Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-21-13, 04:51 AM   #51
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Since "jaywalking" has been brought up. I would like to clearly clarify:



#1 ~ If your a pedestrian in a crosswalk and it is a pedestrian dominant crosswalk (no signal light and cars must always stop for pedestrians always, usually mid-block or no signal light intersection and my favorite type of crosswalk) ~ YOU ARE NOT JAYWALKING, period no but's and's or maybe's.

#2 ~ If your a pedestrian in a crosswalk and you have the walk signal, or in the case where there is no separate pedestrian walk/don't-walk signal or it is not working you are crossing with the green light ~ YOU ARE NOT JAYWALKING, period no but's and's or maybe's.

#3 ~ If your state recognizes "invisible" unmarked crosswalks between the corners of every intersection (some state laws do, others don't) and your crossing with the green light on a signaled intersection ~ YOU ARE NOT JAYWALKING, period no but's and's or maybe's. Laws do differ from state to state as to how "invisible" unmarked crosswalks without signal lights are treated if the state in question recognizes them. In some states on non-signal light intersections the unmarked crosswalks are always pedestrian dominant crosswalks, in others it goes with the traffic signs (for example cross street intersection with a stop sign for the cross street but not the main road the two unmarked crosswalks from corner to corner across the cross street with the stop sign are pedestrian dominant where as the unmarked crosswalks across the main road are not).

#4 ~ Simply the act of crossing the street as a pedestrian where there is no crosswalk (marked or unmarked) is NOT jaywalking, its only jaywalking if you fail to yield to vehicle traffic on the road.

#5 ~ In areas where sidewalk cycling is legal and you choose to do so check your state laws and local ordinances. In some areas you are by law required to dismount and walk your bike when using a crosswalk and if you fail to do so you have no legal protection as normally encoded in law for vulnerable crosswalk users. If its not legal to sidewalk cycle in an area you have no legal protection as normally encoded in law for vulnerable crosswalk users for sure unless you dismount and walk your bike in the crosswalk.



That said, I personally really don't have anything against "jay-walkers" although I won't engage in that behavior myself. It's the "jay-runners" that annoy me especially when they run out from between two parked cars at like only ten to fifteen feet in front of me !!! I've had to lay my bike down or deliberately swerve and slam into a parked car on my bike riding VC style keeping up with cars in the middle of the lane in in-town 15-25mph traffic more then once to avoid hitting them; very obnoxious. When riding VC style in-town in traffic like that I stop for peds. in the crosswalk just like a car or motorcycle should and I don't mind that one bit and the ones that just walk out I can usually swerve into the left part of the lane quick enough if they are really close or brake and slow if they don't walk out right in front of me, but the ones that run out in front of me at point blank range are the ones that are the bad ones because they are like squirrels and you don't know if they are going to continue or stop in the middle of the lane or try to turn and run back so you can't try to dodge them otherwise you and them might dodge the same direction and you still hit them and if the run out so close in front of you you can't stop in time with just the brakes other more drastic means of stopping right away become necessary, as in a controlled crash either laying the bike down or hitting a parked car instead of them. Neither of which are a good option.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 06:51 AM   #52
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Since "jaywalking" has been brought up. I would like to clearly clarify:

#1 ~ If your a pedestrian in a crosswalk and it is a pedestrian dominant crosswalk (no signal light and cars must always stop for pedestrians always, usually mid-block or no signal light intersection and my favorite type of crosswalk) ~ YOU ARE NOT JAYWALKING, period no but's and's or maybe's.

#2 ~ If your a pedestrian in a crosswalk and you have the walk signal, or in the case where there is no separate pedestrian walk/don't-walk signal or it is not working you are crossing with the green light ~ YOU ARE NOT JAYWALKING, period no but's and's or maybe's.

#3 ~ If your state recognizes "invisible" unmarked crosswalks between the corners of every intersection (some state laws do, others don't) and your crossing with the green light on a signaled intersection ~ YOU ARE NOT JAYWALKING, period no but's and's or maybe's. Laws do differ from state to state as to how "invisible" unmarked crosswalks without signal lights are treated if the state in question recognizes them. In some states on non-signal light intersections the unmarked crosswalks are always pedestrian dominant crosswalks, in others it goes with the traffic signs (for example cross street intersection with a stop sign for the cross street but not the main road the two unmarked crosswalks from corner to corner across the cross street with the stop sign are pedestrian dominant where as the unmarked crosswalks across the main road are not).

#4 ~ Simply the act of crossing the street as a pedestrian where there is no crosswalk (marked or unmarked) is NOT jaywalking, its only jaywalking if you fail to yield to vehicle traffic on the road.

#5 ~ In areas where sidewalk cycling is legal and you choose to do so check your state laws and local ordinances. In some areas you are by law required to dismount and walk your bike when using a crosswalk and if you fail to do so you have no legal protection as normally encoded in law for vulnerable crosswalk users. If its not legal to sidewalk cycle in an area you have no legal protection as normally encoded in law for vulnerable crosswalk users for sure unless you dismount and walk your bike in the crosswalk.

