Blue Order
02-25-08, 05:35 PM
Please Do Not Run Me Over (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/25/a-year-before-the-tragedy-austin-miller-wrote-please-do-not-run-me-over/)
View Full Version : Please Do Not Run Me Over
-=£em in Pa=-
02-25-08, 05:43 PM
wow.
If he was a vicitim of a predator there would be outrage and
pols would be scrambling to come up with a Jessica/Amber
type law with 'Austin' in it. Since it was 'just' a bicycler, nothing
like this will happen. Our society has become sooooo insanely car-warped
you can literally do anything in the name of driving.
If he was a vicitim of a predator there would be outrage and
pols would be scrambling to come up with a Jessica/Amber
type law with 'Austin' in it. Since it was 'just' a bicycler, nothing
like this will happen. Our society has become sooooo insanely car-warped
you can literally do anything in the name of driving.
Helmet Head
02-25-08, 06:56 PM
"Well for starters, why don’t all major roads have bike paths?"
...Instead of complaining about having to share a road with a biker, why not ban together to get bike paths made standard, so that they can stay out of your way. --Austin Miller
Did Austin Miller mean bike lanes? Side paths? Either?
In any case, he understood their supposed purpose: "so that [bicyclists] can stay out of [motorists'] way".
Ironically, some people are wondering whether the county should be sued for... (get this) ... for (essentially) creating a bike path along a road and thus contributing to his death! Link. (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/13/bikes-on-sidewalks-could-washington-county-be-held-liable-in-tragedy/)The recent tragedy in Beaverton leaves many unanswered questions.
Among them is whether or not Washington County contributed to a dangerous situation by designating a sidewalk as the bike route
...
Before being struck by the #52 TriMet bus, 15 year-old Austin Miller was likely riding in the bike lane on SW Murray Blvd., just south of of Tualatin Valley Highway. Near the middle of that block, the bike lane ends and a sign directed Miller up onto a sidewalk adjacent to Murray Blvd.
While likely intended to increase safety for bicycle riders, sidewalk bikeways are anything but safe.
...
“It’s past time to do something,” said Ballard, “this kid was only 15 years old, and he was just doing what he was supposed to be doing.”
Tragic irony.
...Instead of complaining about having to share a road with a biker, why not ban together to get bike paths made standard, so that they can stay out of your way. --Austin Miller
Did Austin Miller mean bike lanes? Side paths? Either?
In any case, he understood their supposed purpose: "so that [bicyclists] can stay out of [motorists'] way".
Ironically, some people are wondering whether the county should be sued for... (get this) ... for (essentially) creating a bike path along a road and thus contributing to his death! Link. (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/13/bikes-on-sidewalks-could-washington-county-be-held-liable-in-tragedy/)The recent tragedy in Beaverton leaves many unanswered questions.
Among them is whether or not Washington County contributed to a dangerous situation by designating a sidewalk as the bike route
...
Before being struck by the #52 TriMet bus, 15 year-old Austin Miller was likely riding in the bike lane on SW Murray Blvd., just south of of Tualatin Valley Highway. Near the middle of that block, the bike lane ends and a sign directed Miller up onto a sidewalk adjacent to Murray Blvd.
While likely intended to increase safety for bicycle riders, sidewalk bikeways are anything but safe.
...
“It’s past time to do something,” said Ballard, “this kid was only 15 years old, and he was just doing what he was supposed to be doing.”
Tragic irony.
Mos6502
02-25-08, 07:15 PM
I think the issue with the accident is more that the bus stop was located on the inside of the bike lane - so that buses would have to cross over and through the bike lane to get to the stop. Anybody can see that that is a bad idea.
It is rather saddening reading that.
It is rather saddening reading that.
Cyclaholic
02-26-08, 06:00 AM
"Well for starters, why don’t all major roads have bike paths?"
...Instead of complaining about having to share a road with a biker, why not ban together to get bike paths made standard, so that they can stay out of your way. --Austin Miller
Did Austin Miller mean bike lanes? Side paths? Either?
In any case, he understood their supposed purpose: "so that [bicyclists] can stay out of [motorists'] way".
Maybe Austin Miller mean bike paths, since that's what Austin Miller actually said?
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it. Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
...Instead of complaining about having to share a road with a biker, why not ban together to get bike paths made standard, so that they can stay out of your way. --Austin Miller
Did Austin Miller mean bike lanes? Side paths? Either?
In any case, he understood their supposed purpose: "so that [bicyclists] can stay out of [motorists'] way".
Maybe Austin Miller mean bike paths, since that's what Austin Miller actually said?
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it. Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
andrelam
02-26-08, 09:50 AM
Maybe Austin Miller mean bike paths, since that's what Austin Miller actually said?
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it. Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
I totally agree. I know how to ride in traffic, but that doesn't mean that I actually enjoy getting buzzed by cars that are in a hurry... just so they can get in line at a Tim Hortons to buy their precious cup of coffee. When I have to make a side trip during the day to one of our other offices I have a choise of two routes:
The 1st route takes me along busy road which at some parts has less than 24" of shoulder before dropping into a 5 ft ditch. This road is actually rated as descent on the Greater Buffalo bike map, and certainly is very usable, but fun it is not.
The 2nd route is a bike path that runs pretty much long side the other road. The big difference is that I have a 10 ft bike path that follows one of the larger canals in town and is pretty much a park like setting the whole way. You will see birds and other wild life along the way and for large parts can go without hearing cars.
