To Obey, Or Not to Obey

[vey]

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/

Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
for cars?

It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?

[more]

by Alex Marshall
He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC

[David L. Johnson]

vey wrote:

> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?
>
> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?

You're asking whether there are times when it is a "good idea" to run a
traffic light? All because you don't want to bother about stopping? I
bet you'd be pissed if you had to jam on the brakes because someone else
ran a light in front of you.

--

David L. Johnson

Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death.
And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not
be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 24, 5:22 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
>
> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?
>
> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
>
> [more]
>
> by Alex Marshall
> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC

I will roll through 4-way stops if the intersection is deserted and I
have good visibility in all directions. The only red lights I'll ride
through are left-turn signals that aren't triggered by my presence.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Oct 24, 2:22 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
>
> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?
>
> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
>
> [more]
>
> by Alex Marshall
> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC

I agree with everything there except the guilty part. I operate on the
do-no-harm principle. If me going through a red-light doesn't cause
any problems, I'll do it. I consider making other people (pedestrians
or motorists) irritated or nervous a problem, so if they are around
and appear like they will be affected by my behavior in any way, I let
that be the overriding principle, and I defer to them. Otherwise I
take the path of least resistance.

Joseph

[A Muzi]

vey wrote:
> http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?
> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
> [more]
> by Alex Marshall
> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC

I think you know the answer but just don't like it.
Most state laws derive from uniform vehicle code where 'a bicycle is a
vehicle except where otherwise noted'. Bob Mionske was interviewed on
bicycleradio.com last evening and dispelled a few myths, for example, no
law requires a foot on the pavement at a stop sign. He did also note
that beyond your convenience there is liability. He asked how a rider
would deal with causing a collision, having blown through a stop, which
resulted in a death. Interesting to ponder, eh?
Occasionally, I've coasted through at a low speed if there's no traffic
(my commute is well outside the busy hours) but generally stop as it
just makes sense. And that's what I expect from vehicles on the cross
street. I put my life in that expectation, actually.
If you want to talk about car doors opened into my lane, we can go there.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Oct 24, 6:22 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
>
> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?

NOT meant for cars but 'vehicles' and like it or don't you are one
when on a bicycle.
>
> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?

Goes like this....ya run a red light and 'Jane' sees you when stopped
in her auto..pisses her off that you don't follow the rules. When that
referendum comes up on the ballot for more $ for bike lanes/paths/
places to lock a bike,etc., she remembers you and votes against
it..just that simple, besides, it's the law. Nobody is in so much of a
hurry that they can't stop at red lights.
>
> [more]
>
> by Alex Marshall
> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC

[amakyonin]

On Oct 24, 8:22 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?

This depends on where you live, but any sensible jurisdiction
classifies a bicycle as a vehicle and the rules of the road are listed
under the "vehicle code" of the law. i.e. bicyclists are bound to obey
them just as much as cagers. I am meticulous about observing the rules
of the road when riding for a number of reasons.

1) It ensures my safety
2) It promotes a positive image of bicyclists to drivers (I nearly ran
over a red-light-running bike bum the other day. I wasn't exactly
pleased with his behavior)
3) I avoid hypocrisy when I criticize other drivers and bicyclists for
their ignorance of the law. No bad karma for me.

>
> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> red light in the middle.

There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
to spare.

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:22:50 -0400, vey wrote:

> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> for cars?

Occasionally I roll through a red light because it makes me much safer.
For example, where there are two sets of lights close together and I
want to turn right at the second one, I'll roll through the first to avoid
having to fight traffic to get over into the right-hand lane at the second.

(PS we drive/ride on the left)

[vey]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> You're asking whether there are times when it is a "good idea" to run a
> traffic light? All because you don't want to bother about stopping? I
> bet you'd be pissed if you had to jam on the brakes because someone else
> ran a light in front of you.
>

Not me, the transportation planner. And yes, I have had to jam on my
bike brakes to avoid a red-light runner, but it was an SUV that was
running the light. Yes, I was pissed.

[datakoll]

if you are flattend while within the law - the car flattening you is
guilty, maybe.
if you are breaking the law while flattend - the car flattening gets
away with it unless he's hunting you or DUI+ or....
say the car has insurance and they are guilty - you get medical $$$
but if....

