It isn't law that you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle is it??
I never wore one as a kid...no such thing really that I recall when growing up and riding bicycles.
I see lots of them now..but was assuming it was voluntary.
Helmet laws for bicyclists are one of those highly variable things, as is the case with motorcycle helmets. Maryland requires helmets on bicyclists under 16 but requires no helmet on an adult motorcyclist or bicyclist. Virginia requires motorcyclists to wear helmets and allows some counties and cities to require bicyclists under 16 to wear a helmet. The town where I live is one of those counties, but evidently the town law doesn't require helmets. (Both bicycle activists and motorcycle activists can be extremely emotional and irrational on the subject of helmets.) I don't know of any states that have enacted a helmet requirement for all bicyclists, but I'm not as familiar with other states' laws on that point.
I think the argument is that the rules of the road regarding motor vehicles is pretty much the same from place to place but biking laws are very different from state to state.
I'll concede that there are fewer variations between states for motor vehicles than there are for bicycles, but on the whole, the laws are fairly consistent for both types of vehicle. Stay on the right side of the road, stop for stop signs and red lights, use lights when it's dark, etc. Don't drive on the sidewalk.
In addition, you pretty stated the real problem. People who drive cars or motorcycles know the rules of the road, they do not know about cycling laws because they don't bike through the streets and they don't have to subscribe to the same rules that cars or motorbikes do. Can you blame people for getting frustrated when a cyclist can do things to cause major congestion while the same actions with a motor would get you ticketed?
The population at large doesn't know that cyclists should follow the same rules as cars because they haven't been taught anything about bicycling. In the U.S., "bike safety" pretty much consists of:
1) don't get run over by cars; and 2) wear your helmet. It's kind of like abstinence-only sex education.
Personally I think this idea that biking on a sidewalk is dangerous is utterly stupid compared to the danger of biking in the road. That was one major overreaction to what I'm sure was a tragic event for someone.
Biking on sidewalks is something like twice as dangerous as biking on the road in a lawful manner. The basic reason is that the cyclist isn't seen as traffic by drivers on the road, and every intersection or driveway becomes a road that he must enter. In the more than 60,000 miles that I've ridden, I've only had one collision with a motor vehicle, when the motorist coming in from a side street failed to yield. That would have happened even if I had been riding the sidewalk. In my bike club, bike-car collisions are much rarer than single-bike accidents or bike-bike accidents.
I actually think that is most places. Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you. They are supposed to remain on the shoulder and out of traffic.
That also varies by state. Virginia law says the cyclist should ride as far to the right as is safely practicable. It also allows the cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane if it's not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass in the lane.
It would be nice if the people posting anti-cyclist comments would actually read the laws pertaining to them, but I guess that's too much to ask of/. readers.
Yet still, in a week of commuting, you still get 2-3 anonymous assholes who fly by a foot to your left, screaming at you to get off their road.
I seem to get an anonymous asshole like that about once every month or so -- and yes, it's always some driver whom I haven't impeded for more than 30 seconds, if at all. If I were driving, he'd be fuming for a lot longer than that because I drive the speed limit and my car takes up the entire lane, not 2-3 feet of it.
I hope you'll try cycle commuting again. Check to see if there's a local bike club that can offer suggestions about routing. And always, always write down tag numbers of harassing motorists and phone them in to police. Some departments follow up with a letter to the registered owner of the vehicle, and I know that the town where I live keeps every single complaint on file.
If you want to improve things for cyclists maybe you guys could obey the traffic laws for once instead of biking through stop signs and red lights?
That's a red herring. I obey traffic laws, and I know plenty of other cyclists who do so as well. Distracted drivers, however -- just like drunks -- make no distinction between scofflaws and law-abiding people.
I can't see how any of this is likely to improve things for bicyclists, but I sure would like a transponder to carry in my pocket that warns distracted drivers that I'm in the vicinity.
It seems to me that automating the operation of the BBQ is a Bad Thing as it eliminates the excuse that one needs to be out back drinking because the fire must be tended.
I was thinking something along the same line. We can't seem to get rid of the overreaching of the Patriot Act in the name of civil liberties, but there's a good chance that well-connected businesses like Microsoft and Google will be able to tame it. I may be a little cynical, but I believe that most successful political change in the U.S. can be linked to money. If Microsoft is able to tame the Patriot Act, the reason it will succeed is because the act is dyspeptic for business. If our civil liberties are enhanced as a result, it will be a fringe benefit.
