the left lane and being passed on the right. It clearly shows you are NOT passing anyone, and should have moved back to the right lane ealier. You're not being asked to 'take special care to help them', you're being asked to follow one of the rules. If you aren't, why should the speeders?
Aside from the ones on the shoulder, drivers passing on the right shouldn't be in the wrong. The fault actually lies with the slowpoke in the fast lane failing to obey the "slower traffic keep right" sign.
I'd have to agree with that. When I orginally brought up passing on the right though, I was talking about a two lane road (one lane in each direction).
This whole "cyclists need to follow the rules" spiel is a crock.
well, you certainly don't have to, but don't blame anyone but yourself when you get smashed by a car. Oh andyour point about motorcycles is irrelevant. They should be following the rules, no one said they shouldn't.
Half the time when cyclists do follow the rules they get verbal abuse and/or actual physical threats (made with very large deadly weapons).
Maybe because they have an attitude that the road is for them, and its our privedge to share it with them. I don't think I've ever seen anyone get yelled out for following the rules.
I realize it's just a few motorists making the rest look bad-- oh wait, it's standard practice to drive 1-10 MPH over the speed limit in most places, and in some 10-20 MPH over is not uncommon.
That tells me the speed limit needs to be re-evaluated.
I've watched many, many, many motorists not only blow red lights, but speed up while doing so. Then we have passing on the right (often a shoulder), no turn signal usage, tailgating, driving with intoxicated or distracted... yeah, those dang cyclists.
These are a few of the drivers; most cyclists think they have the right to do whatever they want. If 99% of the drivers broke the rules like cyclists did, then you'd have a point.
Don't they know they should sit out red lights even when it's pouring down rain and that a full stop means a foot must rest on the ground?
You're the dumby that is riding his bike in the rain. You're claiming that you shouldn't have to follow the rules because its inconvient for you? Aww, you have to put your foot down. So sorry, please by all means, you don't need to follow the rules just do what you want. Fuck off. Please keep riding your bike through red lights, i hope you are killed by a car.
Ahh, thought it was 2 lane roads. I'm not sure that you can wait in that gap here in the States. If you can't make it all the way in one shot, you're not supposed to go. Not that it changes anything, he shouldn't have gone if there was something in the way.
So it was a standard 'plus' intersection and the direction you were traveling didn't have a stop sign, and the intersecting road did? Yes, that would sound like his fault then.
Passing comes into play the second the front tire of the bike passes the back bumper of the car. Once any part of the bike is along side any part of the car, you are now passing.
I belive most streets in my city are 30 because it isn't posted, although I could be wrong.
Even on my current crappy bike, it isn't too difficult to maintain 15-20 miles an hour, which in congested areas is faster than the cars.
I'd argue thats because you aren't following the rules. If there's no bike lane, you aren't supposed to be passing on the right. You are supposed to follow the EXACT same rules as drivers. Which means stopping at lights, stop signs etc.
In my experience, while cars may or may not pay attention to cyclists on the road, the sure as hell don't look at the sidewalks before pulling in or out of driveways, etc. I feel much safer on the road.
Because jaywalking is a defined violation in most places, and people pulling out of driveways MUST yield right of way to traffic already coming down the road. The driver needs to look where his car is going, not at the stuff that's about to be beside him.
That being said, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of bikers ride like jackasses, and I wish they'd stop it.
I wish they would too; they cause so many problems I'd support a ban on cyclists on anything but a dedicated bike path.
Actually at least where I live, a bicyclist who isn't turning and is in the lane of traffic in the right median/gutter has the right of way at an intersection versus a car immediately to their left who wants to turn.
Wow.. that's a pretty retarded law. First, it seems pretty dangerous (unless there's a 'bike lane', but even then) to have the bike along side the car in the first place. Second, I think the 'bike next to a car' would be pretty rare; usually the problem for me is that I slow down to make the right turn but the biker doesn't (and doesn't want to yield even though i've started the turn).
I know in PA that even though you can fit two motorcycles (or bikes) side by side in a single lane, its technically illegal. It would also be illegal to pass on the right (which is what the bike is attempting to do when they don't slow down and yield).
A motorist wanting to make a right-hand turn has to wait for both pedestrians and cyclists to clear. This is pretty standard: turning traffic almost always has a 'lower priority' than traffic going straight.
I made a distinction between a bike in the road vs. on the sidewalk. In the road, the rules I would think would be similar to the rules if you're on a motorcylce. For the sidewalk, I think they'd have to obey and pedestrian crossing signs. Then the signs say don't cross, its a violate for a ped. to enter teh cross walk, which implies that turning traffic does have the right of way (other wise, what is the point of those signs?).