[A Muzi]

datakoll wrote:
> if you are flattend while within the law - the car flattening you is
> guilty, maybe.
> if you are breaking the law while flattend - the car flattening gets
> away with it unless he's hunting you or DUI+ or....
> say the car has insurance and they are guilty - you get medical $$$
> but if....

Another view may be found in the new "Bicycling & the Law" by Bob
Mionske, $18.95 in softcover, here and elsewhere.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[vey]

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2:22 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
>>
>> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
>> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
>> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
>> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
>> for cars?
>>
>> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
>> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
>> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
>> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
>>
>> [more]
>>
>> by Alex Marshall
>> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC
>
> I agree with everything there except the guilty part. I operate on the
> do-no-harm principle. If me going through a red-light doesn't cause
> any problems, I'll do it. I consider making other people (pedestrians
> or motorists) irritated or nervous a problem, so if they are around
> and appear like they will be affected by my behavior in any way, I let
> that be the overriding principle, and I defer to them. Otherwise I
> take the path of least resistance.
>
> Joseph
>

I think that is a rather bad habit. We have way too many 4-way stops
around here, but the engineers won't remove them because they are
politically popular. When riding, I stop at them if there are any cars
in sight and treat them as yield signs otherwise. Most of the time the
intersections are deserted since they were placed there as speed control
devices.

But I caught myself the other day driving and doing the same thing.
That's bad since the cops like to hide and hand out tickets to drivers
and more recently, for bicyclists, too. So I make sure I stop for all
red lights all the time no matter what I am doing and I am thinking I
should do the same for all these 4-way stops. Not because it makes any
sense . . .

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Oct 24, 10:13 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2:22 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
>
> > Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> > stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> > skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> > regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> > for cars?
>
> > It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> > when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> > red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> > careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
>
> > [more]
>
> > by Alex Marshall
> > He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC
>
> I agree with everything there except the guilty part. I operate on the
> do-no-harm principle. If me going through a red-light doesn't cause
> any problems, I'll do it.

Then you do that in your car also-correct. If nobody there, run the
light-

I consider making other people (pedestrians
> or motorists) irritated or nervous a problem, so if they are around
> and appear like they will be affected by my behavior in any way, I let
> that be the overriding principle, and I defer to them. Otherwise I
> take the path of least resistance.
>
> Joseph

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Oct 24, 6:54 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 2:22 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
>
> >> Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> >> stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> >> skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> >> regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> >> for cars?
>
> >> It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> >> when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> >> red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> >> careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
>
> >> [more]
>
> >> by Alex Marshall
> >> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC
>
> > I agree with everything there except the guilty part. I operate on the
> > do-no-harm principle. If me going through a red-light doesn't cause
> > any problems, I'll do it. I consider making other people (pedestrians
> > or motorists) irritated or nervous a problem, so if they are around
> > and appear like they will be affected by my behavior in any way, I let
> > that be the overriding principle, and I defer to them. Otherwise I
> > take the path of least resistance.
>
> > Joseph
>
> I think that is a rather bad habit. We have way too many 4-way stops
> around here, but the engineers won't remove them because they are
> politically popular. When riding, I stop at them if there are any cars
> in sight and treat them as yield signs otherwise. Most of the time the
> intersections are deserted since they were placed there as speed control
> devices.

You may have misunderstood/misinterpreted what I meant. I would do
exactly as you describe what you do at 4-way stops.

> But I caught myself the other day driving and doing the same thing.
> That's bad since the cops like to hide and hand out tickets to drivers
> and more recently, for bicyclists, too. So I make sure I stop for all
> red lights all the time no matter what I am doing and I am thinking I
> should do the same for all these 4-way stops. Not because it makes any
> sense . . .

I make a clear distinction (in my head at least) when I limit myself
in some way as to whether it is because I think doing so is
appropriate, vs doing so because I don't want to risk a fine. The same
when driving, but there the only thing I do is speed sometimes.

Joseph

[vey]

A Muzi wrote:
And that's what I expect from vehicles on the cross
> street. I put my life in that expectation, actually.

But what if you didn't because you knew differently. I try not to
violate copyrights, so I only post the first paragraph or two. That's
why I put the link and [more] in there.

In the blog entry, he starts off explaining that the Rules-Of-The-Road
came about in the '30's and that they were written with the promise to
eliminate congestion.