That said, I personally really don't have anything against "jay-walkers" although I won't engage in that behavior myself. It's the "jay-runners" that annoy me especially when they run out from between two parked cars at like only ten to fifteen feet in front of me !!! I've had to lay my bike down or deliberately swerve and slam into a parked car on my bike riding VC style keeping up with cars in the middle of the lane in in-town 15-25mph traffic more then once to avoid hitting them; very obnoxious. When riding VC style in-town in traffic like that I stop for peds. in the crosswalk just like a car or motorcycle should and I don't mind that one bit and the ones that just walk out I can usually swerve into the left part of the lane quick enough if they are really close or brake and slow if they don't walk out right in front of me, but the ones that run out in front of me at point blank range are the ones that are the bad ones because they are like squirrels and you don't know if they are going to continue or stop in the middle of the lane or try to turn and run back so you can't try to dodge them otherwise you and them might dodge the same direction and you still hit them and if the run out so close in front of you you can't stop in time with just the brakes other more drastic means of stopping right away become necessary, as in a controlled crash either laying the bike down or hitting a parked car instead of them. Neither of which are a good option.
???

What is this a response to? Do you get paid by the word?

Is anybody saying that using a crosswalk (crossing at at an intersection) is "jaywalking"?

Seems like a lot of words being devoted to an unnecessary point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889;16177586[B
#4[/B] ~ Simply the act of crossing the street as a pedestrian where there is no crosswalk (marked or unmarked) is NOT jaywalking, its only jaywalking if you fail to yield to vehicle traffic on the road.
This isn't correct.

====================

"Jaywalking" is not illegal everywhere.

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 07:02 AM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 09:41 AM   #53
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
???

What is this a response to? Do you get paid by the word?

Is anybody saying that using a crosswalk (crossing at at an intersection) is "jaywalking"?

Seems like a lot of words being devoted to an unnecessary point.


This isn't correct.

====================

"Jaywalking" is not illegal everywhere.
Whatever his point, he needs to also know that the invisible crosswalk situation is not the same in every state.

In CA there are strong pedestrian crossing laws that indicate that if a ped gives enough notice, motorists should be prepared to stop just about anywhere... I don't believe that is the case in other states.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 10:34 AM   #54
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,704
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
In CA there are strong pedestrian crossing laws that indicate that if a ped gives enough notice, motorists should be prepared to stop just about anywhere... I don't believe that is the case in other states.
You are correct. Pedestrians from some other states stepping off the curb into the street in mid block expecting traffic to stop are going to be treated harshly by the bumpers of motorists who don't care about CA laws.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 10:42 AM   #55
howsteepisit
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Bikes: Mecian
Posts: 3,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
I think you should just wait your turn and let them go. You can always read the license plate and call somebody if they're really bad but as I always say, 200 lbs. vs 3500 equals Smith and Wesson. (Or I would but I just made that up).

Even if they are supposed to stop and don't there's no sense at all physically confronting a car. I call dispatch and tell them to check it out if it's hairy-there's a really nice fine for not yielding and they sweep for that regularly anyway. They also don't like jaywalkers on divided streets (or any others)-we had some tourists die on one such street before they divided it as part of the new interchange over ten years ago.

I have waited my turn, its the cars that are turning on red without allowing the pedestrians who have right of way that are not waiting their turn. And while you are 100% correct in the big car little person statement, there is a time when we must stand up for the principal that just because they are bigger/stronger does not give them the right to do as they please.

As far as calling dispatch, I cannot even guess at the hilarity that would ensue if I called dispatch and reported that a car did not yield to a pedestrian right of way. Most likely would be a yes sir cars do that, for your own safety let them pass. So I do my little dig and get in front of them as long as its relatively safe and legal for me to do so. I kind of feel like the more pissed off drivers get about them darn people walking in front of them the more discussion will occur, and the greater thought and awareness will be among the reasonable motoring public. The jerks will continue to be jerks and will continue to press their size and strength advantage over both law abiding pedestrians and cyclists.
howsteepisit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 10:48 AM   #56
Chicago Al 
Senior Member
 
Chicago Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, the leafy NW side
Bikes:
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I saw a couple of regular A&S posters walking down the street just the other day and they just happened to confront a motorist in JUST the way described. In fact, I caught the whole thing on video, as I always have my helmet-mounted GoPro rolling...even when I'm not on the bike. (Can't be too careful!)

Here's what that confrontation looked like:

__________________
I never think I have hit hard, unless it rebounds.

- Dr Samuel Johnson
Chicago Al is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 12:31 PM   #57
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Whatever his point, he needs to also know that the invisible crosswalk situation is not the same in every state.

