"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

>> I disagree on the target issue. Motorcyclist are the most in danger
>> because
>> people in cars seem to think that we are nothing but small cars and treat
>> us that way. When a car over takes a walker or biker most of the time it
>> will pull over to give extra room. When they pass a motorcycle they
>> don't.
>
> In 20 years of motorcycle riding, I've never been passed by another driver
> in my same lane. So by definition every time I was overtaken the driver
> moved over into the adjacent lane.

You will note I said EXTRA ROOM. On a 4 lane road most cars will move to
the far left (passing) lane if they can when they see a bike on the
shoulder. Most cars seem to just clear the line when passing me on the
motorcycle.

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:04 GMT, "no spam" > wrote:
>
>>First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who
>>breeds?
>
> I do. Unfortunately, part two, where I tried to pick the "who with"
> got me an elbow in the face. Still have the broken nose...

Well there's another use for corn. Grind it up, add a little sugar, water
and a few other things. Do something in the barn that you don't tell many
folks about then apply results to said 'who'. Not fool proof but can
improve your odds a tad.

Wayne Pein wrote:

> More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a
> very few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me?
> No. Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to yield
> inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey man had
> finally found you.

Have you ever actually driven a motorcycle? You've never seen somebody
deliberately open a door in front of you? Yeah, I know that's what
happened -- the little ****head was looking right at me and laughing
when he did it.

> I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
> don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.
> So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Yeahyeahyeah, but it's a lot more efficient to just assume the worst --
active malevolence -- and plan accordingly. Evil or stupid, you're just
as dead.


--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

lid wrote:

> When I am driving, I don't have time nor
> appropriate facilities to evaluate the reasons for the risk they
> present, nor is it germane. There are far too many drivers repeatedly
> and consistently "making a mistake". Those drivers rely on my assumption
> that they are (pick one or mo stupid, psycho, emotionally unfit,
> inexperienced, inebriated, etc., etc., etc.) to avoid the collisions
> which their (pick one or mo neglect, distraction, aggression, etc.,
> etc., etc.) would otherwise cause.

I'm constantly amazed at how much reliance total strangers place on MY
brakes.

> Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
> almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
> AVOIDABLE.

> That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
> don't want to avoid them. Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
> driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

More likely too stupid or careless to try to prevent them from
happening. Do not attribute to malevolence etc...

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

no spam wrote:

>>>I disagree on the target issue. Motorcyclist are the most in danger
>>>because
>>>people in cars seem to think that we are nothing but small cars and treat
>>>us that way. When a car over takes a walker or biker most of the time it
>>>will pull over to give extra room. When they pass a motorcycle they
>>>don't.
>>
>>In 20 years of motorcycle riding, I've never been passed by another driver
>>in my same lane. So by definition every time I was overtaken the driver
>>moved over into the adjacent lane.
>
>
> You will note I said EXTRA ROOM. On a 4 lane road most cars will move to
> the far left (passing) lane if they can when they see a bike on the
> shoulder. Most cars seem to just clear the line when passing me on the
> motorcycle.
>
>

So what's the danger in that? You're in a lane and they pass in the
adjacent. I don't see how the motorcyclist is in the most danger because
of this.

Wayne

no spam > wrote:
>>>> Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so
>>>> that stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs
>>>> don't exist, the transportation engineer in charge should be
>>>> notified.
>>>
>>>
>>> Transportation engineer <BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!!> <wiping tears
>>> from my eyes> Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from
>>> didn't even have building inspector (note that is for the entire
>>> COUNTY) and you expect them to have a transportation engineer.
>>>
>>> As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the
>>> summer tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic
>>> accidents (one time involving a state trooper).
>>>
>>> The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not
>>> expected are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car,
>>> tractor, bike or cow..
>>
>> Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses
>> responsible for a known hazardous situation that could easily be
>> fixed.
>
> Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there
> (several times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure
> that after in one year a trooper had been rear ended and a
> motorcyclist KILLED at that intersection something would be done. I
> was on that same road last year and there was a change. . .they
> repainted the lines.
> Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

no spam wrote:
>>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>>>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>>>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>>>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>>>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
>>> And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
>>> allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
>> It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have been
>> handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to have more
>> of the same. The over achievers some times never have kids because they
>> are the "I want it all" mindset. So our population is coming mainly from
>> bottom of the barrel. That's "Reverse evolution" to me.
>
> First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who breeds?