"So here's my point. Given that most traffic controls were put into
place solely for the benefit of drivers, why should the rest of us have
to obey them? They're not helping us. In fact, they're impeding us."

Then he talks about options.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/

[Jay Beattie]

On Oct 24, 11:07 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> vey wrote:
> >http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/
> > Not getting flattened by a 50,000 pound "big rig" is a good reason to
> > stop at a red light if you're on a bicycle. But how about less
> > skin-saving reasons? Are there in fact, good reasons to ignore traffic
> > regulations when you can, because after all, they are really meant just
> > for cars?
> > It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> > when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> > red light in the middle. Many of us often just cruise through with a
> > careful glance in each direction, but we feel guilty about it. Should we?
> > [more]
> > by Alex Marshall
> > He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC
>
> I think you know the answer but just don't like it.
> Most state laws derive from uniform vehicle code where 'a bicycle is a
> vehicle except where otherwise noted'. Bob Mionske was interviewed on
> bicycleradio.com last evening and dispelled a few myths, for example, no
> law requires a foot on the pavement at a stop sign. He did also note
> that beyond your convenience there is liability. He asked how a rider
> would deal with causing a collision, having blown through a stop, which
> resulted in a death. Interesting to ponder, eh?
> Occasionally, I've coasted through at a low speed if there's no traffic
> (my commute is well outside the busy hours) but generally stop as it
> just makes sense. And that's what I expect from vehicles on the cross
> street. I put my life in that expectation, actually.
> If you want to talk about car doors opened into my lane, we can go there.

And a number of states have rolling stop laws. One was proposed here,
but not well supported. Really, people just need to read the local
vehicle or traffic code. It's not hard to understand. There is a
certain similarlity in all states because most have adopted the UVC,
but some of the difference are pretty dramatic -- like lane sharing in
California. Oregon has a law allowing passing on the right by
bicycles. There are local ordinances in many states that prohibit
bikes on sidewalks or on particular roads. Some states have statutes
that require bikes to be on available bike lanes. It's a real patch
work, and you can't say unequivocally what a person in a particular
state is legally obligated to do -- although you can make reasoned
guesses. That bit about putting down a foot may be the law somewhere
-- who knows.

>From a tort standpoint, it is the law in all states that a bicyclist
has to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to himself and
others. Violation of a traffic law may amount to evidence of
negligence or negligence per se (depending on state law). Negligence
per se means that simply by violating the traffic law, you are
negligent regardless of whether you were acting "reasonably". -- Jay
Beattie.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 24, 1:19 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:

> But what if you didn't because you knew differently.

You don't know different. You and your source are justifying juvenile
behavior.

> I try not to
> violate copyrights,

Why not violate copyrights? They were only put in to protect those
with (intellectual) property. What if your need of convenience
supersedes inconvenient private ownership laws? --D-y

[unforgiven99@juno.com]

On Oct 24, 2:19 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>
> And that's what I expect from vehicles on the cross
>
> > street. I put my life in that expectation, actually.
>
> But what if you didn't because you knew differently. I try not to
> violate copyrights, so I only post the first paragraph or two. That's
> why I put the link and [more] in there.
>
> In the blog entry, he starts off explaining that the Rules-Of-The-Road
> came about in the '30's and that they were written with the promise to
> eliminate congestion.
>
> "So here's my point. Given that most traffic controls were put into
> place solely for the benefit of drivers, why should the rest of us have
> to obey them? They're not helping us. In fact, they're impeding us."
>
> Then he talks about options.
>
> http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/16/to-obey-or-not-to-obey/

Impeding us? Lots of people seem to think that red lights impede them
while they're in cars too. Your argument seems to be based on the
assumption that it's alright to break the law as long as you're the
only one doing it. Let's say for a second that you're right, and
cyclists can ride however they want while the cars stay out of the
way. If the number of cyclists on the road increases, and none of
them want to stop for red lights, eventually they reach a critical
density where they start to hit each other. Is the red light still an
impediment? Traffic engineers design roads and intersections for the
total vehicle density, with the safety of all users in mind. Being in
one type of vehicle or another does not, contrary to many automotive
advertisements, grant one any special privileges.

