Advocacy & Safety - Legal Question

Can one of the forum members who is a lawyer please answer this question about this Missouri law:

THE LAW:

Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.

307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.


THE LINK:
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c300-399/3070000190.htm

THE QUESTION:
Ignoring the exceptions listed after the word "except", does the law mean that the cyclists required to "ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe" are those who operate
at less than the posted speed OR slower than the flow of traffic (i.e. to be further left they must be at or above posted speed AND at or above flow of traffic)
at less than the posted speed AND slower than the flow of traffic (i.e. to be further left they must be at or above posted speed OR at or above flow of traffic)A or B? Please indicate your occupation, particularly if you are a lawyer, when answering this question.

Thanks

There's no way they expect a vehicle to move significantly faster than the flow of traffic.

edit: wait, let me understand. Where's your confusion? The law says "or", and you wonder if it means "or" or "and"?

I say: if you're moving below the posted speed, you need to keep right. If you're moving slower than traffic, you need to keep right. If either of the above is not true, you can move left.

Hmmm, tough legal question there. Does that fact that the law says "or" answer it? :rolleyes: Traffic law is simply not that difficult. The law means what it says, nothing more or less.

I say: ...
What do you think the law says?

Hmmm, tough legal question there. Does that fact that the law says "or" answer it? :rolleyes: Traffic law is simply not that difficult. The law means what it says, nothing more or less. a or b?

Second-year law student here, so this isn't really "legal advice".

You're right, there is some ambiguity there. The statute says you have to do such-and-such if your speed is:
A) Slower than the posted speed limit;
OR
B) Slower than the flow of traffic.

But it doesn't tell you whether you have to fulfill both conditions or just one to ignore the rest of the statute.

One possible reading is that both A and B have to be fulfilled at the same time: you have to be as fast or faster than both the speed limit and traffic. That doesn't make sense to me; why should a cyclist be permitted to take the lane if traffic was fast, but refused the option when traffic was slow, and it would be safer for him to be in the lane than out of it? This idea goes against common sense.

A more sensible reading is that the "or" marks a situational divide: i.e., if there is not a flow of traffic, you must be traveling at or above the speed limit; if there is a flow of traffic, you must be travelling at that speed.

There's also a parallel on freeways: if you only travel at 45 mph, you are required to be in the far right lane. However, if all of the traffic is moving at 45 mph, you can be anywhere he wants on the freeway.

So I vote A. As for what the actual case law is, I can't tell you. One, I'm not an attorney, two, I'm not interested enough to look it up, three, this is pretty commonsense (most laws are, when you get down to it).

Second-year law student here, so this isn't really "legal advice".

You're right, there is some ambiguity there. The statute says you have to do such-and-such if your speed is:
A) Slower than the posted speed limit;
OR
B) Slower than the flow of traffic.

But it doesn't tell you whether you have to fulfill both conditions or just one to ignore the rest of the statute.

One possible reading is that both A and B have to be fulfilled at the same time: you have to be as fast or faster than both the speed limit and traffic. That doesn't make sense to me; why should a cyclist be permitted to take the lane if traffic was fast, but refused the option when traffic was slow, and it would be safer for him to be in the lane than out of it? This idea goes against common sense.

A more sensible reading is that the "or" marks a situational divide: i.e., if there is not a flow of traffic, you must be traveling at or above the speed limit; if there is a flow of traffic, you must be travelling at that speed.

There's also a parallel on freeways: if you only travel at 45 mph, you are required to be in the far right lane. However, if all of the traffic is moving at 45 mph, you can be anywhere he wants on the freeway.

That's my take on it. As for what the actual case law is, I can't tell you. One, I'm not an attorney, two, I'm not interested enough to look it up, three, this is pretty commonsense (most laws are, when you get down to it).
Any chance you could print out the question and ask one of your professors?

a or b?

Tell you what. You tell us what the "HH lesson of the day", preconceived notion is behind this thread and I will give you a straight answer. ;)

Any chance you could print out the question and ask one of your professors?

No.

No.