Motorists just tend not to think about the fact that when they're in the right lane waiting to turn, there is actually another "lane of traffic" to their right (bicycles driving in the right edge of the lane), which may be going straight. In some places they've actually painted a "bicycle lane" there to make it more obvious, but this isn't the case at most intersections.
If there is no bike lane explicitly painted, I'd think there is 'no other lane of traffic.' A bike lane can't be considered a lane of traffic either.. otherwise it would be illegal to make a right turn when you're not in the right most lane (assuming single lanes each way).
Still, I can't count though the number of times I've nearly been run down, both as a pedestrian and a walking-cyclist, in the crosswalk by drivers making right-hand turns who don't yield, regardless of the status of the signals. (I.e., they're making a right-turn-on-red and think that the people in the crosswalk have to yield.)
I've never almost been run down.. I'm pretty careful and I always listen to the pedestrian crossing signs. I spent a good deal of time in Philly too.. so its not because i didn't live in a city. At any rate, if there is a walk / don't walk sign for pedestrians and it says don't walk, and traffic in the same 'direction' as the walk has a green light, I would think right turns have a right of way, much the same way that you can't right turn on red when a left turn arrow is giving the opposing lane right of way.
because bicycles actually move (in an city) much closer to the speed of cars than pedestrians, and would be a hazard there.
No, they don't. If a biker is keeping up they probably aren't following the rules (no passing on the right, unless they are in a bike lane of course). But bikers rarely keep up, even with them just riding through every red light and passing on the right. I'm not saying bikes on a sidewalk aren't a hazard; I think its less of a hazard then having them on the road. A bike can mess someone up if they hit a ped, but a half ton car can cause a lot more damage to the biker.
Also, as pretty much any cyclist can attest, about the only thing more unpredictable than a clueless driver is a clueless pedestrian.
I'd say there are more clueless cyclists doing unexpected things then drivers.
At least a car can't change it's velocity 180-degrees in half a second, a person can and many frequently do. You can make certain assump
I bought a WeatherBug, when I saw it sending out a cookie with every URL I clicked, I learned about the host file. You notice there's nothing like this window for for Win9598ME2000XP?
Nothing like the hosts file? That exists.
There are also ways to see what outbound connections you have; i think Process Explorer can do this, I'm certain there are other free ones. Or if you don't want to download anything, I believe you can use netstat at the command problem and tha will list all connections.
The point is to confuse customers and to unnecessarily inflate the price of the more "advanced" version... as if leaving out features actually saves Microsoft money in producing it.
Perhaps it allows customers to buy only the features they want, so that don't have to pay for the ones they don't? Do you assume that no one will ever want the less featured versions?
There's three versions a home user would likely be interested in. Most cars offer way more optional features. Is that an attempt at confusion too?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox and Opera both include a half-dozen or so providers when you install them. (You can add additional search engines in all three.)
I think I remember when the search box first appeared, and Google was the only option. In FF anyway.
Which defaults to Google, without presenting a choice.
Well they decided to buy a machine with known hardware limitations.
Um, I think he's talking about accessing a floppy while running Vista.
Yes, parents are the single greatest influence on a child's life. Yes parents have a lot of control. No, that doesn't change the fact that as things are today, kids are being sold things by complete strangers that their parents would rightfully object to.
It certainly does. You child can't get the money to buy the objectional game, or even the game system, without the parent. Your child probably won't go to the store by themselves to do so. If a parent finds a game he doesn't want his child playing, he can return it to the store. You act like you can buy a video game for 50 cents, when the reality is that they are $50. As a parent you should know what your kid is doing; if you don't know they have a violent video game, thats your fault, and no one elses.
We have to realize that we are in part responsible for other peoples' children.
Wrong, we are not. I don't get a say in who has a child, where the child goes to school, waht religion the child will be raised in, what the child will eat.. I get NO say whatsoever. And nor should I have one. The reverse is that I'm not responsible for anyone else but my family. If you want me to participate in raising someone else's child, then I want more control over how they are raised.
. We're not responsible for raising them or feeding them or teaching them right from wrong, but we are responsible for not undermining those exact things being done by their parents. Right now we're a nation of enablers.
See above, I cover this. If you raise your kid properly then games, TV, music and just about anything else shouldn't be able to undermine what the parents are teaching. Its not any one elses job to raise someone else's kid. If a kid buys a game the parents woudl object to, THEN IT IS THE PARENTS FAULT for allowing the kid the ability to do so.
Nope, he's quite under control, thanks.
I doubt it, since you seem to need everyone else to do your job for you.