[catzz66]

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>
> Goes like this....ya run a red light and 'Jane' sees you when stopped
> in her auto..pisses her off that you don't follow the rules. When that
> referendum comes up on the ballot for more $ for bike lanes/paths/
> places to lock a bike,etc., she remembers you and votes against
> it..just that simple, besides, it's the law. Nobody is in so much of a
> hurry that they can't stop at red lights.
>

In my large neighborhood, there's some kind of signage (usually a stop
sign) at most intersections. I don't blow through any signage. Usually
I stop pedalling and brake before I get to the sign and roll through if
there is no other traffic, but I don't blow through. If I came to a
rock-back stop at every stop sign, I would be creeping through town. I
do stop at lights almost always. There's usually traffic there anyway
and it's the only way to cross some major streets I have to navigate. I
am conscious of how I ride and how it might affect motorists. There are
a lot of bikes in my neighborhood. I don't want to poison the water for
me and everybody else who rides.

[Joe Riel]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> writes:

> Goes like this....ya run a red light and 'Jane' sees you when stopped
> in her auto..pisses her off that you don't follow the rules. When that
> referendum comes up on the ballot for more $ for bike lanes/paths/
> places to lock a bike,etc., she remembers you and votes against
> it..just that simple, besides, it's the law. Nobody is in so much of a
> hurry that they can't stop at red lights.

This from the guy who got our club pulled over 'cause he was mouthing
off to the cop 8-). Not that the cop wasn't being a jerk, but...

It's been a while...


>>
>> [more]
>>
>> by Alex Marshall
>> He is a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association in NYC
>
>

--
Joe Riel

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 24, 1:59 pm, amakyonin <amakyonin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ... I am meticulous about observing the rules
> of the road when riding for a number of reasons.
>
> 1) It ensures my safety

Oh no, it doesn't.

The majority of adult riders who are involved in collisions on their
bicycle are riding lawfully at the time of the wreck.

Robert




> 2) It promotes a positive image of bicyclists to drivers (I nearly ran
> over a red-light-running bike bum the other day. I wasn't exactly
> pleased with his behavior)
> 3) I avoid hypocrisy when I criticize other drivers and bicyclists for
> their ignorance of the law. No bad karma for me.
>
>
>
> > It's a question that comes readily to mind at times, particularly say
> > when pedaling up a steep hill or going down one, and having to stop at a
> > red light in the middle.
>
> There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
> hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
> pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
> vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
> to spare.

[Tom Sherman]

amakyonin??? wrote:
> ...
> There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
> hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
> pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
> vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
> to spare.
>
You must be some sort of super sprinter. When I have a bicycle beside me
at a red light changing to green and I am in a car, I am usually well
clear of the far side of the intersection before the cyclist is to the
halfway point.

A UCI professional riding aerobically has over 200 pounds per
horsepower. A normal modern sedan has about 20 pounds per horsepower at
the peak, and about 40 to 50 pounds per horsepower in the normal
operating range. To expect a cyclist to be able to out accelerate a car
is not logical.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:37:15 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:

> This from the guy who got our club pulled over 'cause he was mouthing
> off to the cop 8-)

Really? That doesn't sound like Peter at all :-)

[datakoll]

two illegals to consider -

if bicycling on sidewalks is illegal and be surer to ask about local
ORDINACE
where are you when hit on a commercial entry/exit ?

or the big parking lot: riding across the big parking lot across
parking areas is illegal and a great place to get flattened.

if you add all the probable illegals where you're everyday illegal can
you then go off to mount a rational for not at least slowing way down
for a stop sign?

[vey]

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:19 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
>> But what if you didn't because you knew differently.
>
> You don't know different. You and your source are justifying juvenile
> behavior.

Not at all. The author is putting forth a challenge to laws that have
existed a mere 70 (in some states, even less in other states) years.

Bush has successfully challenged laws that have been in in existence for
700 years and is winning.

To rock your little boat of "knowledge." I know people that have never
had any drivers examination at all, yet they have a license. Within my
short lifetime, they were told they needed to get a license to keep
driving, so they went to the state agency office, paid $2 and were
issued a license. They have been renewing it ever since and they are
still driving.

If you think *they* know all the fine print of all the rules, I can
assure you that they don't. So you could change the rules tomorrow and
they wouldn't know the diff.

[A Muzi]

vey wrote:
> Bush has successfully challenged laws that have been in in existence for
> 700 years and is winning.

