 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2005The Runaway MFFY
The hot story of the last couple of days has been the "Runaway MFFY" - the stupid c.nt who not only left her fiancee' practically standing at the altar, but faked her own kidnapping and wasted law enforcement resources.I prediuct that in a few years this bimbo will be tying up rush hour traffic on a freeway somewhere while she attempts a drama queen exit. It goes without saying that this dim bulb MUST BE a MFFY driver. > The hot story of the last couple of days has been the "Runaway MFFY" - > the stupid c.nt who not only left her fiancee' practically standing at > the altar, but faked her own kidnapping.... [SNIP] My guess is that she fakes a lot of things. > The hot story of the last couple of days has been the "Runaway MFFY" - > the stupid c.nt who not only left her fiancee' practically standing at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It goes without saying that this dim bulb MUST BE a MFFY driver. You're not married, or have a girlfriend, eh Scott? You don't seem to like women very much. I agree. Give the woman a break. She comes from Baptist Bible Belt country, after all. Maybe she made a sane break for reality for once in her life. > I agree. Give the woman a break. She comes from Baptist Bible Belt > country, after all. Maybe she made a sane break for reality for once in > her life. Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. Let's hope you don't have a relative in need of real help while the police are looking for a fake abduction. On 4 May 2005 06:17:03 -0700, Larry Bud , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > > I agree. Give the woman a break. She comes from Baptist Bible Belt > > country, after all. Maybe she made a sane break for reality for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Let's hope you don't have a relative in need of real help while the > police are looking for a fake abduction. Really. What they should do is to take that upper-middle class (with the size of her wedding, what else could she be?) spoiled brat SUV driving soccer mom to be BITCH and make her clean the urinals at the downtown Atlanta Greyhound Bus station for a few years. That would help soceity recoup some of the costs of her little "trick," knock her down a peg or two and maybe, just maybe, send a message to the rest of her kind that might be thinking of pulling a similar stunt. > > Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from > > real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > size of her wedding, what else could she be?) spoiled brat SUV driving > soccer mom to be BITCH and make her clean the urinals at the downtown > Atlanta Greyhound Bus station for a few years. That would help soceity > recoup some of the costs of her little "trick," knock her down a peg or > two and maybe, just maybe, send a message to the rest of her kind that > might be thinking of pulling a similar stunt. GREAT idea. > On 4 May 2005 06:17:03 -0700, Larry Bud , said the following in > rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from > > real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. Unfortunately, you and nearly everyone else is overlooking the *chronology* of these events. Even *you* say "*then* faked her own kidnapping". That's exactly how it went down. She lied to the police - for about 3 hours, from 1:00 am to 4:00 am - then admitted what happened. So how much of that $60K was spent during *that* time? *She* didn't ask anybody to launch a search for her! In fact, it's the *last* thing she wanted! > > Let's hope you don't have a relative in need of real help while the > > police are looking for a fake abduction. Or running down all those evil speeders ... or ticketing all those evil louts with burned out taillights. If you think this was the biggest waste of LEO resources there is, you got another think coming. They're just pissed that they had absolutely no clue what happened until she *told them*. > Really. What they should do is to take that upper-middle class (with the > size of her wedding, what else could she be?) spoiled brat SUV driving > soccer mom to be BITCH and make her clean the urinals at the downtown > Atlanta Greyhound Bus station for a few years. That would help soceity > recoup some of the costs of her little "trick," knock her down a peg or > two and maybe, just maybe, send a message to the rest of her kind that > might be thinking of pulling a similar stunt. OK, so now it's fuckin' *illegal* to hop a bus to Albuquerque without telling anyone? If this is 'freedom', I'm sure glad *I* haven't been made to die for it, like so many others. -- C.R. Krieger (Haven't done that yet, but been tempted ...) On 5 May 2005 13:08:59 -0700, Motorhead Lawyer , said the following in rec.autos.driving... <snip, we don't need to read it again> You need to learn how to read a post. Those comments that you are atributing to me were Larry's comments. (note the "> >") > > Really. What they should do is to take that upper-middle class (with > the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > telling anyone? If this is 'freedom', I'm sure glad *I* haven't been > made to die for it, like so many others. Yeah, well someone needs to pay; whether its her, that dimwit who still wants to marry her or her parents, it shouldn't have to be us the taxpayers. All those resources could have been put to better use (even if they weren't used at all and the cops just sat in the doughnut shop eating creme-filleds and guzzling coffee, that would have been a better use as they would have been available for a *real* emergency) and the rest of the nation could have