It's not my kid who's out of control. It was me. Despite the best efforts of my parents, I was quite the accomplished criminal by the time I was 17...largely because of some peers and a handful of adults, and just generally growing up in the culture we live in today.
Bullshit. I grew up in the same culture and I wasn't a criminal by 17. There were bad influences around me, but I knew, because of how my parents raised me, to avoid them. If you were a criminal by 17, IT WAS YOUR PARENTS FAULT. I know you love them and its hard to accept, but you had bad parents that didn't raise you right.
I know how quickly the best-intentioned parents can lose control of their child, and it's time the rest of us recognized that we play a part in that child's education whether we want to or not.
You can have the best intentions all you want, that doesn't mean you know what you're doing. If parents lose control, its thier own fault. Any child psychologist will tell you that. Hell, you can figure that out just by watching something like Nanny 911. The parents are directly responsible for thier children, and I'd say so is the immediate family. But thats where it stops.
Please, stop with that 'not a parent crap.' My wife has kids from a previous marriage and feels the same as I do. I don't have kids but I do have parents. And when my mom was worried about the video games I was playing, she talked to me. She wanted to make sure that I understood whats ok in a game is not ok in real life. But she didn't even have to tell me; I already learned before that the difference between right and wrong.
And I read the rest of your post. Its mindless junk. Let me clue you in on something they discovered in research; parents are the most influential people in a childs life. Their influence has the power to override anything that kids see on TV, in games, and from their friends.
You've spoken as a parent with out of control children. If you need help raising your kids, ask your family (parents, siblings, aunts, etc.). Leave the rest of us out of it.
The people who are driving too fast are just as capable of matching the legal speed.
Guess what? If 90% of the people are speeding, nothing you say or do will stop them.
Accidents are their fault. Not the guy who is "blocking" the lane by driving the legal limit.
Wrong; its for the ass who thinks he's on some moral high ground. If a majority of people are violating the speed limit in a certain area, the the limit is wrong.
I would also argue that faster speeds, even in straight lines and in conforming groups, not only cause greater damage in accidents, but increase accident rates due to decreased handling ability and reaction timing.
And you'd be wrong regarding the accident rates. They've already done studies; raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 had no affect on the rate of accidents. The study is probably about 6 years old now. It will have an affect on morality of those in the accident, but so does skydiving, and no one is banning that. Driving has risks. Accept them or take the train.
Oh, and IIRC, the speed limits on interstates in FL is 75 I believe. Their high accident rate is due to elderly drivers that don't have the reaction time to drive at 25 MPH.
You all can continue to make all the excuses for your lawless anti-social (and deadly) behavior you want
Wow, you're pretty good with those logical fallacies aren't you? I don't think speeding is a problem there for I want no laws whatsoever. There's nothing anti-social about speeding. There is something anti-social from trying to force everyone else to do what you want.
There can be no excuse for 75-99% of motorists simply breaking the law like they do.
Some laws have moral backings to them, like murder and robbery laws. Some laws exist just so things work smoothly. If 75-99% of the people are speeding, then it seems obvious the limit should be raised. There's nothing morally wrong about breaking an arbitrary limit.
If speeding was the cause of accidents, then almost everyone would be having one everyday (going by your figure of 75-99% of people breaking the limits). But thats not what I see. You know when I see accidents increase? When the roads are icy. I've been drivign interstates to work everyday for 10 years, where the average speed is 80, and accidents are pretty rare. I haven't seen one to and from work where I live now in 3 years, excluding those caused by icy conditions.
Blaming the one guy who is following the law for accidents is ridiculous and simply demonstrates the level of denial you all are engaged in as to your own culpability in the situation.
Actually the guy isn't following the law; THE LAW SAYS TO KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT FOR PASSING. And he isn't doing that, therefore he's breaking the law. Get over yourself.
This is not anarcho-capitalism, the market does not get to decide whether or not EA can coerce its employees into working unreasonable hours without additional pay - we have laws against that sort of thing.
It is people like you who have made unions necessary because your cult of the invisible hand blinds you to the immorality of mistreating other people. Your dogma says the market will decide all but the market is inhuman - if the market had its way we would all work 14 hour days without time off, including children. There would be no genuine safety regulations, there would be no weekends or paid sick leave, there would be no healthcare or retirement, there would be nothing but misery. Without restraint your invisible hand removes the things which civilize our society.
Oh, and then lets not forget... once you have a majority of the people in this situation, they WILL overthrow those in power in an attempt to make something better for themselves. While that might not be a bad thing, you may end up being lead by Washington and Franklin type people, or you may be lead by Stalin type people.