Whoever controls the military, as in politicians.
>
>
>> Care to comment on the obvious?
>
> Sure, short sighted politicians learned that they could buy their offices by
> giving tax dollars to voters and short sighted people who think its cruel to
> 1) make people work for there free money and 2) to make people live with the
> consequences of their actions and bad choices.
>
> Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not work
> in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford
> them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to
> make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be
> FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?
>
Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those who
should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those that are
on it have obviously learned how to milk the system. Now that we have a
glut of school aged children everybody is complaining about not enough
schools, yet nobody is addressing the main issue.
Bill Baka

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
>almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
>AVOIDABLE.

Do they, now?

>That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
>don't want to avoid them.

Hmm. There's a premise and a conclusion... but nothing joining them.

>Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
>driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

Well, this conclusion appears to follow from the last one, but it's
still out on a little island of fantasy.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Bill Baka > wrote:
> no spam wrote:
>>>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions,
>>>>>> genocide and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the
>>>>>> population. Are those options acceptable to you?
>>>>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>>>>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>>>>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and
>>>>> starve.
>>>> And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do
>>>> we only allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
>>> It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have
>>> been handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to
>>> have more of the same. The over achievers some times never have
>>> kids because they are the "I want it all" mindset. So our
>>> population is coming mainly from bottom of the barrel. That's
>>> "Reverse evolution" to me.
>>
>> First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who
>> breeds?
>
> Whoever controls the military, as in politicians.
>>
>>
>>> Care to comment on the obvious?
>>
>> Sure, short sighted politicians learned that they could buy their
>> offices by giving tax dollars to voters and short sighted people who
>> think its cruel to 1) make people work for there free money and 2)
>> to make people live with the consequences of their actions and bad
>> choices. Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to
>> not work in school. People choose to have kids when they know they
>> can't afford them. People choose to drop out of school. People
>> choose to sell drugs to make a fast buck. People choose to screw up
>> their lives why should I be FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?

> Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
> who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
> that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.

That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.

> Now that we have a glut of school aged children

No you dont.

> everybody is complaining about not enough schools,

No they arent.

> yet nobody is addressing the main issue.

Wrong again.

In article >, Wayne Pein wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>> In article >, Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
>>>putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
>>>friendly to motorists.
>>
>>
>> How then do you rate what all has happened to the West Philadelphia
>> portion of Walnut Street?
>>
>> That street used to have 3 lanes, except 4 during evening rush hour,
>> all westbound. The street is one way westbound with the right curb lane
>> in the past being a traffic lane during evening rush as opposed to being a
>> parking lane.
>>
>> Now the curb lane is a parking lane 24/7. The next-rightmost lane is
>> now a bike lane. The remaining two traffic lanes got widened (the
>> previously designated lanes were on the narrow side) due to one traffic
>> lane being restricted to bikes.
>>
>> So now that the parking got increased at a time when Phi8ladelphia
>> decided to tolerate double parking, the bike lane sometimes has cars
>> parked on it.
>
>OK, so here's a situation where it was made worse for both street users.

When I find times that the bike lane is lacking double parked cars, it
sure is a lot easier for bikes than it was before the bike lane was put in
place. All Philadelphia needs is a little traffic law enforcement.

Even with the usual rate of double parked cars, Walnut St is a little
more favorable for bikes than before. Yoy snipped out where I said that
to say Walnut Street got worse for both street users. For reference, the
article where I said that and which you above quoted in part is
>

Let me tell you what life for me on a bike is like on a busy
Philadelphia street without a bike lane if the lanes are on the narow
side. This is the current situation on the portion of Chestnut Street
west of 38th. Roughly once a year a car grazes me or a car's right side
mirror taps my posterior!

- Don Klipstein )