Which route do I prefer... the scenic bike path. after a pleasant ride, I get to the other office mentally refreshed. I can deal with driving in traffic, but given an option, I'll take the beautiful ride any day. The only limitation is that there is a 15 mph speed limit... I have never seen a cop checking speed on the bike path so I don't worry about doing 15 to 17 MPH most of the time. This may not work for the hard core road cyclists, but I am out there enjoying myself.
Happy safe riding,
André
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it. Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
I totally agree. I know how to ride in traffic, but that doesn't mean that I actually enjoy getting buzzed by cars that are in a hurry... just so they can get in line at a Tim Hortons to buy their precious cup of coffee. When I have to make a side trip during the day to one of our other offices I have a choise of two routes:
The 1st route takes me along busy road which at some parts has less than 24" of shoulder before dropping into a 5 ft ditch. This road is actually rated as descent on the Greater Buffalo bike map, and certainly is very usable, but fun it is not.
The 2nd route is a bike path that runs pretty much long side the other road. The big difference is that I have a 10 ft bike path that follows one of the larger canals in town and is pretty much a park like setting the whole way. You will see birds and other wild life along the way and for large parts can go without hearing cars.
Which route do I prefer... the scenic bike path. after a pleasant ride, I get to the other office mentally refreshed. I can deal with driving in traffic, but given an option, I'll take the beautiful ride any day. The only limitation is that there is a 15 mph speed limit... I have never seen a cop checking speed on the bike path so I don't worry about doing 15 to 17 MPH most of the time. This may not work for the hard core road cyclists, but I am out there enjoying myself.
Happy safe riding,
André
genec
02-26-08, 10:43 AM
Maybe Austin Miller mean bike paths, since that's what Austin Miller actually said?
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it. Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
Yeah but sadly those vehicular cycling types tend to lump the good in with the bad and talk about "bikeways" in general... not conceding that indeed there is a vast difference between a bike lane and a bike path.
and "andrelam" I fully agree with you... being able to "ride in traffic, doesn't mean that I actually enjoy getting buzzed by cars..." "I can deal with driving in traffic, but given an option, I'll take the beautiful [path] ride any day. "
Amen.
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it. Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
Yeah but sadly those vehicular cycling types tend to lump the good in with the bad and talk about "bikeways" in general... not conceding that indeed there is a vast difference between a bike lane and a bike path.
and "andrelam" I fully agree with you... being able to "ride in traffic, doesn't mean that I actually enjoy getting buzzed by cars..." "I can deal with driving in traffic, but given an option, I'll take the beautiful [path] ride any day. "
Amen.
Helmet Head
02-26-08, 11:27 AM
I know how to ride in traffic, but that doesn't mean that I actually enjoy getting buzzed by cars that are in a hurry...
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars. Here's one quick explanation from a recent post in another thread:
All you (OP) need to do to find the ideal lane position in the conditions you describe, is to keep moving further into the lane until cars stop buzzing you. It'll only take one or two rides to find the ideal spot for any particular bit. A week, tops. All that fancy waving and mirrors aren't necessary, but can be useful.
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars. Here's one quick explanation from a recent post in another thread:
All you (OP) need to do to find the ideal lane position in the conditions you describe, is to keep moving further into the lane until cars stop buzzing you. It'll only take one or two rides to find the ideal spot for any particular bit. A week, tops. All that fancy waving and mirrors aren't necessary, but can be useful.
Helmet Head
02-26-08, 11:37 AM
Maybe Austin Miller mean bike paths, since that's what Austin Miller actually said?
Maybe. But a lot of people, including many cyclists, use the term "bike paths" when they mean "bike lane". Anyway, if he meant "bike path", then he meant side path, because that's what a bike path along a road is, and, ironically, exactly what he was apparently riding upon. The problem with all bike paths, but particularly sidepaths because for them it's much more frequent, is that that they must start and end, and cross places with motor traffic. Apparently, that's what some are claiming caused his death.
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it.
You'll take it merely if that's the intent? What if the reality is the exact opposite of the intended purpose - that the sidepath makes the cyclist less able to "stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers"? Are you still going to take that?
Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
That segregated facility did exist and is arguably a significant contributory factor leading to his death. It's probably why we are talking about his tragic death. Did you even read the discussion I posted? HERE (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/13/bikes-on-sidewalks-could-washington-county-be-held-liable-in-tragedy/) it is again.
Maybe. But a lot of people, including many cyclists, use the term "bike paths" when they mean "bike lane". Anyway, if he meant "bike path", then he meant side path, because that's what a bike path along a road is, and, ironically, exactly what he was apparently riding upon. The problem with all bike paths, but particularly sidepaths because for them it's much more frequent, is that that they must start and end, and cross places with motor traffic. Apparently, that's what some are claiming caused his death.
...and if the intended purpose of a bike path is to be able to stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers such as the ones that cause the deaths of cyclists then I'll take it.
You'll take it merely if that's the intent? What if the reality is the exact opposite of the intended purpose - that the sidepath makes the cyclist less able to "stay out of the way of ill-trained, distracted, under-policed, selfish, or drunk drivers"? Are you still going to take that?
Judging by his article so would have Austin, and if that segregated facility existed I very much doubt that we would be talking about his tragic death.
That segregated facility did exist and is arguably a significant contributory factor leading to his death. It's probably why we are talking about his tragic death. Did you even read the discussion I posted? HERE (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/13/bikes-on-sidewalks-could-washington-county-be-held-liable-in-tragedy/) it is again.