:roflmao:

One possible reading is that both A and B have to be fulfilled at the same time: you have to be as fast or faster than both the speed limit and traffic. That doesn't make sense to me; why should a cyclist be permitted to take the lane if traffic was fast, but refused the option when traffic was slow, and it would be safer for him to be in the lane than out of it? This idea goes against common sense.
I don't understand why you think "you have to be as fast or faster than both the speed limit and traffic" (which is what I think the law requires) means "a cyclist [would] be permitted to take the lane if traffic was fast, but refused the option when traffic was slow".

I think they meant exactly what they wrote:
As long as the cyclist is below the speed limit, they don't want him in the lane, even if traffic is currently slow for some reason and he can keep up with it (rationale: "after all, at any moment traffic might speed up again").
As long as the cyclist is below the speed of traffic, they don't him in the lane, even if he's going the speed limit (rationale: "if everyone's going 35 in the 25, we don't want some Lance wannabe goin' 30 mph slowin' us down").The Lance Armstrong exception, if you will, only applies to the cyclist who can ride the speed limit AND keep up with traffic.

It does not seem like common sense from our perspective as cyclists, but to some yahoo state legislator who teaches his kids to ride against traffic I can see how this would make perfect sense.

Tell you what. You tell us what the "HH lesson of the day", preconceived notion is behind this thread and I will give you a straight answer. ;) There are pages of my opinion on this question in the Forester/Hurst thread under VC. But, bottom line, I think the answer is a, I think it's reasonable to believe that is says and means exactly what they intended (see previous post), and I don't understand how anyone can parse the law to make it mean b. But I want to know what a lawyer will say.

but to some yahoo state legislator who teaches his kids to ride against traffic I can see how this would make perfect sense. So who specifically was the state legislator who drafted this?
Is he/she a yahoo?
Do you have an article talking about how this legislator teaches his kids to ride against traffic?

Or is this just a Helmet Head conclusion, decided before the facts?
You know, a lot of Midwesterners are pro-bicycling.
For example, did you know that the mayor of Columbia, Missouri (Darwin Hindman) is an avid transportational cyclist?

Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The explanation with more variables tends to be less likely than the one with fewer variables..... Your explanation requires a legislator who is a yahoo and dumber then us (despite the fact that he/she writes laws for a living) who would draft a law with the implicit intent of preventing a cyclist from taking the lane in 3mph traffic.

If you say you believe that tripe, I think that even the baby Jesus would vomit with enraged frustration.

mr. head: are you really this dense?

you think "OR" means "AND"?

no wonder you can break traffic laws and still consider yourself "Vehicular" :roflmao:

A more sensible reading is that the "or" marks a situational divide: i.e., if there is not a flow of traffic, you must be traveling at or above the speed limit; if there is a flow of traffic, you must be travelling at that speed.

I agree that's a more "sensible" interpretation, but it's not a more sensible reading, because I don't see how you can read this interpretation from the way the law is written.

This seems like the wishful thinking interpretation.

So who specifically was the state legislator who drafted this?
Is he/she a yahoo?
Do you have an article talking about how this legislator teaches his kids to ride against traffic?

Or is this just a Helmet Head conclusion, decided before the facts?
You know, a lot of Midwesterners are pro-bicycling.
For example, did you know that the mayor of Columbia, Missouri (Darwin Hindman) is an avid transportational cyclist?

Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The explanation with more variables tends to be less likely than the one with fewer variables..... Your explanation requires a legislator who is a yahoo and dumber then us (despite the fact that he/she writes laws for a living) who would draft a law with the implicit intent of preventing a cyclist from taking the lane in 3mph traffic.

If you say you believe that tripe, I think that even the baby Jesus would vomit with enraged frustration.
I seriously believe they don't want cyclists in the lane even if they can keep up with traffic unless that traffic is going at least the speed limit, because slow traffic can speed up at any time and they probably believe that a cyclist might get stuck "out there", and that's dangerous. I believe this because that's what the law means when I parse it in the only way it can be parsed. I suspect they didn't even consider 3 mph traffic.

I think you're a fool, mr. head, if that's how you 'parse' this clear legal statute.


"slower than the speed limit OR slower than the flow of traffic" allows a bicyclist to be in traffic when the traffic is slow.

the A&S sophist knows no bounds....