Yay! Lets get rid of all labor laws. I can't wait until we have the working conditions that existed in the early 1900s. Whats with this enjoyment thing anyway? You're supposed to work nonstop until you die, there is no other purpose in life! Only the factory owners should be able to enjoy anything nice in this life.
It shouldnt be a surprise that if you want people to work longer than a 40-hour week but you don't pay them for overtime
Personally I think that if you don't control how many hours a week you put in, then you are automatically an hourly employee. That would solve all these abuse problems. Only after you stop 'offshoring' though.
Excuse me, Mr. Citizen? Would you mind not giving my child ready access to content he is not emotionally mature enough to handle? Thanks, I appreciate it.
Excuse me, Mr. Parent? Would you mind actually doing your parenting job and stop trying to get others to do it for you?
Why should they enforce it? Its not their job.
I was outside all the time. Thats some logic there by the way; telling you that parents should keep an eye on their kids if they are worried about them and then you assuming thats how i was raised. Quite the leap.
Please also tell me where a 10 yr old will get $50 to buy a violent video game in the first place? How do they get to the store?
Oh, and a 15 year old that earns his own money by holding down a job, ya, i'd say he has the right to buy that game if he wants.
My understanding is that there is a direct correlation between increases in speed and increases in fatality levels when accidents do happen.
Ya, so? If you're being a slow poke and forcing everyone to swerve around you, you're increasing the chance of an accident. Then when it happens it will more likely be fatal.
However, if you keep with the flow (even if it is 10 over) you're decreasing the chance there will be an accident at all.
So basically, not only is it okay for motorists to break the law, but law-abiding motorists should take special care to help them do it easily?
You're not abiding the law if you're in the left lane and being passed on the right. It clearly shows you are NOT passing anyone, and should have moved back to the right lane ealier. You're not being asked to 'take special care to help them', you're being asked to follow one of the rules. If you aren't, why should the speeders?
Aside from the ones on the shoulder, drivers passing on the right shouldn't be in the wrong. The fault actually lies with the slowpoke in the fast lane failing to obey the "slower traffic keep right" sign.
I'd have to agree with that. When I orginally brought up passing on the right though, I was talking about a two lane road (one lane in each direction).
This whole "cyclists need to follow the rules" spiel is a crock.
well, you certainly don't have to, but don't blame anyone but yourself when you get smashed by a car. Oh andyour point about motorcycles is irrelevant. They should be following the rules, no one said they shouldn't.
Half the time when cyclists do follow the rules they get verbal abuse and/or actual physical threats (made with very large deadly weapons).
Maybe because they have an attitude that the road is for them, and its our privedge to share it with them. I don't think I've ever seen anyone get yelled out for following the rules.
I realize it's just a few motorists making the rest look bad-- oh wait, it's standard practice to drive 1-10 MPH over the speed limit in most places, and in some 10-20 MPH over is not uncommon.
That tells me the speed limit needs to be re-evaluated.
I've watched many, many, many motorists not only blow red lights, but speed up while doing so. Then we have passing on the right (often a shoulder), no turn signal usage, tailgating, driving with intoxicated or distracted... yeah, those dang cyclists.
These are a few of the drivers; most cyclists think they have the right to do whatever they want. If 99% of the drivers broke the rules like cyclists did, then you'd have a point.
Don't they know they should sit out red lights even when it's pouring down rain and that a full stop means a foot must rest on the ground?
You're the dumby that is riding his bike in the rain. You're claiming that you shouldn't have to follow the rules because its inconvient for you? Aww, you have to put your foot down. So sorry, please by all means, you don't need to follow the rules just do what you want. Fuck off. Please keep riding your bike through red lights, i hope you are killed by a car.
Ahh, thought it was 2 lane roads. I'm not sure that you can wait in that gap here in the States. If you can't make it all the way in one shot, you're not supposed to go. Not that it changes anything, he shouldn't have gone if there was something in the way.
So it was a standard 'plus' intersection and the direction you were traveling didn't have a stop sign, and the intersecting road did? Yes, that would sound like his fault then.
Passing comes into play the second the front tire of the bike passes the back bumper of the car. Once any part of the bike is along side any part of the car, you are now passing.
I belive most streets in my city are 30 because it isn't posted, although I could be wrong.
Even on my current crappy bike, it isn't too difficult to maintain 15-20 miles an hour, which in congested areas is faster than the cars.
I'd argue thats because you aren't following the rules. If there's no bike lane, you aren't supposed to be passing on the right. You are supposed to follow the EXACT same rules as drivers. Which means stopping at lights, stop signs etc.