been spared having to see her homley grill on the tv and newspapers day in and day out. The simple fact is that she is a stuck up little snob who probablly is laughing her a.s off at all the attention she got from us saps who actually worried about her (maybe that's you, but its definitely not me) or had to endure the endless news stories about her (I only hope that any children she and that nitwit husband to be of hers don't follow the genetic pattern of the parents). And she still *LIED* to the police in NM about what happened. Had the police there stumbled upon a pair that resembled the description she gave, heaven help them, the cops would probablly thrown the book at them. >> On 4 May 2005 06:17:03 -0700, Larry Bud , said the following in >> rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >- for about 3 hours, from 1:00 am to 4:00 am - then admitted what >happened. So how much of that $60K was spent during *that* time? This is the government we're talking about. They are experts at blowing large amounts of money in small amounts of time. :) OTOH, having followed many of the stories about computer hackers, I know how often the monetary damage amounts are pulled out of some bureaucrat's a.s and have no basis in reality. Like the stolen E911 manual that the government claimed was worth millions of dollars until the defense produced an online catalog page where the document could be ordered by anyone for something like $12. Bottom line, I don't know if the $60K figure is accurate or not. What I *do* know is that *some* resources were wasted, and this woman should be held liable for those costs (once they are accurately determined). >OK, so now it's fuckin' *illegal* to hop a bus to Albuquerque without >telling anyone? If this is 'freedom', I'm sure glad *I* haven't been >made to die for it, like so many others. Knock off the hyperbole, OK? You know full well that the crime is not hopping a bus to Albuquerque, or even leaving some poor sap at the altar: it's LYING TO AUTHORITIES about having been kidnapped. > Unfortunately, you and nearly everyone else is overlooking the > *chronology* of these events. Even *you* say "*then* faked her own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *She* didn't ask anybody to launch a search for her! In fact, it's the > *last* thing she wanted! You begin your chronology after she arrived in Albuquerque? The "missing persons event", as well as all the searches began long before then. > Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from > real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. On the bright side, she turned up alive. So many kidnappings lately the person hasn't turned up alive. I'm just saying, cut the woman some slack. Yes, she should have not said she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away from the wedding. >> Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >> real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. > > On the bright side, she turned up alive. So many kidnappings lately the > person hasn't turned up alive. Of course she turned up alive. It wasn't a kidnapping. So the statement is irrelivant. > I'm just saying, cut the woman some slack. Yes, she should have not > said > she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away > from > the wedding. That is hardly a excuse. She definitely need help and I hope she receives it. However the circumstances of her actions need to be reconciled. Others should not pay the costs of her "poor judgment". >> Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >> real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. > > On the bright side, she turned up alive. So many kidnappings lately the >person hasn't turned up alive. Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up alive. > I'm just saying, cut the woman some slack. Thjat's easy to say when the money didn't come out of your pocket. Tell you what: let me waste several thousands of YOUR dollars and let's see how much slack you're willing to cut me. > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up alive. Damn, I wish I could remember the details... but there was at least one where the kidnapping was staged by the 'victim' and he ended up dead. > > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up alive. > > Damn, I wish I could remember the details... but there was at least one > where the kidnapping was staged by the 'victim' and he ended up dead. That was on CSI. >> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up >alive. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >That was on CSI. How did he die? >>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not >>> > turned up alive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How did he die? Actually it was a girl. She was a spoilt brat attention seeker, and drove herself off into the country and tied herself up in the boot of the car, after getting someone to leave a ransom demand and a clue to her location on her father's phone. (Un)fortunately, the rag she stuffed in her mouth had been soaked in formaldehyde, or something. > >>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not > >>> > turned up alive. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (Un)fortunately, the rag she stuffed in her mouth had been > soaked in formaldehyde, or something. No, wait. Actually she just suffocated on the rag after tying herself up. Even better :D ! >> >>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not >> >>> > turned up alive. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >No, wait. Actually she just suffocated on the rag after >tying herself up. Even better :D ! How the hell do you tie yourself up? >>> >>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not >>> >>> > turned up alive. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > How the hell do you tie yourself up? Very carefully! > >> Actually it was a girl. She was a spoilt brat attention seeker, > >> and drove herself off into the country and tied herself up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How the hell do you tie yourself up? IIRC she tied a cloth or rope of some sort with one end around each wrist, then lay on her belly and stuck her arms behind her feet. The CSIs figured it out because the cloth knots would have been tied differently if she hadn't done them herself. >>>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not >>>> > turned up alive. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >(Un)fortunately, the rag she stuffed in her mouth had been >soaked in formaldehyde, or something. I saw a movie like that - except the girl didn't die. >>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up >>alive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How did he die? Script poisoning. 100% mortality rate. >> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up >alive. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >That was on CSI. You mean there was an episode that wasn't "ripped from the headlines"? >> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up > alive. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That was on CSI. I never watch it. I watch history channel, discovery channel, TLC, and sci-fi. >>> > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up >> alive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I never watch it. I watch history channel, discovery channel, TLC, and > sci-fi. These are all Guy channels. > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> I never watch it. I watch history channel, discovery channel, TLC, and >> sci-fi. > These are all Guy channels. Your point? >> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Your point? Well, I'm proud of you :) >> That was on CSI. > >I never watch it. I watch history channel, discovery channel, TLC, and >sci-fi. You mean you don't watch former Chicago anchorman Bill Kurtis on A&E? >>> That was on CSI. >> >>I never watch it. I watch history channel, discovery channel, TLC, and >>sci-fi. > > You mean you don't watch former Chicago anchorman Bill Kurtis on A&E? rarely. if nothing is on the above channels worth watching and I am flipping through and Bill has a show on something interesting.... >>>Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >>>real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Name ONE faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up alive. Fargo? >>>>Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >>>>real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Fargo? Name one IRL faked kidnapping where the kidnapee has not turned up alive. Fargo and CSI don't count. ;) >> Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >> real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm just saying, cut the woman some slack. I think people would be MORE willing to cut her some slack if she had not called 911 and said she had been kidnapped. She should have called her parents at least to let THEM know she was okay and that she just needed some space or time away alone or ANYTHING, but telling the cops she just escaped her kidnappers. > Yes, she should have not said >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away from >the wedding. And she should have been embarassed. What the hell was she thinking? > > Yes, she should have not said > >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away from > >the wedding. > > And she should have been embarassed. What the hell was she thinking? People run away from marriages all the time, especially when they feel they have nobody to listen to their feelings. Crack a book on psychology and sociology, read up on "ambivalence" and "conformity", that's your homework assignment. Ever wonder why people get so stressed out on Christmas and Thanksgiving? It's because of social pressures. I'm not saying her actions were entirely right, but neither is she a "c.nt" just because she was scared and under pressure. >> > Yes, she should have not said >> >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > People run away from marriages all the time, especially when they feel >they have nobody to listen to their feelings. And nobody is complaining about that. > I'm not saying her actions were entirely right, but neither is she a >"c.nt" just because she was scared and under pressure. True. She is a c.nt for lying to the authorities and wasting taxpayer money. >>> > Yes, she should have not said >>> >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >True. She is a c.nt for lying to the authorities and wasting taxpayer >money. And also for abandoning her family and fiance without so much as a word. >And also for abandoning her family and fiance without so much as a >word. But no one would have cared if she did that. ------------- Alex >>And also for abandoning her family and fiance without so much as a >>word. > >But no one would have cared if she did that. They seemed to care. >------------- >Alex >> > Yes, she should have not said >> >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >homework assignment. Ever wonder why people get so stressed out on >Christmas and Thanksgiving? It's because of social pressures. What an ignorant as well as pompous a.s you are. > I'm not saying her actions were entirely right, but neither is she a >"c.nt" just because she was