I would never have thought of that set of search terms. Maybe "most common vocation", but even that is more likely to turn up religious stuff.
Most of us in the tech fields (no, I have no citation and could be wrong) don't use Windows at home.
I've found that most of the tech types I work with use Windows. I seem to be the Lone Ranger in running Linux. Maybe I'm just running with the wrong crowd.
I'm guessing you're a gamer, or a Microsoft employee.
My worry about the Adobe upgrades is that several times they've tried to get me to install McAfee on systems that are running Symantec or Norton AV products. I fret that the marketers, through some of their "synergy", will screw me over and install spyware -- or something that I would call spyware. (Not to pick on Adobe; I worry about this from any commercial software, and especially the ones that are free as in beer.)
Sure it is, apt-get upgrade. If your OS lacks a reasonable method of distributing updates for software, don't blame Firefox for that.
Hmm. I guess I need to complain to Ubuntu. My personal laptop's Thunderbird has been complaining for a while now that it needs to be upgraded, but the upgrade manager hasn't turned up a new version in T-bird for months, even though it's regularly upgrading other things.
The biggest problem that I can see is that Firefox isn't automatically upgraded the way Windows is through the automatic update process. Firefox isn't the only product that's like that. Adobe Reader and Flash need to be upgraded, too, and this is also outside the Windows update stream. I can't imagine a responsible system department not upgrading these other critical components.
FWIW, I agree with the fellow who posted ahead of me who said that Firefox needs to be in the corporate market because people will use at home what they have at work. That's certainly been my experience.
I hope these things work for you. I was a heavy coffee drinker from age 18-50. I'm sure I was average or better in the other department as well. When I turned 50, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. As nearly as I can tell, the two best preventive measures are 1) make sure none of your male ancestors gets it and 2) don't live in the U.S. or other Western countries. (FWIW, wanking is pretty disappointing after a prostatectomy.)
Well, speaking as one who came of age in S.C. in the 1970s, I'd like to point out that this quintessentially redneck state had highway signs at that time that gave distances first in kilometers, then, in smaller print, in miles. The problem was that the leaders failed to follow through and go the rest of the way in the conversion. I personally blame the Reagan administration.
For a minute there, I was marveling at the idea that the biotechnology industry would have need for such specialized lab animals as high-performance gaming mice. (Do you reckon they count cards or are experts at reading a bluff?) Then I realized we were talking about computer hardware. (Yes, I had a very good weekend, far away from work.)
Sec.A51.979. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher
education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner,
especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty
member or student based on the faculty member ’s or student ’s conduct
of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other
alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
(Emphasis added)
It looks to me like followers of the FSM hypothesis (or is it theory?) would also be protected, as well as proponents of evolution theory. This is a win-win proposal. Do you reckon we could get one of these for global warming denial in Virginia?
US$8 for non-commercial use in high-income countries—a list that for the present purposes includes the USA, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, Israel, Singapore, and several of the Persian Gulf States (Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Brunei, and Bahrain), but not Canada.
I read TFA on Google Translate, and while the resulting English was a mess, it is clear that the article is about measuring traffic flow from cell phone signals, a thing that has been tried here in the U.S. No mention was made of whether they intend to anonymize the data. In the U.S. project that I read about, there was some amount of concern raised about privacy, even though the article I read made clear that there would be anonymization.
I'm not saying that the Chinese government wouldn't use cell phones to track and control the movements of people, but as others have already pointed out, that's an accompanying risk of the technology. But in this case, I think the Chinese gov't bashing isn't appropriate.
The thing that has always concerned me about any free mail or other data storage service is that there's no obligation on the part of the provider to give continuity of service or to restore data. I'm no lawyer, but I believe there's even a legal principle along the line that if one hasn't paid anything for the service, then there's no financial harm to the "customer" if the service goes down; if there is no harm, there is no recourse.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't law that you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle is it??
I never wore one as a kid...no such thing really that I recall when growing up and riding bicycles.
I see lots of them now..but was assuming it was voluntary.