What do you think the law says?
That was my interpretation of the law posted. If you're moving at the posted speed, or at the speed of traffic, the phrase you bolded is not true.

That was my interpretation of the law posted. If you're moving at the posted speed, or at the speed of traffic, the phrase you bolded is not true. Really?

That's interesting. The phrase I bolded is:
any cyclist ... at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic... shall ride as near to the right ...
What if it is a shirt 'n shoes rule:
Anyone without a shirt or without shoes shall have to leave.Do you think that bolded phrase is true if you're wearing a shirt, or if you're wearing shoes?
So if you're wearing a shirt, but no shoes, you don't have to leave?

Or do you have to be wearing both a shirt and shoes for "without a shirt or without shoes" to be true?

What if the law said:


any cyclist ... at less than the posted speed and slower than the flow of traffic... shall ride as near to the right...

and you talk about reading comprehension issues!

denser than plutonium....

What if it is a shirt 'n shoes rule:
I shouldn't have phrased it so absolutely. I realize the boolean logic doesn't hold, but that's still my interpretation. It's silly to keep bikes out of the way of 3mph traffic. And I'm sure the law is not meant to punish anyone for traveling at the speed limit even if everyone else is going faster.

I shouldn't have phrased it so absolutely. I realize the boolean logic doesn't hold, but that's still my interpretation. It's silly to keep bikes out of the way of 3mph traffic. And I'm sure the law is not meant to punish anyone for traveling at the speed limit even if everyone else is going faster. You have more faith in their intent than I do.
You have more faith in their understanding the realities of traffic cycling than I do.

I have more faith in their ability to accurately codify their intent than you do.

I guess that's the difference.

Anyway, I still want to hear from a lawyer.

Fair enough, and good night!

but head, the law clearly states "OR" and not "AND".

what a basket case.

but head, the law clearly states "OR" and not "AND".

what a basket case.
What else would you expect from the VC's Tom Cruise?

but head, the law clearly states "OR" and not "AND".

what a basket case.
I often wonder how people like this manage to even stay alive.

*HH approaching a sign that reads: STOP AHEAD*

Stop ahead, hmmmmm *thoughtful pose* Where does "ahead" mean? Right here, or just ahead of the sign, or in front of the sign, and where should I stop? In the road or on the shoulder? Who will tell me when to start up again? How will I receive instruction??!!! *begins sweating* I have checked through all of Effective Cycling and the index and found NOTHING on STOP AHEAD signs! *begins panting, rolls down window for fresh air* O my, this is quite a quandry. Ok, I will stop and pull out my laptop to see if I can get a wifi signal to start a poll on BF to find what to do at this type of sign. Ok laptop out, booting windows, OMG No SIGNAL!!!!! O, John Forester! Why have thou forsaken me!

**HH spends his last few minutes on Earth composing a 50 page letter to his State Senator describing in painstaking detail the correct size, placement, color, shape and type font that should be used on future STOP AHEAD signs. He then promptly explodes**

:roflmao:
I often wonder how people like this manage to even stay alive.

*HH approaching a sign that reads: STOP AHEAD*

Stop ahead, hmmmmm *thoughtful pose* Where does "ahead" mean? Right here, or just ahead of the sign, or in front of the sign, and where should I stop? In the road or on the shoulder? Who will tell me when to start up again? How will I receive instruction??!!! *begins sweating* I have checked through all of Effective Cycling and the index and found NOTHING on STOP AHEAD signs! *begins panting, rolls down window for fresh air* O my, this is quite a quandry. Ok, I will stop and pull out my laptop to see if I can get a wifi signal to start a poll on BF to find what to do at this type of sign. Ok laptop out, booting windows, OMG No SIGNAL!!!!! O, John Forester! Why have thou forsaken me!

**HH spends his last few minutes on Earth composing a 50 page letter to his State Senator describing in painstaking detail the correct size, placement, color, shape and type font that should be used on future STOP AHEAD signs. He then promptly explodes**


:roflmao: :roflmao: Deputy: you are too funny. The sad thing about this whole mess is that the guy is probably loosing sleep over this. To quote Freddy Mercury "get on your bike and ride."