scared and under pressure. There is nothing wrong with feeling scared or pressured. There is something wrong with the way she reacted to fear and pressure. >> > Yes, she should have not said >> >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > homework assignment. Ever wonder why people get so stressed out on > Christmas and Thanksgiving? It's because of social pressures. And we should coddle those people to make them feel better...right? NOT! The correct response is a dose of reality. > I'm not saying her actions were entirely right, but neither is she a > "c.nt" just because she was scared and under pressure. No one said she is for that reason. She is for the decisions she made in terms of dealing with it as a result. >> > Yes, she should have not said >> >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and sociology, read up on "ambivalence" and "conformity", that's your >homework assignment. Now you're giving me homework? That's funny. I don't think people run away from marriages to the extent that a nationwide manhunt is launched. It's one thing to run, it's another to entirely abandon your family altogether while you run off to Vegas. > Ever wonder why people get so stressed out on >Christmas and Thanksgiving? It's because of social pressures. Now I suggest YOU open a book on psychology. > I'm not saying her actions were entirely right, but neither is she a >"c.nt" just because she was scared and under pressure. Right, she's a "c.nt" because she abandoned her family without so much as a word. >> Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >> real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. > > On the bright side, she turned up alive. So many kidnappings lately the >person hasn't turned up alive. It wasn't a kidnapping. > I'm just saying, cut the woman some slack. Yes, she should have not said >she was abducted ,but likely she was very embarassed that she ran away from >the wedding. She isn't the first, or the last, to runaway from a wedding. It's her problem, let her deal with it without involving so many people. Not to mention how she screwed over her fiance. ------------ Alex >> I agree. Give the woman a break. She comes from Baptist Bible Belt >> country, after all. Maybe she made a sane break for reality for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yeah, who cares if she spent $60,000 of resources, tied up police from >real police work, then faked her own kidnapping. By whose estimate? Chances are it cost them no more than a buck and a half. That is the cost of a box of donuts today, right? >Let's hope you don't have a relative in need of real help while the >police are looking for a fake abduction. Let's hope you get a clue about how politicians figure out what things cost. >> I agree. Give the woman a break. She comes from Baptist Bible Belt >> country, after all. Maybe she made a sane break for reality for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Let's hope you don't have a relative in need of real help while the > police are looking for a fake abduction. Just an FYI - when I was in the Marines, one armor piercing rocket round on a Cobra helicopter cost about $60k and I shot off about 10 of them during a dog and pony show. ... just to please a bunch of brass.... this does not include all the other crap that was dropped in and around 29 Palms... >>> I agree. Give the woman a break. She comes from Baptist Bible Belt >>> country, after all. Maybe she made a sane break for reality for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > does not include all the other crap that was dropped in and around 29 > Palms... Nice work if you can get it. >> The hot story of the last couple of days has been the "Runaway MFFY" - >> the stupid c.nt who not only left her fiancee' practically standing at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You're not married, or have a girlfriend, eh Scott? You don't seem to like >women very much. WRONG. Guess you better turn in your Armchair Psychiatrist's license. ;) >>> The hot story of the last couple of days has been the "Runaway MFFY" - >>> the stupid c.nt who not only left her fiancee' practically standing at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Guess you better turn in your Armchair Psychiatrist's license. ;) I'm wrong with the former but spot on the money with the latter. How else to explain your referring to virtually any woman you encounter with the C word? And I wonder how your wife feels about it? >>>You're not married, or have a girlfriend, eh Scott? You don't seem to like >>>women very much. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I'm wrong with the former but spot on the money with the latter. WRONG. >How else to explain your referring to virtually any woman you encounter with the C >word? What a stupid conclusion to draw. You know absolutely nothing about the women I encounter; you only know about the stupid c.nts I choose to write about on USENET. Only a moron would attempt to extrapolate my general attitude towards women from that ridiculously skewed sample. P.S. My wife thinks you're a dumb c.nt. :) >>>>You're not married, or have a girlfriend, eh Scott? You don't seem to >>>>like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to write about on USENET. Only a moron would attempt to extrapolate my > general attitude towards women from that ridiculously skewed sample. Only a moron resorts to perjorative language to express frustration with others. And that's the only way you ever refer to women, Scott. > P.S. My wife thinks you're a dumb c.nt. :) See my statement above. But then, she did marry you, didn't she? ;) >>>> The hot story of