Helmet laws for bicyclists are one of those highly variable things, as is the case with motorcycle helmets. Maryland requires helmets on bicyclists under 16 but requires no helmet on an adult motorcyclist or bicyclist. Virginia requires motorcyclists to wear helmets and allows some counties and cities to require bicyclists under 16 to wear a helmet. The town where I live is one of those counties, but evidently the town law doesn't require helmets. (Both bicycle activists and motorcycle activists can be extremely emotional and irrational on the subject of helmets.) I don't know of any states that have enacted a helmet requirement for all bicyclists, but I'm not as familiar with other states' laws on that point.
I think the argument is that the rules of the road regarding motor vehicles is pretty much the same from place to place but biking laws are very different from state to state.
I'll concede that there are fewer variations between states for motor vehicles than there are for bicycles, but on the whole, the laws are fairly consistent for both types of vehicle. Stay on the right side of the road, stop for stop signs and red lights, use lights when it's dark, etc. Don't drive on the sidewalk.
In addition, you pretty stated the real problem. People who drive cars or motorcycles know the rules of the road, they do not know about cycling laws because they don't bike through the streets and they don't have to subscribe to the same rules that cars or motorbikes do. Can you blame people for getting frustrated when a cyclist can do things to cause major congestion while the same actions with a motor would get you ticketed?
The population at large doesn't know that cyclists should follow the same rules as cars because they haven't been taught anything about bicycling. In the U.S., "bike safety" pretty much consists of: 1) don't get run over by cars; and 2) wear your helmet. It's kind of like abstinence-only sex education.
Personally I think this idea that biking on a sidewalk is dangerous is utterly stupid compared to the danger of biking in the road. That was one major overreaction to what I'm sure was a tragic event for someone.
Biking on sidewalks is something like twice as dangerous as biking on the road in a lawful manner. The basic reason is that the cyclist isn't seen as traffic by drivers on the road, and every intersection or driveway becomes a road that he must enter. In the more than 60,000 miles that I've ridden, I've only had one collision with a motor vehicle, when the motorist coming in from a side street failed to yield. That would have happened even if I had been riding the sidewalk. In my bike club, bike-car collisions are much rarer than single-bike accidents or bike-bike accidents.
I actually think that is most places. Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you. They are supposed to remain on the shoulder and out of traffic.
That also varies by state. Virginia law says the cyclist should ride as far to the right as is safely practicable. It also allows the cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane if it's not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass in the lane.
It would be nice if the people posting anti-cyclist comments would actually read the laws pertaining to them, but I guess that's too much to ask of /. readers.
Yet still, in a week of commuting, you still get 2-3 anonymous assholes who fly by a foot to your left, screaming at you to get off their road.
I seem to get an anonymous asshole like that about once every month or so -- and yes, it's always some driver whom I haven't impeded for more than 30 seconds, if at all. If I were driving, he'd be fuming for a lot longer than that because I drive the speed limit and my car takes up the entire lane, not 2-3 feet of it.
I hope you'll try cycle commuting again. Check to see if there's a local bike club that can offer suggestions about routing. And always, always write down tag numbers of harassing motorists and phone them in to police. Some departments follow up with a letter to the registered owner of the vehicle, and I know that the town where I live keeps every single complaint on file.
If you want to improve things for cyclists maybe you guys could obey the traffic laws for once instead of biking through stop signs and red lights?
That's a red herring. I obey traffic laws, and I know plenty of other cyclists who do so as well. Distracted drivers, however -- just like drunks -- make no distinction between scofflaws and law-abiding people.
You forgot about passing on the right, on the shoulder. Their favorite maneuver, and it's two moving violations in a single blow.
It depends on where you live. Where I live, bicycles are allowed to pass on the right.
I can't see how any of this is likely to improve things for bicyclists, but I sure would like a transponder to carry in my pocket that warns distracted drivers that I'm in the vicinity.
You need an excuse for drinking? Shit.
No, my wife needs an excuse for me drinking.
It seems to me that automating the operation of the BBQ is a Bad Thing as it eliminates the excuse that one needs to be out back drinking because the fire must be tended.
I was thinking something along the same line. We can't seem to get rid of the overreaching of the Patriot Act in the name of civil liberties, but there's a good chance that well-connected businesses like Microsoft and Google will be able to tame it. I may be a little cynical, but I believe that most successful political change in the U.S. can be linked to money. If Microsoft is able to tame the Patriot Act, the reason it will succeed is because the act is dyspeptic for business. If our civil liberties are enhanced as a result, it will be a fringe benefit.