StrangeWill
02-26-08, 01:48 PM
I'm going to petition to have Helmut's name changed to "I argue with everyone because I'm an advocate".
Helmet Head
02-26-08, 01:52 PM
I'm going to petition to have Helmut's name changed to "I argue with everyone because I'm an advocate".
No I don't.
;)
No I don't.
;)
Blue Order
02-26-08, 02:10 PM
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars. ...:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:
Blue Order
02-26-08, 02:12 PM
I'm going to petition to have Helmut's name changed to "I argue with everyone because I'm an advocate".I'd vote for "I drank the Kool-Aid." :lol:
StrangeWill
02-26-08, 06:13 PM
No I don't.
;)
*shakes fist in anger*
;)
*shakes fist in anger*
Tude
02-27-08, 01:06 AM
That is so sad. :(
Bike lanes or not. Too sad, he was a bicyclist who wrote like he knew how to ride correctly on the road et al. A young verbal activist put down. :(
Bike lanes or not. Too sad, he was a bicyclist who wrote like he knew how to ride correctly on the road et al. A young verbal activist put down. :(
Helmet Head
02-27-08, 02:07 PM
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars. ...
:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.
And knowing how to do it won't totally eliminate getting buzzed, but it will all but eliminate it.
It still happens to me once in a while. So what?
:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.
And knowing how to do it won't totally eliminate getting buzzed, but it will all but eliminate it.
It still happens to me once in a while. So what?
Blue Order
02-27-08, 02:35 PM
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.How about on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share, with a 25 MPH speed limit, and no bike lane?
Is it OK to take the lane there, Professor?
:rolleyes:
And knowing how to do it won't totally eliminate getting buzzed, but it will all but eliminate it.
It still happens to me once in a while. So what?So as usual, you offer your "expert advice" when you don't even know what you're talking about.
If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?
Is it OK to take the lane there, Professor?
:rolleyes:
And knowing how to do it won't totally eliminate getting buzzed, but it will all but eliminate it.
It still happens to me once in a while. So what?So as usual, you offer your "expert advice" when you don't even know what you're talking about.
If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?
Dahon.Steve
02-27-08, 08:42 PM
[/INDENT]Tragic irony.
From what I understood, he was riding on a sidewalk that dumped him into a bus stop.
How sad he practically predicted his own death. The boy's confort with riding on the sidwalk would end his life. I like this part of his essay.
>>>And yet, more and more people found an easy escape to the time consuming, expensive and difficult task of biking, which was to buy cars which pollute their environment, loose the aspect of exercise all together and spend over four times as much on gas. I remained constant. I did not succumb to the new, hip trend of car buying. I eyed no sedan dealership, no gas station-only bike galleries and shops. It never occurred to me that I might get more pleasure out of having less money and more weight for the simple exerting exercise of peddling five miles to school and back.<<<<
From what I understood, he was riding on a sidewalk that dumped him into a bus stop.
How sad he practically predicted his own death. The boy's confort with riding on the sidwalk would end his life. I like this part of his essay.
>>>And yet, more and more people found an easy escape to the time consuming, expensive and difficult task of biking, which was to buy cars which pollute their environment, loose the aspect of exercise all together and spend over four times as much on gas. I remained constant. I did not succumb to the new, hip trend of car buying. I eyed no sedan dealership, no gas station-only bike galleries and shops. It never occurred to me that I might get more pleasure out of having less money and more weight for the simple exerting exercise of peddling five miles to school and back.<<<<
Dahon.Steve
02-27-08, 09:11 PM
I read they removed the Ghost bike dedicated for Austin. They should put it back up because these bikes remind motorist that we are on the road and may save another life. I'm sure Austin would want that ghost bike placed on that spot.
donnamb
02-27-08, 11:13 PM
I read they removed the Ghost bike dedicated for Austin. They should put it back up because these bikes remind motorist that we are on the road and may save another life. I'm sure Austin would want that ghost bike placed on that spot.
His family only wanted it up for a short period of time. Their wishes are being respected.
His family only wanted it up for a short period of time. Their wishes are being respected.
Helmet Head
03-02-08, 09:35 AM
How about on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share, with a 25 MPH speed limit, and no bike lane?
Is it OK to take the lane there, Professor?
Of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?
And if the lanes are too narrow to safely share, there is no room for bike lanes anyway, so what's your point?
So as usual, you offer your "expert advice" when you don't even know what you're talking about.
If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?
As if you declaring I don't know what I'm talking about makes it so. Have you figured out why the argument against bike lanes does not apply to HOV lanes yet?
Is it OK to take the lane there, Professor?
Of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?
And if the lanes are too narrow to safely share, there is no room for bike lanes anyway, so what's your point?
So as usual, you offer your "expert advice" when you don't even know what you're talking about.
If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?
As if you declaring I don't know what I'm talking about makes it so. Have you figured out why the argument against bike lanes does not apply to HOV lanes yet?
tomg
03-02-08, 05:48 PM
new jersey dot for 2008 has offered $3 million dollars total (to be divided by counties) for the construction of 1000 miles of bicycle paths that are separated (segregated) from motorized vehicles. the construction of bike lanes here have been sparse, if not omitted.
i like the idea of intellegently planned manditory inclusion of bike lanes in road planning-resurfacing. california is years ahead of nj in this aspect, it seems! it just makes more $ence (costs less) too!
i like the idea of intellegently planned manditory inclusion of bike lanes in road planning-resurfacing. california is years ahead of nj in this aspect, it seems! it just makes more $ence (costs less) too!