In CA there are strong pedestrian crossing laws that indicate that if a ped gives enough notice, motorists should be prepared to stop just about anywhere... I don't believe that is the case in other states.
Whether or not the law makes this a requirement, it seems like common sense.

Even if a pedestrian doesn't have the "right of way", running into them is (at the least) going to be very inconvenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
You are correct. Pedestrians from some other states stepping off the curb into the street in mid block expecting traffic to stop are going to be treated harshly by the bumpers of motorists who don't care about CA laws.
Pedestrians aren't aways sufficiently careful. (A pedestrian stepping off mid-block in front of a car that isn't stopped isn't being careful.)

Most (likely all) states have laws that require pedestrians enter the street only when it's safe to do so (and to yield to traffic that is too close to stop). Even without any such law, it's common sense.

The law (in a general, nonspecific way) requires both parties to take sufficient care to avoid colliding. The idea is that one party can't control what the other party is going to do.

(And the basic principle of defensive driving/walking is not to contest one's "right of way" but to give it up when it isn't being given.)

(And the law/whatever doesn't require people do do the "impossible" or anything that isn't "reasonable".)

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 12:53 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 02:59 PM   #58
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
???

What is this a response to? Do you get paid by the word?

Is anybody saying that using a crosswalk (crossing at at an intersection) is "jaywalking"?

Seems like a lot of words being devoted to an unnecessary point. . . .

What's it to you? You hate for the sake of hating? Sounds like a typical don't like the message so attack the messenger response to me. As to the length of the post, that one was short for me and pretty well divided into paragraphs for reasonable readability.

As to the "Why?" of my post, go look back at the last eight posts at the bottom of page-2 before my post on the top of this page (page-3) and ask yourself which way the conversation of this thread was drifting (also a few other posts before that and the content of the original linked too article in the OP). Conversation was already headed in the direction so I decided to jump in with both feet and clear up some annoying points that usually come up, even among cyclists although usually much worse among "own the road" motorists.

Yes, I have certainly heard motorists and even some roadie/VC cyclists claim that pedestrians crossing in crosswalks are "jaywalking" when they don't wait for a break in traffic to do so (or in other words claims that peds. must always yield to vehicle traffic even in a crosswalk, even with the walk signal or green light). Heading that one off at the pass, may not come in the continued discussion in this thread, but I'm posting a lookout on that pass in advance anyway.

As to my point #4 it is quite a common claim among vehicularists (mostly motorists but including some more aggressive roadie/VC cyclists) that peds. are not allowed to cross the street anywhere except where there is a crosswalk (whether or not they think peds. have to always yield to vehicle traffic when using the crosswalk is another question, but they often go together) and crossing the street anywhere but a crosswalk is jaywalking and illegal. This is not correct and it is true that as with most traffic offenses its the failure to yield not the actual movement that is the issue. Crossing the street where there is no crosswalk is completely legal and is not "jaywalking" if you yield to vehicle traffic and cross when there is a clear gap in traffic. Your arguments against this fact are proof enough that it (and the other points I make) needed to be brought up.

If you want to research it for yourself then there are many websites dedicated to pedestrian rights and advocacy for such just like there are for bicycle advocacy which have excellent research material publicly available including case files. Just as cyclists are sometimes harassed by aggressive belligerent vehicularists in law enforcement and are issued citations for daring to use the roads and not "getting the heck off the road" pedestrians have also been cited for "jaywalking" just for crossing the street where there was no crosswalk even though there was no vehicle traffic that was impeded by them doing so because they yielded to the vehicle traffic before doing so and waited for a gap and they were still issued citations and they fought it successfully in court and sometimes even also won civil harassment judgement against the officers and departments giving out such citations, just as cyclists rights advocates have done as will. Yes, believe it or not there are some idiots mainly aggressive belligerent vehicularists that are under a false impression that it is always "jaywalking" and illegal to cross the street where there is no crosswalk regardless of whether there is any traffic or not. Are you one of them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
. . . . "Jaywalking" is not illegal everywhere.
Never said it was. Although there is at least an impression that it is and most vehicularists (again mostly motorists but also includes some cyclists as well) will argue that it is and will then push things even further by calling things "jaywalking" that are not "jaywalking".



Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Whatever his point, he needs to also know that the invisible crosswalk situation is not the same in every state. . . . .
I made that pretty darn clear that it varies from state to state in my post, you are correct that I did not mention the CA provisions that basically make what most people call "jaywalking" not illegal and clearly clarify vehicular traffics responsibility to if at all possible always stop for crossing peds. At the same time though as I mentioned earlier I made no claims that "jaywalking" was always illegal.

Rather I focused on "cutting off at the pass" potential claims that try to make any time a ped. crosses the street and inconveniences vehicular traffic fit the "jaywalking" definition and even in the case of point #4 tries to make the act of crossing the street anywhere there isn't a crosswalk even in a case where vehicular traffic isn't impeded and just their little bubble world is challenged by merely seeing someone do it fit the definition of "jaywalking".

Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Whether or not the law makes this a requirement, it seems like common sense.

Even if a pedestrian doesn't have the "right of way", running into them is (at the least) going to be very inconvenient. . . .
You assume "common sense" prevails. I make no such assumptions and will make posts that "cut off at the pass" anti-common-sense claims that should be "obvious" and "already apparent" even if it personally offends you. I am not required to abide by your personal feelings and never post in any way that might annoy you. I of course do have a responsibility too not go too far and violate the rules of the forum and make vicious profanity laced posts or stuff like that. But if you are personally offended that someone else dares not to make the same assumption that other people have common sense and it insults you that someone else makes a post which isn't even directed at you that states the obvious because the poster does not trust that the obvious doesn't need to be stated. Well the problem isn't on my end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
. . . Pedestrians aren't aways sufficiently careful. (A pedestrian stepping off mid-block in front of a car that isn't stopped isn't being careful.)

Most (likely all) states have laws that require pedestrians enter the street only when it's safe to do so (and to yield to traffic that is too close to stop). Even without any such law, it's common sense.

The law (in a general, nonspecific way) requires both parties to take sufficient care to avoid colliding. The idea is that one party can't control what the other party is going to do.

(And the basic principle of defensive driving/walking is not to contest one's "right of way" but to give it up when it isn't being given.). . . .
I agree that peds. aren't always sufficiently careful. I believe I did mention something I call a "jay-runner" that does not walk but rather runs out between parked cars mid-block regardless of whether there is traffic or not. I have some suspicions that it is more likely to happen to me when I'm riding a bicycle vehicle rather then when driving an automobile vehicle and some suspicions as to why that is (they either don't see me, or don't hear me, or feel that they can risk it since I'm only a bicycle) but I have no means of testing or confirming those suspicions myself in a meaningful way on a large scale and have yet to locate any good studies or statistics on this particular phenomenon. The mere act of stepping out into the street in front of a car which hasn't already stopped completely in and of itself though I wouldn't consider to be "not being careful" it depends on the situation and often that is the only way to get vehicular traffic to actually stop and let you cross in a crosswalk, even a very well marked pedestrian dominant one with very clear signage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
. . . (And the law/whatever doesn't require people do do the "impossible" or anything that isn't "reasonable".)
Now your really making my laugh, but it isn't a happy laugh its a sad almost mournful laugh. Apparently you haven't read some of the laws that are out there. For example trying reading some sections of the federal business tax code.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 03:06 PM   #59
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Al View Post
I saw a couple of regular A&S posters walking down the street just the other day and they just happened to confront a motorist in JUST the way described. In fact, I caught the whole thing on video, as I always have my helmet-mounted GoPro rolling...even when I'm not on the bike. (Can't be too careful!)

Here's what that confrontation looked like:

Not clear in the video whether there was a crosswalk signal or not there and if so what the signal was. I can see something in the very top background that is orange blurred lettering which could be a "Don't Walk" sign but can't tell for sure and can't also tell whether it is for that crosswalk or for another one further back.

Could be a case of another aggressive dangerous cabby who is willing to harass peds. legally using the crosswalk in which case I don't blame the white suit guy for his response (although the insurance quip is pretty sick). But it could also be the case of a ped. crossing against the signal as well and a cabby understandably annoyed by a scofflaw ped.

Not enough info to tell, and I don't believe for a minute you shot that yourself, looks like a clip from a movie series or something.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 03:31 PM   #60
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
What's it to you? You hate for the sake of hating? Sounds like a typical don't like the message so attack the messenger response to me. As to the length of the post, that one was short for me and pretty well divided into paragraphs for reasonable readability.

As to the "Why?" of my post, go look back at the last eight posts at the bottom of page-2 before my post on the top of this page (page-3) and ask yourself which way the conversation of this thread was drifting (also a few other posts before that and the content of the original linked too article in the OP). Conversation was already headed in the direction so I decided to jump in with both feet and clear up some annoying points that usually come up, even among cyclists although usually much worse among "own the road" motorists.

Yes, I have certainly heard motorists and even some roadie/VC cyclists claim that pedestrians crossing in crosswalks are "jaywalking" when they don't wait for a break in traffic to do so (or in other words claims that peds. must always yield to vehicle traffic even in a crosswalk, even with the walk signal or green light). Heading that one off at the pass, may not come in the continued discussion in this thread, but I'm posting a lookout on that pass in advance anyway.

As to my point #4 it is quite a common claim among vehicularists (mostly motorists but including some more aggressive roadie/VC cyclists) that peds. are not allowed to cross the street anywhere except where there is a crosswalk (whether or not they think peds. have to always yield to vehicle traffic when using the crosswalk is another question, but they often go together) and crossing the street anywhere but a crosswalk is jaywalking and illegal. This is not correct and it is true that as with most traffic offenses its the failure to yield not the actual movement that is the issue. Crossing the street where there is no crosswalk is completely legal and is not "jaywalking" if you yield to vehicle traffic and cross when there is a clear gap in traffic. Your arguments against this fact are proof enough that it (and the other points I make) needed to be brought up.