[OT alert!]
name one
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 24, 8:37 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:

> Not at all. The author is putting forth a challenge to laws that have
> existed a mere 70 (in some states, even less in other states) years.

Well, keep us posted on how he's doing with that. And try not to run
down any little old ladies who cross the street in front of you
meanwhile, OK? --D-y

[vey]

A Muzi wrote:
> vey wrote:
>> Bush has successfully challenged laws that have been in in existence
>> for 700 years and is winning.
>
> [OT alert!]
> name one

Habeas Corpus. Jose Padilla. 4th Circuit US C of A said the entire
country is a battlefield, but this needs to be appealed to the SupCt.

It wasn't (the 4th Circuit complained bitterly about that) and "the
whole country is a battlefield" decision stands.

That's the short hand version of
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/padilla/padhnft90905opn4th.pdf

The justice that authored the decision recently retired and went to work
for Boeing.

I always prove my assertions.

[A Muzi]

>> vey wrote:
>>> Bush has successfully challenged laws that have been in in existence
>>> for 700 years and is winning.

> A Muzi wrote:
>> [OT alert!]
>> name one

vey wrote:
> Habeas Corpus. Jose Padilla. 4th Circuit US C of A said the entire
> country is a battlefield, but this needs to be appealed to the SupCt.
> It wasn't (the 4th Circuit complained bitterly about that) and "the
> whole country is a battlefield" decision stands.
> That's the short hand version of
> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/padilla/padhnft90905opn4th.pdf
> The justice that authored the decision recently retired and went to work
> for Boeing.
> I always prove my assertions.

There's reasonable disagreement about your analysis.
Art II section two makes a good argument. Marshall (Locke v US, 1813)
indicates that (FISA notwithstanding) he is charged broadly with the
nation's security, dead Americans having no rights at all. I posit that
he has not challenged any laws but merely performed his duties well.
You're welcome to disagree since your liberty is enforced by Mr Bush.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[amakyonin]

On Oct 25, 5:49 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> amakyonin??? wrote:
> > ...
> > There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
> > hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
> > pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
> > vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
> > to spare.
>
> You must be some sort of super sprinter. When I have a bicycle beside me
> at a red light changing to green and I am in a car, I am usually well
> clear of the far side of the intersection before the cyclist is to the
> halfway point.
>
> A UCI professional riding aerobically has over 200 pounds per
> horsepower. A normal modern sedan has about 20 pounds per horsepower at
> the peak, and about 40 to 50 pounds per horsepower in the normal
> operating range. To expect a cyclist to be able to out accelerate a car
> is not logical.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Most vehicles around here are automatic SUVs. Even with a jackrabbit
driver who is ready to go as soom as the light turns green there is a
little delay before their transmission can engage on a hill.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 25, 5:49 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> amakyonin??? wrote:
> > ...
> > There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
> > hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
> > pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
> > vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
> > to spare.
>
> You must be some sort of super sprinter. When I have a bicycle beside me
> at a red light changing to green and I am in a car, I am usually well
> clear of the far side of the intersection before the cyclist is to the
> halfway point.
>
> A UCI professional riding aerobically has over 200 pounds per
> horsepower. A normal modern sedan has about 20 pounds per horsepower at
> the peak, and about 40 to 50 pounds per horsepower in the normal
> operating range. To expect a cyclist to be able to out accelerate a car
> is not logical.

Sorry, Tom, that doesn't matter. A person doesn't have to be a super
sprinter to beat cars across the intersection. I do it all the time,
and I'm an old guy.

What seems to matter most is simply paying attention. Actually
beginning to move when the light turns green gets you a couple seconds
advantage over most drivers. And any moderately strong effort in the
proper gear gives a bike more acceleration than most motorists
normally use.

The hitch, of course, is that it works only up to about 15 mph, while
the motorist can accelerate for a much longer time. But that 15 mph
is enough to beat most motorists across the intersection, IME. Again,
I do it all the time. Exceptions are rare.