In my experience, while cars may or may not pay attention to cyclists on the road, the sure as hell don't look at the sidewalks before pulling in or out of driveways, etc. I feel much safer on the road.
Because jaywalking is a defined violation in most places, and people pulling out of driveways MUST yield right of way to traffic already coming down the road. The driver needs to look where his car is going, not at the stuff that's about to be beside him.
That being said, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of bikers ride like jackasses, and I wish they'd stop it.
I wish they would too; they cause so many problems I'd support a ban on cyclists on anything but a dedicated bike path.
Actually at least where I live, a bicyclist who isn't turning and is in the lane of traffic in the right median/gutter has the right of way at an intersection versus a car immediately to their left who wants to turn.
Wow.. that's a pretty retarded law. First, it seems pretty dangerous (unless there's a 'bike lane', but even then) to have the bike along side the car in the first place. Second, I think the 'bike next to a car' would be pretty rare; usually the problem for me is that I slow down to make the right turn but the biker doesn't (and doesn't want to yield even though i've started the turn).
I know in PA that even though you can fit two motorcycles (or bikes) side by side in a single lane, its technically illegal. It would also be illegal to pass on the right (which is what the bike is attempting to do when they don't slow down and yield).
A motorist wanting to make a right-hand turn has to wait for both pedestrians and cyclists to clear. This is pretty standard: turning traffic almost always has a 'lower priority' than traffic going straight.
I made a distinction between a bike in the road vs. on the sidewalk. In the road, the rules I would think would be similar to the rules if you're on a motorcylce. For the sidewalk, I think they'd have to obey and pedestrian crossing signs. Then the signs say don't cross, its a violate for a ped. to enter teh cross walk, which implies that turning traffic does have the right of way (other wise, what is the point of those signs?).
Motorists just tend not to think about the fact that when they're in the right lane waiting to turn, there is actually another "lane of traffic" to their right (bicycles driving in the right edge of the lane), which may be going straight. In some places they've actually painted a "bicycle lane" there to make it more obvious, but this isn't the case at most intersections.
If there is no bike lane explicitly painted, I'd think there is 'no other lane of traffic.' A bike lane can't be considered a lane of traffic either.. otherwise it would be illegal to make a right turn when you're not in the right most lane (assuming single lanes each way).
Still, I can't count though the number of times I've nearly been run down, both as a pedestrian and a walking-cyclist, in the crosswalk by drivers making right-hand turns who don't yield, regardless of the status of the signals. (I.e., they're making a right-turn-on-red and think that the people in the crosswalk have to yield.)
I've never almost been run down.. I'm pretty careful and I always listen to the pedestrian crossing signs. I spent a good deal of time in Philly too.. so its not because i didn't live in a city. At any rate, if there is a walk / don't walk sign for pedestrians and it says don't walk, and traffic in the same 'direction' as the walk has a green light, I would think right turns have a right of way, much the same way that you can't right turn on red when a left turn arrow is giving the opposing lane right of way.
because bicycles actually move (in an city) much closer to the speed of cars than pedestrians, and would be a hazard there.
No, they don't. If a biker is keeping up they probably aren't following the rules (no passing on the right, unless they are in a bike lane of course). But bikers rarely keep up, even with them just riding through every red light and passing on the right. I'm not saying bikes on a sidewalk aren't a hazard; I think its less of a hazard then having them on the road. A bike can mess someone up if they hit a ped, but a half ton car can cause a lot more damage to the biker.
Also, as pretty much any cyclist can attest, about the only thing more unpredictable than a clueless driver is a clueless pedestrian.
I'd say there are more clueless cyclists doing unexpected things then drivers.
At least a car can't change it's velocity 180-degrees in half a second, a person can and many frequently do. You can make certain assump
I bought a WeatherBug, when I saw it sending out a cookie with every URL I clicked, I learned about the host file. You notice there's nothing like this window for for Win9598ME2000XP?
Nothing like the hosts file? That exists.
There are also ways to see what outbound connections you have; i think Process Explorer can do this, I'm certain there are other free ones. Or if you don't want to download anything, I believe you can use netstat at the command problem and tha will list all connections.
The point is to confuse customers and to unnecessarily inflate the price of the more "advanced" version... as if leaving out features actually saves Microsoft money in producing it.
Perhaps it allows customers to buy only the features they want, so that don't have to pay for the ones they don't? Do you assume that no one will ever want the less featured versions?
There's three versions a home user would likely be interested in. Most cars offer way more optional features. Is that an attempt at confusion too?
Microsoft claims to be comitted to increased IT security; this proves that to be a lie.
Really? This one point proves it? Even in the face of the security enhancements they have made?