If you want to research it for yourself then there are many websites dedicated to pedestrian rights and advocacy for such just like there are for bicycle advocacy which have excellent research material publicly available including case files. Just as cyclists are sometimes harassed by aggressive belligerent vehicularists in law enforcement and are issued citations for daring to use the roads and not "getting the heck off the road" pedestrians have also been cited for "jaywalking" just for crossing the street where there was no crosswalk even though there was no vehicle traffic that was impeded by them doing so because they yielded to the vehicle traffic before doing so and waited for a gap and they were still issued citations and they fought it successfully in court and sometimes even also won civil harassment judgement against the officers and departments giving out such citations, just as cyclists rights advocates have done as will. Yes, believe it or not there are some idiots mainly aggressive belligerent vehicularists that are under a false impression that it is always "jaywalking" and illegal to cross the street where there is no crosswalk regardless of whether there is any traffic or not. Are you one of them?



Never said it was. Although there is at least an impression that it is and most vehicularists (again mostly motorists but also includes some cyclists as well) will argue that it is and will then push things even further by calling things "jaywalking" that are not "jaywalking".





I made that pretty darn clear that it varies from state to state in my post, you are correct that I did not mention the CA provisions that basically make what most people call "jaywalking" not illegal and clearly clarify vehicular traffics responsibility to if at all possible always stop for crossing peds. At the same time though as I mentioned earlier I made no claims that "jaywalking" was always illegal.

Rather I focused on "cutting off at the pass" potential claims that try to make any time a ped. crosses the street and inconveniences vehicular traffic fit the "jaywalking" definition and even in the case of point #4 tries to make the act of crossing the street anywhere there isn't a crosswalk even in a case where vehicular traffic isn't impeded and just their little bubble world is challenged by merely seeing someone do it fit the definition of "jaywalking".



You assume "common sense" prevails. I make no such assumptions and will make posts that "cut off at the pass" anti-common-sense claims that should be "obvious" and "already apparent" even if it personally offends you. I am not required to abide by your personal feelings and never post in any way that might annoy you. I of course do have a responsibility too not go too far and violate the rules of the forum and make vicious profanity laced posts or stuff like that. But if you are personally offended that someone else dares not to make the same assumption that other people have common sense and it insults you that someone else makes a post which isn't even directed at you that states the obvious because the poster does not trust that the obvious doesn't need to be stated. Well the problem isn't on my end.



I agree that peds. aren't always sufficiently careful. I believe I did mention something I call a "jay-runner" that does not walk but rather runs out between parked cars mid-block regardless of whether there is traffic or not. I have some suspicions that it is more likely to happen to me when I'm riding a bicycle vehicle rather then when driving an automobile vehicle and some suspicions as to why that is (they either don't see me, or don't hear me, or feel that they can risk it since I'm only a bicycle) but I have no means of testing or confirming those suspicions myself in a meaningful way on a large scale and have yet to locate any good studies or statistics on this particular phenomenon. The mere act of stepping out into the street in front of a car which hasn't already stopped completely in and of itself though I wouldn't consider to be "not being careful" it depends on the situation and often that is the only way to get vehicular traffic to actually stop and let you cross in a crosswalk, even a very well marked pedestrian dominant one with very clear signage.
Oye! I'm not reading that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
What's it to you? You hate for the sake of hating?
What's it to you? Are you truly interested in getting your point across?

What I see is a wall of words.

Is your point (whatever it might be) worth the effort of reading all that?

If you have a point, more people are likely to get it if you use fewer words!

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Now your really making my laugh, but it isn't a happy laugh its a sad almost mournful laugh. Apparently you haven't read some of the laws that are out there. For example trying reading some sections of the federal business tax code.
Tax laws??? We are talking about traffic laws.

(Anyway, it's common for people to come back with "but, but you are asking people to do something that's impossible". I'm making it clear that I'm not doing that.)

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 03:43 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 03:50 PM   #61
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Happens even with the traffic laws sometimes, just used the best example I could think of off hand. I do agree though you are correct that people do use the "impossible" excuse when in actuality they just didn't want too. ("Honest officer when I came around that blind corner that ^@&@% cyclist was like right in the middle of the &@%^@ road and it was impossible to stop in time," is what they say when the actual truth is more like the speed limit being 60-mph on the road with a 35-mph yellow blind corner caution sign and they went around the corner at 70-mph.)