Tim

:roflmao:
What else would you expect from the VC's Tom Cruise?
haha
hahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
:roflmao:

...at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic ...

There is no abiguity in that staement.
If the speed limit is 45 and you can not ride 40-45mph then stick to the right. (A motorized bike should be able to keep up)
If the speed limit is 45 but traffic is only moving at 20mph and you can keep up, then get in the lane.

The rest of the quote you made is rather clear as well. If the right side of the road is too dangerous, then stay a little to the left for safety reasons. Or if there ware cars or other things in the way.

This isn't a legal question, but rather a common sense question, which seems to be lacking...

I'm not going to even bother answering and I'd advise any lawyers to run as far as they can away from this thread. I've gone around on legal wording with HH too many times and my experience in both law enforcement and actually writing the laws as an elected official don't matter - HH is always right, and he will beat you to death with a wall of wacky words until you just want to poke your eyes out, if you dare not accept his interpretation. Run, RUN, I TELL YOU!!!! :eek:

Really?

That's interesting. The phrase I bolded is:
any cyclist ... at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic... shall ride as near to the right ...
What if it is a shirt 'n shoes rule:
Anyone without a shirt or without shoes shall have to leave.Do you think that bolded phrase is true if you're wearing a shirt, or if you're wearing shoes?
So if you're wearing a shirt, but no shoes, you don't have to leave?

We are talking about a law. This comment is just a business preference. Personally, I've never seen shirt or shoes but have seen shirt and shoes. If you ever see the former, it's just someone not paying attention to what they are doing. And no, we don't need a poll on this. There are several examples of ignorant signes found at http://www.ilovebacon.com/ People make mistakes, no need to hold a congressional hearing over such issues.



Or do you have to be wearing both a shirt and shoes for "without a shirt or without shoes" to be true?

If you see a sign that says shirt or shoes then go ahead in all barefoot hippy style. They'll kindly escort you out and let you know that the wording on the sign is incorrect. What are you going to do, file a law suit? No. Just laugh it off because we all know what the sign really meant. And it is just a sign, not a law.



What if the law said:


any cyclist ... at less than the posted speed and slower than the flow of traffic... shall ride as near to the right...


What ifs and but fors here. No sign is going to say that. But if one did, once again there'd be no ambiguity there. That statement just means that the flow of traffic is going slower than the speed limit and you are going slower than the flow of traffic.

Why is this confusing to you?

There is no abiguity in that staement.
...
If the speed limit is 45 but traffic is only moving at 20mph and you can keep up, then get in the lane.


Say what? You're correct there's no ambiguity, but your conclusion is not. If the posted speed limit is 45, and traffic is moving 20, and you can ride at 20, then the original condition is TRUE. Thus you are required (using a _literal_ interpretation of the law) to ride to the right.

I don't think that's what they meant, but that's the logic:

if ((bike speed < speed limit) OR (bike speed < traffic speed)) {ride right**
else {take the lane**

translates to:

if (bike speed < speed limit) {ride right**
else if (bike speed < traffic speed) {ride right**
else {take the lane**

Yes. I'm an engineer.

Say what? You're correct there's no ambiguity, but your conclusion is not. If the posted speed limit is 45, and traffic is moving 20, and you can ride at 20, then the original condition is TRUE. Thus you are required (using a _literal_ interpretation of the law) to ride to the right.

I don't think that's what they meant, but that's the logic:

if ((bike speed < speed limit) OR (bike speed < traffic speed)) {ride right**
else {take the lane**

translates to:

if (bike speed < speed limit) {ride right**
else if (bike speed < traffic speed) {ride right**
else {take the lane**

Yes. I'm an engineer.

An engineer eh? I remember when that meant something. Now a days, the garbage man is a "sanitation engineer" and anyone who works on computers considers themsevles an engineer. Makes those of us with "Mechanical Engineering" degrees seem... well. What kind are you and what bearing does it hold here?

And I stand by my conclusion. Using programming logistics is not a good way to examine law. And I don't have to use my background in mechanical engineering to know what the statement is saying.

Geesh, mountains out of molehills here, thanks Helmet Head, you could make inserting a tampon seem like rocket science.