Certainly, if you compare a typical 18-year-old tuner driver with a
cul-de-sac-cruising comfort bike rider, the tuner car will be first
across the street. But I think most experienced bike commuters can
beat most cars when they want to.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

amakyonin ??? wrote:
> On Oct 25, 5:49 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> amakyonin??? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
>>> hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
>>> pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
>>> vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
>>> to spare.
>> You must be some sort of super sprinter. When I have a bicycle beside me
>> at a red light changing to green and I am in a car, I am usually well
>> clear of the far side of the intersection before the cyclist is to the
>> halfway point.
>>
>> A UCI professional riding aerobically has over 200 pounds per
>> horsepower. A normal modern sedan has about 20 pounds per horsepower at
>> the peak, and about 40 to 50 pounds per horsepower in the normal
>> operating range. To expect a cyclist to be able to out accelerate a car
>> is not logical.
>>
>
> Most vehicles around here are automatic SUVs. Even with a jackrabbit
> driver who is ready to go as soom as the light turns green there is a
> little delay before their transmission can engage on a hill.

That problem is easily solved by running the engine up against the
brakes to the torque converter stall point.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

[Joe Riel]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> Sorry, Tom, that doesn't matter. A person doesn't have to be a super
> sprinter to beat cars across the intersection. I do it all the time,
> and I'm an old guy.

I've rarely seen the point of accelerating rapidly into an
intersection. I prefer to let the cars intercept any red-light
running cross traffic. Theoretically, of course. While I've seen
more than a few red-light runners, I haven't seen a collision.

--
Joe Riel

[Michael Press]

In article
<1193327016.602266.91010@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 25, 5:49 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > amakyonin??? wrote:
> > > ...
> > > There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
> > > hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
> > > pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
> > > vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
> > > to spare.
> >
> > You must be some sort of super sprinter. When I have a bicycle beside me
> > at a red light changing to green and I am in a car, I am usually well
> > clear of the far side of the intersection before the cyclist is to the
> > halfway point.
> >
> > A UCI professional riding aerobically has over 200 pounds per
> > horsepower. A normal modern sedan has about 20 pounds per horsepower at
> > the peak, and about 40 to 50 pounds per horsepower in the normal
> > operating range. To expect a cyclist to be able to out accelerate a car
> > is not logical.
>
> Sorry, Tom, that doesn't matter. A person doesn't have to be a super
> sprinter to beat cars across the intersection. I do it all the time,
> and I'm an old guy.
>
> What seems to matter most is simply paying attention. Actually
> beginning to move when the light turns green gets you a couple seconds
> advantage over most drivers. And any moderately strong effort in the
> proper gear gives a bike more acceleration than most motorists
> normally use.
>
> The hitch, of course, is that it works only up to about 15 mph, while
> the motorist can accelerate for a much longer time. But that 15 mph
> is enough to beat most motorists across the intersection, IME. Again,
> I do it all the time. Exceptions are rare.
>
> Certainly, if you compare a typical 18-year-old tuner driver with a
> cul-de-sac-cruising comfort bike rider, the tuner car will be first
> across the street. But I think most experienced bike commuters can
> beat most cars when they want to.

What you write is how it goes for me.

At a red light I typically clear the right turn lane
and that puts me out in the through traffic lane. I
angle the bicycle rightward and give a look at the
driver behind so the driver knows I know they're there.
Before the light turns green for us, I am up and
pedaling, clearing the traffic lane and mostly across
the intersection before the car traffic starts moving.

Keeping the bicycle in a cruising gear helps get the
speed up quickly because there is no down time
shifting, and a cruising gear is not difficult to get
going from a dead stop.

--
Michael Press

[Tom Sherman]

frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 25, 5:49 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> amakyonin??? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> There is one traffic light on a hill around here that I occasionally
>>> hit. I just stop as normal (In the middle of the lane no less) and
>>> pull off when the light turns green. I can out accelerate any other
>>> vehicle behind me and be at the side of the lane with plenty of time
>>> to spare.
>> You must be some sort of super sprinter. When I have a bicycle beside me
>> at a red light changing to green and I am in a car, I am usually well
>> clear of the far side of the intersection before the cyclist is to the
>> halfway point.
>>
>> A UCI professional riding aerobically has over 200 pounds per
>> horsepower. A normal modern sedan has about 20 pounds per horsepower at
>> the peak, and about 40 to 50 pounds per horsepower in the normal
>> operating range. To expect a cyclist to be able to out accelerate a car
>> is not logical.
>
> Sorry, Tom, that doesn't matter. A person doesn't have to be a super
> sprinter to beat cars across the intersection. I do it all the time,
> and I'm an old guy.
>
> What seems to matter most is simply paying attention. Actually
> beginning to move when the light turns green gets you a couple seconds
> advantage over most drivers. And any moderately strong effort in the
> proper gear gives a bike more acceleration than most motorists
> normally use.
>
> The hitch, of course, is that it works only up to about 15 mph, while
> the motorist can accelerate for a much longer time. But that 15 mph
> is enough to beat most motorists across the intersection, IME. Again,
> I do it all the time. Exceptions are rare.
>
> Certainly, if you compare a typical 18-year-old tuner driver with a
> cul-de-sac-cruising comfort bike rider, the tuner car will be first
> across the street. But I think most experienced bike commuters can
> beat most cars when they want to.