Blue Order
03-02-08, 06:34 PM
Of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?It should be obvious to anybody reading the exchange.
Except you. :lol:
As if you declaring I don't know what I'm talking about makes it so.No, the fact that you're offering your "advice" when it's not applicable to the situation-- indeed, when it's patently obvious that you don't even know what the situation was-- makes it so.
Except you. :lol:
As if you declaring I don't know what I'm talking about makes it so.No, the fact that you're offering your "advice" when it's not applicable to the situation-- indeed, when it's patently obvious that you don't even know what the situation was-- makes it so.
Helmet Head
03-03-08, 11:15 AM
It should be obvious to anybody reading the exchange.
Except you. :lol:
Well, then, it should be easy enough to explain, even I'm the idiot you seem to think I am.
No, the fact that you're offering your "advice" when it's not applicable to the situation-- indeed, when it's patently obvious that you don't even know what the situation was-- makes it so.
What are you talking about?
What advice am I offering that is not applicable to what situation? Are you suggesting that my advice to learn how to use lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars does not apply in the situation you were thinking of... narrow lanes?
Have you figured out why the argument against bike lanes does not apply to HOV lanes yet?
Except you. :lol:
Well, then, it should be easy enough to explain, even I'm the idiot you seem to think I am.
No, the fact that you're offering your "advice" when it's not applicable to the situation-- indeed, when it's patently obvious that you don't even know what the situation was-- makes it so.
What are you talking about?
What advice am I offering that is not applicable to what situation? Are you suggesting that my advice to learn how to use lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars does not apply in the situation you were thinking of... narrow lanes?
Have you figured out why the argument against bike lanes does not apply to HOV lanes yet?
Blue Order
03-03-08, 03:50 PM
Well, then, it should be easy enough to explain, even I'm the idiot you seem to think I am.*sigh*
OK, if I must…. Let’s go through it all once again. You said, in response to another poster:
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars. On the heels of this post, we had the following exchange:
:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.
How about on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share, with a 25 MPH speed limit, and no bike lane?
Is it OK to take the lane there, Professor?
:rolleyes:
And knowing how to do it won't totally eliminate getting buzzed, but it will all but eliminate it. It still happens to me once in a while. So what?
So as usual, you offer your "expert advice" when you don't even know what you're talking about.
If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?
Of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?
It should be obvious to anybody reading the exchange.
Except you. :lol:
Now, you probably still don’t have a clue, so let me explain it. You said that knowing how to use lateral lane positioning will “all but eliminate” getting buzzed. I rebutted this point by stating that it hasn’t stopped me from getting buzzed…by drivers who are PISSED that I’m taking the lane.
Without knowing any of the facts involved, you launched into your “expert” analysis and advice regarding situations you knew NOTHING about—as is typical of you. That’s why I said—and still maintain—that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You weren’t there, you didn't witness what happened, you didn’t have a CLUE about what the particular facts (lane width, presence or absence of bike lanes, presence or absence of a door zone, speed limit, presence of free lanes, etc.) of these buzzings were, and yet you STILL offered an analysis of what you think I did wrong.
If it seems to you that I think you’re an idiot, it’s because you act like an idiot. When you stop making your “expert” analyses of situations you don’t know the FIRST thing about, it will be less likely that people will appear to think that about you.
Not that I expect that you will “get it” after reading this.
OK, if I must…. Let’s go through it all once again. You said, in response to another poster:
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars. On the heels of this post, we had the following exchange:
:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.
How about on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share, with a 25 MPH speed limit, and no bike lane?
Is it OK to take the lane there, Professor?
:rolleyes:
And knowing how to do it won't totally eliminate getting buzzed, but it will all but eliminate it. It still happens to me once in a while. So what?
So as usual, you offer your "expert advice" when you don't even know what you're talking about.
If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?
Of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?
It should be obvious to anybody reading the exchange.
Except you. :lol:
Now, you probably still don’t have a clue, so let me explain it. You said that knowing how to use lateral lane positioning will “all but eliminate” getting buzzed. I rebutted this point by stating that it hasn’t stopped me from getting buzzed…by drivers who are PISSED that I’m taking the lane.
Without knowing any of the facts involved, you launched into your “expert” analysis and advice regarding situations you knew NOTHING about—as is typical of you. That’s why I said—and still maintain—that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You weren’t there, you didn't witness what happened, you didn’t have a CLUE about what the particular facts (lane width, presence or absence of bike lanes, presence or absence of a door zone, speed limit, presence of free lanes, etc.) of these buzzings were, and yet you STILL offered an analysis of what you think I did wrong.
If it seems to you that I think you’re an idiot, it’s because you act like an idiot. When you stop making your “expert” analyses of situations you don’t know the FIRST thing about, it will be less likely that people will appear to think that about you.
Not that I expect that you will “get it” after reading this.
Helmet Head
03-03-08, 04:05 PM
Now, you probably still don’t have a clue, so let me explain it. You said that knowing how to use lateral lane positioning will “all but eliminate” getting buzzed. I rebutted this point by stating that it hasn’t stopped me from getting buzzed…by drivers who are PISSED that I’m taking the lane.
You're right, I still don't get it. How does the fact that taking the lane in narrow lanes doesn't stop you from getting buzzed refute my point that learning how, when and where to use lateral lane position will all but eliminate buzzing?