An engineer eh? I remember when that meant something. Now a days, the garbage man is a "sanitation engineer" and anyone who works on computers considers themsevles an engineer. Makes those of us with "Mechanical Engineering" degrees seem... well. What kind are you and what bearing does it hold here?

And I stand by my conclusion. Using programming logistics is not a good way to examine law. And I don't have to use my background in mechanical engineering to know what the statement is saying.

Geesh, mountains out of molehills here, thanks Helmet Head, you could make inserting a tampon seem like rocket science.

Logically, you are wrong. Make a Truth Table.

If you want to get in a pissing match about who wasted more time with 'book-learnin', I'm guessing you'll lose.

Logically, you are wrong. Make a Truth Table.
Logically of course. But we can't use flow logistics to read laws like that, never have been able to, never will. That's why we have a legal system to "interpet" these laws. And once again, I stand by my conclusion.



If you want to get in a pissing match about who wasted more time with 'book-learnin', I'm guessing you'll lose.
Must have struck a nerve with the computer programming statement eh? Who said anything about a pissing match about book learning? I was pointing out the fact that even though you can write a simple if-then statement doesn't mean it has jack to do with interpeting laws that a child understands.
And you have no clue about my education (book-learning), and it has no bearing on this discussion.
Some people are so touchy about things.

http://www.crazy-jokes.com/pictures/get-gas.jpg
"Eat Here and Get Gas"

OMG, what does this mean?
a.) That if I eat there the food will give me gas.
b.) That they serve gasoline as a food/drink.
c.) That I can get food there as well as fuel for my car.
d.) That I can not only eat there, but breath in oxygen (gas) at the same time.

Tipton, Indiana needs clarification on this staement as I have not been able to sleep for days pondering this. I'm sure it is the key to the universe, hell I'd even say this is greater than 42!!

Discuss.

...and it has no bearing on this discussion.

Then why did you ask?

Then why did you ask?
You made the statement at the end of your post "Yes, I am an engineer" as if it made any difference, and my question to you was non-verbatimly "what kind of engineer are you that has any bearing on this discussion"
You brought it up like some badge of honor and that flow control in computer programming really could be used to discuss this.
I'm saying it's a common sense issue. That, and the term "engineering" has been so raped, sodomized, and twisted by people in order to make their jobs sound more important that it is now just a generic term, the way The Smurfs used "smurf". And in using that term it degrades real engineering in the important aspects. It's like someone thinking Dr. Dre (the rapper) deserves the same respect as Dr. Rolestein (the surgeon that saved my wifes life) just because he woke up one day and said "hey, I'm going to call myself Doctor Dre from now on".

You made the statement at the end of your post "Yes, I am an engineer" as if it made any difference, and my question to you was non-verbatimly "what kind of engineer are you that has any bearing on this discussion"
You brought it up like some badge of honor and that flow control in computer programming really could be used to discuss this.
I'm saying it's a common sense issue. That, and the term "engineering" has been so raped, sodomized, and twisted by people in order to make their jobs sound more important that it is now just a generic term, the way The Smurfs used "smurf". And in using that term it degrades real engineering in the important aspects. It's like someone thinking Dr. Dre (the rapper) deserves the same respect as Dr. Rolestein (the surgeon that saved my wifes life) just because he woke up one day and said "hey, I'm going to call myself Doctor Dre from now on".

I brought it up as a joke, to reinforce the Nature of my Geekitude: "I'm explaining something on a bike forum using pseudocode; yes, I'm a nerd."

Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry it made you nostalic for the Good Ole' Days when Men were Men, and Engineers built bridges. But rest easy, I said I was an engineer, not a computer scientist. :D

Back to the point:

The use of computer logic is an excellent way to demonstrate the literal meaning of the statement. You must admit it is easier to read than Mr. Head's verbage. I agree that it's probably not what the lawmakers meant, but if you went into court, you would be forced to argue that 'OR' means 'AND', and the outcome of that argument is...ambiguous. Just ask those in Portland about brakes.

Should we argue next about what 'is' means?

There are pages of my opinion on this question in the Forester/Hurst thread under VC. But, bottom line, I think the answer is a, I think it's reasonable to believe that is says and means exactly what they intended (see previous post), and I don't understand how anyone can parse the law to make it mean b. But I want to know what a lawyer will say.