Thanks for a very comprehensive reply. I hope the folks at Microsoft (& elsewhere) read it.
I just searched "most populated vocation". . . .
I would never have thought of that set of search terms. Maybe "most common vocation", but even that is more likely to turn up religious stuff.
Most of us in the tech fields (no, I have no citation and could be wrong) don't use Windows at home.
I've found that most of the tech types I work with use Windows. I seem to be the Lone Ranger in running Linux. Maybe I'm just running with the wrong crowd.
I'm guessing you're a gamer, or a Microsoft employee.
Ouch! That hurt! Neither.
My worry about the Adobe upgrades is that several times they've tried to get me to install McAfee on systems that are running Symantec or Norton AV products. I fret that the marketers, through some of their "synergy", will screw me over and install spyware -- or something that I would call spyware. (Not to pick on Adobe; I worry about this from any commercial software, and especially the ones that are free as in beer.)
Sure it is, apt-get upgrade. If your OS lacks a reasonable method of distributing updates for software, don't blame Firefox for that.
Hmm. I guess I need to complain to Ubuntu. My personal laptop's Thunderbird has been complaining for a while now that it needs to be upgraded, but the upgrade manager hasn't turned up a new version in T-bird for months, even though it's regularly upgrading other things.
The biggest problem that I can see is that Firefox isn't automatically upgraded the way Windows is through the automatic update process. Firefox isn't the only product that's like that. Adobe Reader and Flash need to be upgraded, too, and this is also outside the Windows update stream. I can't imagine a responsible system department not upgrading these other critical components.
FWIW, I agree with the fellow who posted ahead of me who said that Firefox needs to be in the corporate market because people will use at home what they have at work. That's certainly been my experience.
I hope these things work for you. I was a heavy coffee drinker from age 18-50. I'm sure I was average or better in the other department as well. When I turned 50, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. As nearly as I can tell, the two best preventive measures are 1) make sure none of your male ancestors gets it and 2) don't live in the U.S. or other Western countries. (FWIW, wanking is pretty disappointing after a prostatectomy.)
That's no good for those of us who don't have texting service on our phones. Who needs texting with a data plan (and IM readily available)?
Who's charging for router firmware updates? The ones I've found were free downloads.
Well, speaking as one who came of age in S.C. in the 1970s, I'd like to point out that this quintessentially redneck state had highway signs at that time that gave distances first in kilometers, then, in smaller print, in miles. The problem was that the leaders failed to follow through and go the rest of the way in the conversion. I personally blame the Reagan administration.
For a minute there, I was marveling at the idea that the biotechnology industry would have need for such specialized lab animals as high-performance gaming mice. (Do you reckon they count cards or are experts at reading a bluff?) Then I realized we were talking about computer hardware. (Yes, I had a very good weekend, far away from work.)
Sec.A51.979. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member ’s or student ’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
(Emphasis added)
It looks to me like followers of the FSM hypothesis (or is it theory?) would also be protected, as well as proponents of evolution theory. This is a win-win proposal. Do you reckon we could get one of these for global warming denial in Virginia?
Someone else may have already had this idea, but maybe we could hire SCO to hunt down and litigate FOSS license violators.
US$8 for non-commercial use in high-income countries—a list that for the present purposes includes the USA, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, Israel, Singapore, and several of the Persian Gulf States (Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Brunei, and Bahrain), but not Canada.
I don't understand why Canada merits special favor, when her per-capita income is higher than most of Western Europe, Japan, Israel, and Japan.
I read TFA on Google Translate, and while the resulting English was a mess, it is clear that the article is about measuring traffic flow from cell phone signals, a thing that has been tried here in the U.S. No mention was made of whether they intend to anonymize the data. In the U.S. project that I read about, there was some amount of concern raised about privacy, even though the article I read made clear that there would be anonymization.
I'm not saying that the Chinese government wouldn't use cell phones to track and control the movements of people, but as others have already pointed out, that's an accompanying risk of the technology. But in this case, I think the Chinese gov't bashing isn't appropriate.
The thing that has always concerned me about any free mail or other data storage service is that there's no obligation on the part of the provider to give continuity of service or to restore data. I'm no lawyer, but I believe there's even a legal principle along the line that if one hasn't paid anything for the service, then there's no financial harm to the "customer" if the service goes down; if there is no harm, there is no recourse.