If you don't want to read my posts (or anyone else's for that matter) no-one is forcing you too. But to go out of your way to harass someone for posting in a way that you wouldn't but that is still a perfectly legitimate post is something you went out of your way to do, did you expect not to get a response when you did so?
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 04:45 PM   #62
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Happens even with the traffic laws sometimes, just used the best example I could think of off hand. I do agree though you are correct that people do use the "impossible" excuse when in actuality they just didn't want too. ("Honest officer when I came around that blind corner that ^@&@% cyclist was like right in the middle of the &@%^@ road and it was impossible to stop in time," is what they say when the actual truth is more like the speed limit being 60-mph on the road with a 35-mph yellow blind corner caution sign and they went around the corner at 70-mph.)
I was referring to people making the "asking the impossible" argument in threads like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
But to go out of your way to harass someone...
"Harrass" is an odd choice of words. You replied to me. I'm saying that reply is too much effort to read.

I still have no idea why you brought up "jaywalking" (it doesn't seem relevant to anything in this thread).

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
...for posting in a way that you wouldn't but that is still a perfectly legitimate post is something you went out of your way to do, did you expect not to get a response when you did so?
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
If you don't want to read my posts (or anyone else's for that matter) no-one is forcing you too.
This is correct.

I'm also free to ask what the point was (especially after putting in the effort of reading your "jaywalking" treatice). The second treatise was a reply to me. I'm guessing you wanted me to read it but I'm saying it's too much work (and I'm free to say that it's too much work).

I'm going go out on a limb and guess that you want people to read your posts (and the more people, the better).

If that guess is correct, I'm suggesting that fewer words is going to work better for you.

As it is, you make your readers work too hard.

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 04:56 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:04 PM   #63
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Whatever his point, he needs to also know that the invisible crosswalk situation is not the same in every state.

In CA there are strong pedestrian crossing laws that indicate that if a ped gives enough notice, motorists should be prepared to stop just about anywhere... I don't believe that is the case in other states.
Whether or not the law makes this a requirement, it seems like common sense.

Even if a pedestrian doesn't have the "right of way", running into them is (at the least) going to be very inconvenient.
You assume "common sense" prevails. I make no such assumptions and will make posts that "cut off at the pass" anti-common-sense claims that should be "obvious" and "already apparent" even if it personally offends you. I am not required to abide by your personal feelings and never post in any way that might annoy you. I of course do have a responsibility too not go too far and violate the rules of the forum and make vicious profanity laced posts or stuff like that. But if you are personally offended that someone else dares not to make the same assumption that other people have common sense and it insults you that someone else makes a post which isn't even directed at you that states the obvious because the poster does not trust that the obvious doesn't need to be stated.
??? What?

I was replying to genec.

Anyway, that something is (or should be) common sense, is not assuming it "prevails". (I'm not going to try to understand the rest of it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Well the problem isn't on my end.
Okay...

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 05:10 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:10 PM   #64
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The last post on page-2 the post directly and immediately before my post on the top of page-3 is the post that brings "jaywalking" into the discussion and I was directly responding too. It is not one of your posts.

As to my "Well the problem isn't on my end." that you quoted, that is the last sentence of a short paragraph "the problem" being referred to is defined in the paragraph in question. On can of course separate it from the paragraph it was in and leave people to wonder what "the problem" I refer to is.

You are correct that I responded to you responding to genec, that is a legitimate criticism and I accept it.

Last edited by turbo1889; 10-21-13 at 05:15 PM.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:12 PM   #65
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
The last post on page-2 the post directly and immediately before my post on the top of page-3 is the post that brings "jaywalking" into the discussion and I was directly responding too. It is not one of your posts.
It's too long (to be brief). If you don't want people to comment about it, send a private message (to be brief).

Rollfast's mention of "jaywalking" was rather casual and not that coherent. It's hard to figure out why that inspired you to write so much about it. It was easy to ignore it.

Your original post didn't indicate that it was a response to Rollfast's casual mention of "jaywalkers".

Why didn't you say that earlier?

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 06:00 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:20 PM   #66
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
So your basically saying "keep your posts short or I will make disparaging comments about you making long posts" and "if you really want to make a long post then do it via. PM so I don't have to look at it because long posts offend me".

Or do I misunderstand you?
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:29 PM   #67
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
So your basically saying "keep your posts short or I will make disparaging comments about you making long posts" and "if you really want to make a long post then do it via. PM so I don't have to look at it because long posts offend me".

Or do I misunderstand you?
Whether you misunderstand or not, keep in mind that web readership tends to have short attention spans. While I have enjoyed some of your logic displayed in some of your posts, quite frankly most folks on the web will ignore your posts if they can't read them during a quick sip of coffee.

Your formatting has at least been very good, whereas the posts by some others is one huge paragraph. Might I suggest that you refrain from a wall of words until such time as it is really needed... otherwise consider that the twitterverse is only 140 characters, and some folks have a hard time with that much "content." (mostly politicians... who apparently also have other mental issues too)
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:32 PM   #68
Chicago Al 
Senior Member
 
Chicago Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, the leafy NW side
Bikes:
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
[edit for length]
Not enough info to tell, and I don't believe for a minute you shot that yourself, looks like a clip from a movie series or something.
Not much gets past you, does it, Turbo?
__________________
I never think I have hit hard, unless it rebounds.