So can we all just shoose A, so that this thread may disappear in less than 12 pages.

Please indicate your occupation, particularly if you are a lawyer, when answering this question.

Thanks

One poster answers the request and he gets ripped for it. :rolleyes:

I brought it up as a joke, to reinforce the Nature of my Geekitude: "I'm explaining something on a bike forum using pseudocode; yes, I'm a nerd."
Nothing more, nothing less.

Undestood, and sorry for getting your feathers in a ruffle.



I'm sorry it made you nostalic for the Good Ole' Days when Men were Men, and Engineers built bridges. But rest easy, I said I was an engineer, not a computer scientist. :D

Not a problem, it is just a pet peeve of mine. I work for the Debian project and we have thousands of volunteers who claim they are engineers just because they read the Ansi C book from 30 years ago. They don't even understand what engineering really is, and writing this months implementation of an SQL enabled mp3 playlist browser written in perl is NOT engineering.



Back to the point:
The use of computer logic is an excellent way to demonstrate the literal meaning of the statement. You must admit it is easier to read than Mr. Head's verbage. I agree that it's probably not what the lawmakers meant, but if you went into court, you would be forced to argue that 'OR' means 'AND', and the outcome of that argument is...ambiguous. Just ask those in Portland about brakes.

I don't think you would be forced to argue anything when pertaining to this statement. We've already had one law enforcement officer post in this thread about what this law means, and I'm sure his opinion is shared by the rest of them... hopefully. And if the guys who would write the infraction read it the way the "rest" of us do, then we can dismiss HH verbage all together.



Should we argue next about what 'is' means?
Don't get hime started on that one :D

Not a problem, it is just a pet peeve of mine. I work for the Debian project and we have thousands of volunteers who claim they are engineers just because they read the Ansi C book from 30 years ago. They don't even understand what engineering really is, and writing this months implementation of an SQL enabled mp3 playlist browser written in perl is NOT engineering.


Wait, wait, wait! After all that it turns out you're in software?!?!?!?!? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hmmm.....you're good. :D

There are pages of my opinion on this question in the Forester/Hurst thread under VC. But, bottom line, I think the answer is a, I think it's reasonable to believe that is says and means exactly what they intended (see previous post), and I don't understand how anyone can parse the law to make it mean b. But I want to know what a lawyer will say.
So go to a lawyer's office and pay the cost. And if he/she gives you an answer you don't like pay a different lawyer to give you a different opinion more to your liking; and give everyone else a break!

Wait, wait, wait! After all that it turns out you're in software?!?!?!?!? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hmmm.....you're good. :D

Heh, no. In all actuality I am a laser programmer. I program robotics that are equipped with CO2/HE lasers. It's a fancy way of saying I work with machines. Though that's just one aspect of the job. It's quite physical at times.
I only volunteer for Debian, and have a history of work with FreeBSD and other Open Source groups/applications. That's where my "ughness" comes from computer programming being called engineering.

Mr. Head's interpretation seems to be obviously correct.

It does indeed say "or", but we are arguing about the negation.

Check it, check it: (conditions are paraphrased)
A: Cyclist is riding below the speed limit
B: Cyclist is riding below the speed of traffic
C: Cyclist must ride to the right

Law says: If A or B, then C

Using some fancy boolean crap, If (not C), then (not A) and (not B).
More clearly: If a cyclist is not riding to the right, then s/he must neither be riding below the speed limit, nor the speed of traffic.

I can't see how any other conclusion can reasonably be reached.

Not that I wouldn't do it anyway.

Edit: I see another programmer type beat me to it. Well +0x0001 to that.

What makes a lawyer turn?

What makes a lawyer turn?

Sirens.

What makes a lawyer turn?

An ambulance going the opposite way?

ZING@!#$

An ambulance going the opposite way?

ZING@!#$

Ha! Beat ya' to it. :D

Ha! Beat ya' to it. :D
I'm sure HH will come up with some philosophical or engineering hoodoo BS about their center of gravity and magnetic fields associated with the lunar phases and alignment with Jupiter's moons. Until he gets the Right answer.