Yeah, those slow starters are annoying.

I typically watch the opposing lights so I can anticipate the green by a
small fraction of a second, and I will have the clutch engaged and some
forward motion when the light actually turns green. Since peak torque in
my car is at about 5000 rpm, I modulate the clutch engagement to keep
the engine running near that speed until full engagement.

Thankfully, Honda overbuilds their clutches. ;)

In my urban commute, I still beat the EPA City estimate by 4 to 5 mpg. I
suspect it is the reduced pumping losses from running large throttle
openings that improves fuel consumption.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

[vey]

A Muzi wrote:

>
> There's reasonable disagreement about your analysis.

No analysis there. All I did was summarize.

I posit that
> he has not challenged any laws but merely performed his duties well.

And that case says you are right. According to that opinion, we are at
war, the whole country is a battlefield, so Bush can do whatever he
likes to me, you, or anyone else.

> You're welcome to disagree since your liberty is enforced by Mr Bush.

Not only my liberty, but according to that case, I owe him all my rights
as well. In fact, the only reason I can type this is because Bush allows
me. But I can't disagree because there is nothing to disagree about.
That case is the law of the land.

As I said, I am not analyzing, just recting exactly what the case says.
Read it yourself. It is not terribly thick and it isn't very long.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 25, 7:40 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:

> It is not terribly thick and it isn't very long.

Well, there are pills for that.

Ask Bob:

http://www.enzyte.com/

--D-y

[Jambo]

<dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1193363640.590924.275440@v3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
>> It is not terribly thick and it isn't very long.
>
> Well, there are pills for that.
>
> Ask Bob:
>
> http://www.enzyte.com/
>
> --D-y

D, you're a bad bad man...

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:

>
> I typically watch the opposing lights so I can anticipate the green by a
> small fraction of a second, and I will have the clutch engaged and some
> forward motion when the light actually turns green.

Around here, that will get you T-Boned. You see, there are numerous
red-light runners here. My elderly age has taught me to wait a beat
before pulling out into the intersection. That allows the red-light
runners a few more seconds to sail through after the light has turned red.

That's one of the tricks that has allowed me to get to be elderly.
Otherwise I've been long gone.

[Tom Sherman]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>
>> I typically watch the opposing lights so I can anticipate the green by
>> a small fraction of a second, and I will have the clutch engaged and
>> some forward motion when the light actually turns green.
>
> Around here, that will get you T-Boned. You see, there are numerous
> red-light runners here. My elderly age has taught me to wait a beat
> before pulling out into the intersection. That allows the red-light
> runners a few more seconds to sail through after the light has turned red.
>
> That's one of the tricks that has allowed me to get to be elderly.
> Otherwise I've been long gone.

When watching the lights for opposing traffic, I also check for oncoming
vehicles.

In the "hood", common practice is to pull up in the right turn only lane
or bus/bicycle lane, and pull out into the street while the light is
still red to "jump the line". It is best to let these people go first,
since they are likely driving stolen vehicles without insurance and
carrying small arms [1].

[1] Five to ten shootings per weekend are not uncommon.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

[A Muzi]

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> I typically watch the opposing lights so I can anticipate the green by
>> a small fraction of a second, and I will have the clutch engaged and
>> some forward motion when the light actually turns green.

vey wrote:
> Around here, that will get you T-Boned. You see, there are numerous
> red-light runners here. My elderly age has taught me to wait a beat
> before pulling out into the intersection. That allows the red-light
> runners a few more seconds to sail through after the light has turned red.
> That's one of the tricks that has allowed me to get to be elderly.
> Otherwise I've been long gone.

Well written. Red light running has become epidemic.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971