- Dr Samuel Johnson
Chicago Al is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:35 PM   #69
zonatandem
Senior Member
 
zonatandem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: Custom Zona c/f tandem + Scott Plasma single
Posts: 10,858
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Have lived and bicycled in the Tucson area for over 35 years.
Have pedaled over 300,000+ miles (right amount of zeroes). Am now 80 years old and still ride 100+ miles a week.
Have had 3 bad encounters (one with a car, 2 with pickup trucks) and survived them all so far.
Each time the driver was ticketed; one had his license lifted for 3 months (drunk driving), another had his restricted license revoked.
Have cycled in 30+ states and Tucson is no worse (and often better) than other places.
Awareness counts, both for drivers and cyclists.
While Tucson has not yet gotten to the platinum status, has your town gotten even to the silver or gold status yet???
Tucson has achieved gold for 7 years in a row.
NO place is perfect for cyclists . . . but Tucson gets damn close!!!
Pedal on!
Rudy/zonatandem

row?
zonatandem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 05:39 PM   #70
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I suppose its partially a result of the fact that a page break just happened to come between post #50 of this thread that specifically mentions "jaywalking" and uses the word itself and the poster mentions a dislike for jaywalkers apparently tourists that are getting themselves killed and post #51 where I address what "jaywalking" is and is not and the misconceptions about it and how often any ped. with the guts to actually walk across the street in a crosswalk and have the gall to actually expect cars to stop for him/her gets called a jaywalker when they are not.

But that is what I was responding too and not responding to any of your posts prior to post #51 at the top of this page. So indeed I consider you to have "gone out of your way" to "harass" me for daring to post such a "long" (according to your definition) post which you claim was off topic regardless of the 8 or so previous posts before it drifting to that subject line and the post immediately before it which specifically brings the conversation around to "jaywalking" and uses the term itself with the typical "dumb tourists getting themselves killed" mentality (which to be fair to that poster I do not believe is his personal view but rather one he has seen and is reporting on.)

You obviously had issues with the message of my post #51 as evidenced and obviously by your continued posts since then don't like people stating the obvious so you chose to attack my "wall of words" "too long of posts" rather then dealing with the message itself. By your own admission you read that (#51 ) post. You didn't have too if you didn't want too and I would actually encourage people to skip over and just skim through such posts that have stuff "they already know and should be obvious".

I made the post is for those who don't know those "obvious" "common sense" things and have view quite to the contrary such as those aggressive vehicularists who believe that any pedestrian either crossing where there is not a crosswalk (at least not one that is painted where they can see) or even crossing in a crosswalk but not waiting for a gap in traffic but rather actually expecting vehicular traffic to actually stop for them to crosswalk are "jaywalkers". If you are not such a person then yes I encourage you to just skip over such posts, which I do make from time to time because I don't take such "obvious" "common sense" things for granite, too much experience to the contrary.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 06:00 PM   #71
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
@ genec

Yes, I know not everyone will read my longer posts, I know that and yes I'm pretty old school and not a twitter generation. I have absolutely no objections to those who do not desire to read my posts whether long or not. But someone who reads it and disagrees with the message and attacks the length of the message as a way of attacking the message ???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Al View Post
Not much gets past you, does it, Turbo?
Quite to the contrary, I don't know everything and even the things I think I know sometimes I find out are wrong. I'm not so open minded my brains fall out or am I close minded. Prove me wrong and I'll accept it.


-------------------------

I think the shortest (and least precise) way I can sum up my post #51 at the top of this page would be:

Quote:
Now that "jaywalking" has been brought into the discussion.

Let's be sure that it actually is "jaywalking" and not peds. legally crossing and your just mad because you have to stop for them so your calling them "jaywalkers" when they actually are not and your just being an aggressive vehicularists who doesn't respect peds.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 06:01 PM   #72
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
So your basically saying "keep your posts short or I will make disparaging comments about you making long posts" and "if you really want to make a long post then do it via. PM so I don't have to look at it because long posts offend me".

Or do I misunderstand you?
Yes, you misundersand my point entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Yes, I know not everyone will read my longer posts, I know that and yes I'm pretty old school and not a twitter generation. I have absolutely no objections to those who do not desire to read my posts whether long or not. But someone who reads it and disagrees with the message and attacks the length of the message as a way of attacking the message ???
Err. No. All separate criticisms.

1) You didn't indicate what you were responding to (it appeared out of left field).
2) There was a particular point I disagreeed with (and I made it clear what point that was).
3) The length was too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
Now that "jaywalking" has been brought into the discussion.