Without knowing any of the facts involved, you launched into your “expert” analysis and advice regarding situations you knew NOTHING about—as is typical of you.
There are many facts that I didn't know about. But what in my advice did not apply, much less did not apply due to my lack of not knowing relevant facts involved?
That’s why I said—and still maintain—that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You weren’t there, you didn't witness what happened, you didn’t have a CLUE about what the particular facts (lane width, presence or absence of bike lanes, presence or absence of a door zone, speed limit, presence of free lanes, etc.) of these buzzings were, and yet you STILL offered an analysis of what you think I did wrong.
Huh? I didn't say anything about what you did wrong. I have no idea what you did, so how could I evaluate it as being right or wrong? Now I see why you got so upset, but I still don't see what I wrote that caused you to think I was commenting on your particular incident, or saying that you in particular did something wrong.
Once again an apparent disagreement that takes up a bunch of posts seems to be ultimately based on some misunderstanding (at least in this case we seem to be making progress on identifying that there is a misunderstanding, and where it is). I realize I must be doing something to cause this since I'm so often involved in these cases. So, what did I write, which post #, caused you to think I was saying you did something wrong in some particular incident. Heck, I didn't even know you were talking about an actual incident. How was I supposed to know that? What did you write, in what post number, that should have conveyed that to me?
If it seems to you that I think you’re an idiot, it’s because you act like an idiot. When you stop making your “expert” analyses of situations you don’t know the FIRST thing about, it will be less likely that people will appear to think that about you.
Not that I expect that you will “get it” after reading this.
Maybe when you stop assuming that I'm giving analysis of a particular situation when I'm not, then you'll stop thinking I'm an idiot, but I doubt it.
By the way, in the unlikely event that you would like to know the analysis of your particular incident from someone who you apparently think is an idiot, I would be happy to provide it. But you need to tell me the details first.
You're right, I still don't get it. How does the fact that taking the lane in narrow lanes doesn't stop you from getting buzzed refute my point that learning how, when and where to use lateral lane position will all but eliminate buzzing?
Without knowing any of the facts involved, you launched into your “expert” analysis and advice regarding situations you knew NOTHING about—as is typical of you.
There are many facts that I didn't know about. But what in my advice did not apply, much less did not apply due to my lack of not knowing relevant facts involved?
That’s why I said—and still maintain—that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You weren’t there, you didn't witness what happened, you didn’t have a CLUE about what the particular facts (lane width, presence or absence of bike lanes, presence or absence of a door zone, speed limit, presence of free lanes, etc.) of these buzzings were, and yet you STILL offered an analysis of what you think I did wrong.
Huh? I didn't say anything about what you did wrong. I have no idea what you did, so how could I evaluate it as being right or wrong? Now I see why you got so upset, but I still don't see what I wrote that caused you to think I was commenting on your particular incident, or saying that you in particular did something wrong.
Once again an apparent disagreement that takes up a bunch of posts seems to be ultimately based on some misunderstanding (at least in this case we seem to be making progress on identifying that there is a misunderstanding, and where it is). I realize I must be doing something to cause this since I'm so often involved in these cases. So, what did I write, which post #, caused you to think I was saying you did something wrong in some particular incident. Heck, I didn't even know you were talking about an actual incident. How was I supposed to know that? What did you write, in what post number, that should have conveyed that to me?
If it seems to you that I think you’re an idiot, it’s because you act like an idiot. When you stop making your “expert” analyses of situations you don’t know the FIRST thing about, it will be less likely that people will appear to think that about you.
Not that I expect that you will “get it” after reading this.
Maybe when you stop assuming that I'm giving analysis of a particular situation when I'm not, then you'll stop thinking I'm an idiot, but I doubt it.
By the way, in the unlikely event that you would like to know the analysis of your particular incident from someone who you apparently think is an idiot, I would be happy to provide it. But you need to tell me the details first.
Blue Order
03-04-08, 01:32 PM
You're right, I still don't get it. How does the fact that taking the lane in narrow lanes doesn't stop you from getting buzzed refute my point that learning how, when and where to use lateral lane position will all but eliminate buzzing?
There are many facts that I didn't know about. But what in my advice did not apply, much less did not apply due to my lack of not knowing relevant facts involved?Try paying attention this time.
Once more, you said "knowing how to ride in traffic means knowing how to use lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed."
I said "Taking the lane hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed."
Without knowing a SINGLE fact about any of the situations where I've been buzzed, you said "learning how to use lateral lane position means not just having the balls to do it, it also means knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too."
This statement implies that I was using lateral lane position at the wrong time and place...which is typical of you. Without knowing ANYTHING about the situations when I've been buzzed, you blame me, the cyclist, for not riding "correctly," and implicitly absolve the driver. You've done it time after time after time in A&S-- somebody posts that a cyclist was killed, and immediately, without knowing any of the facts involved, you jump in with voluminous posts blaming the cyclist, while turning a blind eye towards the driver. When somebody inevitably points out that you're assuming the cyclist did something wrong, you start inventing "facts" to support your favorite hypothesis ("If the cyclist did X, then it's reasonable to conclude that..."). Your predilection for blaming the cyclist in fatal crashes is why the mods finally made a sticky "Cyclist Memorial" thread-- to keep the posts free from your speculative cyclist-blaming in every "cyclist down" thread. And as we all know, your predilection for turning every discussion into a "lane positioning" argument is why the mods made a VC ghetto.