Let's be sure that it actually is "jaywalking" and not peds. legally crossing and your just mad because you have to stop for them so your calling them "jaywalkers" when they actually are not and your just being an aggressive vehicularists who doesn't respect peds.
Was that so hard? (It's still not clear that Rollfast actually "brought" jaywalking into the discussion.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
I suppose its partially a result of the fact that a page break just happened to come between post #50 of this thread that specifically mentions "jaywalking" and uses the word itself and the poster mentions a dislike for jaywalkers apparently tourists that are getting themselves killed and post #51 where I address what "jaywalking" is and is not and the misconceptions about it and how often any ped. with the guts to actually walk across the street in a crosswalk and have the gall to actually expect cars to stop for him/her gets called a jaywalker when they are not.

But that is what I was responding too and not responding to any of your posts prior to post #51 at the top of this page. So indeed I consider you to have "gone out of your way" to "harass" me for daring to post such a "long" (according to your definition) post which you claim was off topic regardless of the 8 or so previous posts before it drifting to that subject line and the post immediately before it which specifically brings the conversation around to "jaywalking" and uses the term itself with the typical "dumb tourists getting themselves killed" mentality (which to be fair to that poster I do not believe is his personal view but rather one he has seen and is reporting on.)

You obviously had issues with the message of my post #51 as evidenced and obviously by your continued posts since then don't like people stating the obvious so you chose to attack my "wall of words" "too long of posts" rather then dealing with the message itself. By your own admission you read that (#51 ) post. You didn't have too if you didn't want too and I would actually encourage people to skip over and just skim through such posts that have stuff "they already know and should be obvious".

I made the post is for those who don't know those "obvious" "common sense" things and have view quite to the contrary such as those aggressive vehicularists who believe that any pedestrian either crossing where there is not a crosswalk (at least not one that is painted where they can see) or even crossing in a crosswalk but not waiting for a gap in traffic but rather actually expecting vehicular traffic to actually stop for them to crosswalk are "jaywalkers". If you are not such a person then yes I encourage you to just skip over such posts, which I do make from time to time because I don't take such "obvious" "common sense" things for granite, too much experience to the contrary.
Oye!

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
I suppose its partially a result of the fact that a page break just happened to come between post #50 of this thread
No, it was completely a result of you not indicating what you were responding to (by quoting the post).

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 06:20 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 06:13 PM   #73
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
It's too long (to be brief). If you don't want people to comment about it, send a private message (to be brief).

Rollfast's mention of "jaywalking" was rather casual and not that coherent. It's hard to figure out why that inspired you to write so much about it. It was easy to ignore it.

Your original post didn't indicate that it was a response to Rollfast's casual mention of "jaywalkers".

Why didn't you say that earlier?

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 06:00 PM.
Second short paragraph of post #58 , my first post in response to you:

Quote:
. . .

As to the "Why?" of my post, go look back at the last eight posts at the bottom of page-2 before my post on the top of this page (page-3) and ask yourself which way the conversation of this thread was drifting (also a few other posts before that and the content of the original linked too article in the OP). Conversation was already headed in the direction so I decided to jump in with both feet and clear up some annoying points that usually come up, even among cyclists although usually much worse among "own the road" motorists.

. . .
You are correct that I did not mention Rollfast's post specifically. Perhaps I should have done so (but I wished to address the issue at hand not the specific poster since I did not believe he was expressing his own personal views but rather reporting on what he had seen), perhaps I should have also bolded that second short paragraph since it was the answer to your specific "Why?" question.

-------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Yes, you misundersand my point entirely.
Thank you for clarifying that I did misunderstand you.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 06:19 PM   #74
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Yes, you misundersand my point entirely.



Was that so hard? (It's still not clear that Rollfast actually "brought" jaywalking into the discussion.)



Oye!


No, it was completely a result of you not indicating what you were responding to (by quoting the post).

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 06:12 PM.
So I have to reference (even quote) the exact post and potentially be seen as attacking the poster in question when my post is immediately following (post-51 comes immediately after post-50) was instead specifically written to address the issue and not the poster? Sometimes I do choose to specifically address the specific poster by name and/or quote the specific post. Other times I choose only to address the issue itself, especially when I do not want to create a misunderstanding that could make the poster in question look like he is saying something as his own position when in fact that may not be the case (and probably isn't) and if it was it could get him into really hot water on this board. I'd rather take the flames myself then get an innocent flamed. Now as to non-innocents well I'm not so protective.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-13, 06:27 PM   #75
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Whether you misunderstand or not, keep in mind that web readership tends to have short attention spans. While I have enjoyed some of your logic displayed in some of your posts, quite frankly most folks on the web will ignore your posts if they can't read them during a quick sip of coffee.

Your formatting has at least been very good, whereas the posts by some others is one huge paragraph. Might I suggest that you refrain from a wall of words until such time as it is really needed... otherwise consider that the twitterverse is only 140 characters, and some folks have a hard time with that much "content." (mostly politicians... who apparently also have other mental issues too)
+1. Except that the "twitter" stuff is irrelevant.

Authors should take care not to squander readers' time. If they appear to be squandering readers' time, they should expect to be called out for it.

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-21-13 at 06:33 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:05 AM.