The fact is, you didn't KNOW what the facts were that led to my being buzzed. And yet you STILL offered up a statement that implies that I was using lateral lane positioning at the wrong time and place. So I spelled out the facts for you-- I asked if it was OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane. You replied "of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street that is too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?"
:rolleyes:
The more apropos question was from me: Why did you offer your "expert advice" when you didn't know the facts involved?
The answer, unfortunately, is that that is your modus operandi. It's what you do, every time there's a conflict, whether intentional or unintentional, between cyclist and driver-- you blame the cyclist, without actually knowing the facts.
There are many facts that I didn't know about. But what in my advice did not apply, much less did not apply due to my lack of not knowing relevant facts involved?Try paying attention this time.
Once more, you said "knowing how to ride in traffic means knowing how to use lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed."
I said "Taking the lane hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed."
Without knowing a SINGLE fact about any of the situations where I've been buzzed, you said "learning how to use lateral lane position means not just having the balls to do it, it also means knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too."
This statement implies that I was using lateral lane position at the wrong time and place...which is typical of you. Without knowing ANYTHING about the situations when I've been buzzed, you blame me, the cyclist, for not riding "correctly," and implicitly absolve the driver. You've done it time after time after time in A&S-- somebody posts that a cyclist was killed, and immediately, without knowing any of the facts involved, you jump in with voluminous posts blaming the cyclist, while turning a blind eye towards the driver. When somebody inevitably points out that you're assuming the cyclist did something wrong, you start inventing "facts" to support your favorite hypothesis ("If the cyclist did X, then it's reasonable to conclude that..."). Your predilection for blaming the cyclist in fatal crashes is why the mods finally made a sticky "Cyclist Memorial" thread-- to keep the posts free from your speculative cyclist-blaming in every "cyclist down" thread. And as we all know, your predilection for turning every discussion into a "lane positioning" argument is why the mods made a VC ghetto.
The fact is, you didn't KNOW what the facts were that led to my being buzzed. And yet you STILL offered up a statement that implies that I was using lateral lane positioning at the wrong time and place. So I spelled out the facts for you-- I asked if it was OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane. You replied "of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street that is too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?"
:rolleyes:
The more apropos question was from me: Why did you offer your "expert advice" when you didn't know the facts involved?
The answer, unfortunately, is that that is your modus operandi. It's what you do, every time there's a conflict, whether intentional or unintentional, between cyclist and driver-- you blame the cyclist, without actually knowing the facts.
Allister
03-04-08, 02:59 PM
...I'm the idiot you seem to think I am.
That's the first thing you've said that I can agree absolutely with.
That's the first thing you've said that I can agree absolutely with.
Helmet Head
03-04-08, 03:40 PM
Try paying attention this time.
Is the condescension really necessary?
Once more, you said "knowing how to ride in traffic means knowing how to use lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed."
Right. That's my claim and I stand by it.
I said "Taking the lane hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed."
Right. And I assumed you said that in order to refute my claim. If you said it for some other reason, I apologize for misunderstanding (but am still curious as to what your point was).
Anyway, assuming your statement was an attempt to refute my point, I accepted your statement, and simply wanted to show why it didn't refute my point. Since I did not question your statement, I saw no point in examining the situations under which you were buzzed while taking the lane.
Without knowing a SINGLE fact about any of the situations where I've been buzzed, you said "learning how to use lateral lane position means not just having the balls to do it, it also means knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too."
This statement implies that I was using lateral lane position at the wrong time and place...which is typical of you.
You can't "use lateral lane position" at the wrong time and place; that makes no sense. So I don't understand what you think my statement implies. Are you equating the meaning of "using lateral lane position" with "taking the lane"?
Anyway, a cyclist is always using lateral lane position. Sometimes we use lateral lane position to allow faster traffic to pass, sometimes to control the lane, sometimes to communicate something to a driver, sometimes to improve vantage or increase maneuvering buffer, sometimes to increase conspicuousness, sometimes to let a driver behind us know we know he's there, sometimes we use other techniques in concert with lateral position, like looking back and nodding at the driver with a smile, etc. There is a lot to learning how, when, and where to use lateral lane position, including how to use lateral lane position in order to all but eliminate buzzing.
The fact that you were buzzed while taking the lane does not refute my point at all. That's all I was pointing out when I wrote: "learning how to use lateral lane position means not just having the balls to do it, it also means knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too."
Without knowing ANYTHING about the situations when I've been buzzed, you blame me, the cyclist, for not riding "correctly," and implicitly absolve the driver.
It's not helpful to read between the lines, especially conjuring stuff that is not there, and never intended to be there. I didn't blame you for anything, much less for not riding "correctly". And I certainly didn't absolve any driver for anything. Where are you getting this stuff?
You've done it time after time after time in A&S-- somebody posts that a cyclist was killed, and immediately, without knowing any of the facts involved, you jump in with voluminous posts blaming the cyclist, while turning a blind eye towards the driver. When somebody inevitably points out that you're assuming the cyclist did something wrong, you start inventing "facts" to support your favorite hypothesis ("If the cyclist did X, then it's reasonable to conclude that..."). Your predilection for blaming the cyclist in fatal crashes is why the mods finally made a sticky "Cyclist Memorial" thread-- to keep the posts free from your speculative cyclist-blaming in every "cyclist down" thread. And as we all know, your predilection for turning every discussion into a "lane positioning" argument is why the mods made a VC ghetto.
Tangent alert. Dredging up the past. Has nothing to do with this discussion or thread. Etc.
The fact is, you didn't KNOW what the facts were that led to my being buzzed.
Which is why I didn't comment on it.
And yet you STILL offered up a statement that implies that I was using lateral lane positioning at the wrong time and place.
I still don't know what that means, but I can assure you that if you thought I was commenting on some incident in which you were, it was all in your head. You might be able to read with more clarity if you removed that chip from your shoulder and stopped looking for fights.
So I spelled out the facts for you-- I asked if it was OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane. You replied "of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street that is too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?"
:rolleyes:
Right. And you never answered that question. I still don't understand why you asked, "if it was OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane". I hope you're about to finally explain (I'm replying as I'm reading).
Edit: You never explained. Okay, I get your question was rhetorical, intended to provide me with facts that you thought I needed to know because you thought I was saying you were riding incorrectly without knowing what the conditions were?
To clarify:
Of course it is OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane.
Merely taking the lane is not all there is to learning how to use lateral lane position properly in order to all but eliminate buzzing, even "on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane."
Paying attention to how you're affecting traffic behind you is part of it, and reacting appropriately to what you glean from that is too. What that reaction is depends on the particular situation.
The more apropos question was from me: Why did you offer your "expert advice" when you didn't know the facts involved?
I spoke only in high level generalities. I didn't offer any specific advice regarding any particular incident or incidents you've been in, so why would those facts matter?
The answer, unfortunately, is that that is your modus operandi. It's what you do, every time there's a conflict, whether intentional or unintentional, between cyclist and driver-- you blame the cyclist, without actually knowing the facts.
I'm not going to defend here what I've written in the past in other threads, but if you're reading with jaundiced eyes everything I write, you're going to keep seeing stuff that just isn't there. That makes communication very difficult, perhaps impossible.
Is the condescension really necessary?
Once more, you said "knowing how to ride in traffic means knowing how to use lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed."
Right. That's my claim and I stand by it.
I said "Taking the lane hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed."
Right. And I assumed you said that in order to refute my claim. If you said it for some other reason, I apologize for misunderstanding (but am still curious as to what your point was).
Anyway, assuming your statement was an attempt to refute my point, I accepted your statement, and simply wanted to show why it didn't refute my point. Since I did not question your statement, I saw no point in examining the situations under which you were buzzed while taking the lane.
Without knowing a SINGLE fact about any of the situations where I've been buzzed, you said "learning how to use lateral lane position means not just having the balls to do it, it also means knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too."
This statement implies that I was using lateral lane position at the wrong time and place...which is typical of you.
You can't "use lateral lane position" at the wrong time and place; that makes no sense. So I don't understand what you think my statement implies. Are you equating the meaning of "using lateral lane position" with "taking the lane"?
Anyway, a cyclist is always using lateral lane position. Sometimes we use lateral lane position to allow faster traffic to pass, sometimes to control the lane, sometimes to communicate something to a driver, sometimes to improve vantage or increase maneuvering buffer, sometimes to increase conspicuousness, sometimes to let a driver behind us know we know he's there, sometimes we use other techniques in concert with lateral position, like looking back and nodding at the driver with a smile, etc. There is a lot to learning how, when, and where to use lateral lane position, including how to use lateral lane position in order to all but eliminate buzzing.
The fact that you were buzzed while taking the lane does not refute my point at all. That's all I was pointing out when I wrote: "learning how to use lateral lane position means not just having the balls to do it, it also means knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too."
Without knowing ANYTHING about the situations when I've been buzzed, you blame me, the cyclist, for not riding "correctly," and implicitly absolve the driver.
It's not helpful to read between the lines, especially conjuring stuff that is not there, and never intended to be there. I didn't blame you for anything, much less for not riding "correctly". And I certainly didn't absolve any driver for anything. Where are you getting this stuff?
You've done it time after time after time in A&S-- somebody posts that a cyclist was killed, and immediately, without knowing any of the facts involved, you jump in with voluminous posts blaming the cyclist, while turning a blind eye towards the driver. When somebody inevitably points out that you're assuming the cyclist did something wrong, you start inventing "facts" to support your favorite hypothesis ("If the cyclist did X, then it's reasonable to conclude that..."). Your predilection for blaming the cyclist in fatal crashes is why the mods finally made a sticky "Cyclist Memorial" thread-- to keep the posts free from your speculative cyclist-blaming in every "cyclist down" thread. And as we all know, your predilection for turning every discussion into a "lane positioning" argument is why the mods made a VC ghetto.
Tangent alert. Dredging up the past. Has nothing to do with this discussion or thread. Etc.
The fact is, you didn't KNOW what the facts were that led to my being buzzed.
Which is why I didn't comment on it.
And yet you STILL offered up a statement that implies that I was using lateral lane positioning at the wrong time and place.
I still don't know what that means, but I can assure you that if you thought I was commenting on some incident in which you were, it was all in your head. You might be able to read with more clarity if you removed that chip from your shoulder and stopped looking for fights.
So I spelled out the facts for you-- I asked if it was OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane. You replied "of course it is "OK" to take the lane on a street that is too narrow to safely share. Why would you even ask?"
:rolleyes:
Right. And you never answered that question. I still don't understand why you asked, "if it was OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane". I hope you're about to finally explain (I'm replying as I'm reading).
Edit: You never explained. Okay, I get your question was rhetorical, intended to provide me with facts that you thought I needed to know because you thought I was saying you were riding incorrectly without knowing what the conditions were?
To clarify:
Of course it is OK to take the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share, on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane.
Merely taking the lane is not all there is to learning how to use lateral lane position properly in order to all but eliminate buzzing, even "on a street with a 25 MPH speed limit, a door zone, and no bike lane."
Paying attention to how you're affecting traffic behind you is part of it, and reacting appropriately to what you glean from that is too. What that reaction is depends on the particular situation.
The more apropos question was from me: Why did you offer your "expert advice" when you didn't know the facts involved?
I spoke only in high level generalities. I didn't offer any specific advice regarding any particular incident or incidents you've been in, so why would those facts matter?
The answer, unfortunately, is that that is your modus operandi. It's what you do, every time there's a conflict, whether intentional or unintentional, between cyclist and driver-- you blame the cyclist, without actually knowing the facts.
I'm not going to defend here what I've written in the past in other threads, but if you're reading with jaundiced eyes everything I write, you're going to keep seeing stuff that just isn't there. That makes communication very difficult, perhaps impossible.
Blue Order
03-04-08, 05:37 PM
That's the first thing you've said that I can agree absolutely with.After seeing that he still doesn't get it, I can't reach any other conclusion.
Helmet Head
03-04-08, 06:00 PM
After seeing that he still doesn't get it, I can't reach any other conclusion.
I take that to mean you're going to leave that chip on your shoulder and keep looking for fights where none exist.
Anyway, noisebeam made the same general point in another thread that I made above for which you're getting yourself all tied up in a knot:
When riding in a narrow lane I can invite or reduce buzzing to near elimination thru my actions alone, actions which are 90% lane position and 10% communication.
Al
How you reconcile that experience with your statements in this thread, I don't know.
Are you going to argue that he too is blaming you the cyclist without knowing the facts? :rolleyes:
I take that to mean you're going to leave that chip on your shoulder and keep looking for fights where none exist.
Anyway, noisebeam made the same general point in another thread that I made above for which you're getting yourself all tied up in a knot:
When riding in a narrow lane I can invite or reduce buzzing to near elimination thru my actions alone, actions which are 90% lane position and 10% communication.
Al
How you reconcile that experience with your statements in this thread, I don't know.
Are you going to argue that he too is blaming you the cyclist without knowing the facts? :rolleyes:
Blue Order
03-05-08, 04:02 PM
I take that to mean you're going to leave that chip on your shoulder and keep looking for fights where none exist. Dude, you offered your "expertise" in a situation you knew nothing about. It was BS, and my calling you on it doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.
Besides which, Chip is a big guy, and I'm not sure I want to carry him on my shoulder.
Besides which, Chip is a big guy, and I'm not sure I want to carry him on my shoulder.
Helmet Head
03-05-08, 04:49 PM
Dude, you offered your "expertise" in a situation you knew nothing about. It was BS, and my calling you on it doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.
Besides which, Chip is a big guy, and I'm not sure I want to carry him on my shoulder.
You were mistaken in your assumption that I was offering my 'expertise' regarding your situation. I was merely pointing out that your statement, the veracity of which I did not question, and which was apparently made to refute my claim, did not refute my claim. But I've explained all this. It's bizarre to me that you continue to insist that I was commenting about your situation.
Besides which, Chip is a big guy, and I'm not sure I want to carry him on my shoulder.
You were mistaken in your assumption that I was offering my 'expertise' regarding your situation. I was merely pointing out that your statement, the veracity of which I did not question, and which was apparently made to refute my claim, did not refute my claim. But I've explained all this. It's bizarre to me that you continue to insist that I was commenting about your situation.
Blue Order
03-05-08, 05:03 PM
You were mistaken in your assumption that I was offering my 'expertise' regarding your situation. I was merely pointing out that your statement, the veracity of which I did not question, and which was apparently made to refute my claim, did not refute my claim. But I've explained all this. It's bizarre to me that you continue to insist that I was commenting about your situation.Uh, right....
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars.:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:And next, Helmet Head makes the comment he now denies making, regarding the circumstances surrounding the times I've been buzzed:
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.
Bizarre to you HH, that I would point out that you said what you said? Funny you should use that word, "bizarre," considering that I've often mused that your theories come from Bizarro World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World)...
A big part of knowing how to ride in traffic is knowing how to use lateral lane position to all but eliminate getting buzzed by cars.:rolleyes:
It hasn't stopped me from getting buzzed... By drivers who are PISSED that I'm taking the lane.
But then I guess the real world must be ignored when it doesn't bear any resemblance to the dogma, eh?
:rolleyes:And next, Helmet Head makes the comment he now denies making, regarding the circumstances surrounding the times I've been buzzed:
Learning how to use lateral lane position is not just having the balls to take the lane. It's knowing when and where to do it without getting others upset too.
Bizarre to you HH, that I would point out that you said what you said? Funny you should use that word, "bizarre," considering that I've often mused that your theories come from Bizarro World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World)...
chipcom
03-05-08, 06:46 PM
Dude, you offered your "expertise" in a situation you knew nothing about. It was BS, and my calling you on it doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.
Besides which, Chip is a big guy, and I'm not sure I want to carry him on my shoulder.
Hey you stole my line! YOU B@STARD! :beer:
Besides which, Chip is a big guy, and I'm not sure I want to carry him on my shoulder.
Hey you stole my line! YOU B@STARD! :beer:
chipcom
03-05-08, 06:48 PM
HH, you are doing it again...taking a thread about a tragedy and turning into a freakin bike lane/vc debate. Please stop.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.