the last couple of days has been the "Runaway MFFY" - >>>> the stupid c.nt who not only left her fiancee' practically standing at [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to explain your referring to virtually any woman you encounter with the C >word? And I wonder how your wife feels about it? Oh my - I guess maybe I don't like women either because I hadn't even noticed that he invoked "the C word". Why are women so sensitive about the word "c.nt"? They generally don't have a problem calling men "dicks". >Why are women so sensitive about the word "c.nt"? > >They generally don't have a problem calling men "dicks". Or "dorks." The brits use the word "c.nt" all the time, often in conjunction with the nation's favorite adjective, "bloody." Ironically, the word "bloody" has much more shock value to the average Brit than the word "c.nt" does. I bet if I had called her a "bloody MFFY" I'd have gotten complaints, too. ;) On Thu, 05 May 2005 05:44:32 -0500, Scott en Aztlán , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > The brits use the word "c.nt" all the time, often in conjunction with > the nation's favorite adjective, "bloody." Ironically, the word > "bloody" has much more shock value to the average Brit than the word > "c.nt" does. I bet if I had called her a "bloody MFFY" I'd have gotten > complaints, too. ;) Only from the more hyper-senitive musicians of the group, Scott... ;-) On Thu, 05 May 2005 05:44:32 -0500, Scott en Aztlán , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > The brits use the word "c.nt" all the time, often in conjunction with > the nation's favorite adjective, "bloody." Ironically, the word > "bloody" has much more shock value to the average Brit than the word > "c.nt" does. I bet if I had called her a "bloody MFFY" I'd have gotten > complaints, too. ;) MFFY isn't gender-specific now is it? > Only from the more hyper-senitive musicians of the group, Scott... ;-) Maybe you both lack sensitivity. I wonder how you would feel, Paul, if your mother or sister or daughter was the recipient on one Scott's misogynist rants? Would you agree with him? >MFFY isn't gender-specific now is it? Neither is "c.nt" - at least not the way the Brits use the word. >> Only from the more hyper-senitive musicians of the group, Scott... ;-) > >Maybe you both lack sensitivity. I wonder how you would feel, Paul, if your >mother or sister or daughter was the recipient on one Scott's misogynist >rants? Pointing out stupid behavior in a person who just happens to be female does not make me a misogynist, you dumb c.nt. I post just as many pejorative rants against males as females - I'm an equal opportunity ranter. :) >>MFFY isn't gender-specific now is it? > > Neither is "c.nt" - at least not the way the Brits use the word. Sorry, Scott. I thought you were an American, not British. I thought you were posting from America, too. My bad. >>> Only from the more hyper-senitive musicians of the group, Scott... ;-) >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pejorative rants against males as females - I'm an equal opportunity > ranter. :) Equal opportunity, yes. Not too bright, also yes. I'm a dude, you criminal coddler :) >>>MFFY isn't gender-specific now is it? >> >> Neither is "c.nt" - at least not the way the Brits use the word. > >Sorry, Scott. I thought you were an American, not British. I thought you >were posting from America, too. My bad. Tosh, what a bloody silly bloke you are! >>>>MFFY isn't gender-specific now is it? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tosh, what a bloody silly bloke you are! Berk. >I wonder how you would feel, Paul, if your >mother or sister or daughter was the recipient on one Scott's misogynist >rants? BTW, this really cracks me up. Not too long ago, BrentP accused me of being a pedalcyclist hater because I would post stories about the bad things I saw pedalcyclists doing and how I would call them horrible names. He was upset because, in his perception, I only called pedalcyclists names while letting motorists get away with equally bad things without saying a word. Now your (equally incorrect) perception is that I hate women. Hilarious!! >>I wonder how you would feel, Paul, if your >>mother or sister or daughter was the recipient on one Scott's misogynist [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hilarious!! Um not quite. At the time you didn't even consider legal bicycling to be something worthy. That's what I didn't like. I could care less about what happens to wrong ways and gutter passers. I hate illegal bicycling as much as anyone. Just today, because of sloth drivers I had to wait two cycles at light. This asshat on mountain bike gutter passes his way to the front (where I was for the second cycle since the sloth did a right on red) and then keeps moving into the intersection before the light turns green. When it does, I have to pass him... Of course I out paced the chevy cavilier in the left lane ;) Yesterday I had two drivers try to force me off the road and got pissed off because I was waiting in my place in stoplight queues. And I am getting real tired of these asshats in cars that pass me 100 ft or less before a red light then can't accelerate. Today, 3 BMWs pass me, then each jams on the brakes in turn at a red light (I was 26 mph in a 35 zone). Right turn signal blicking on each. All sorts of chances to go, and lead BMW won't go. (by chances, I mean, easily accomplished on a bicycle) Lead BMW then turns off his turn signal. Woman behind me gets the idea that she can take my place in line, just like yesterday. So I make sure to center myself better. Light turns green and the other two BMWs crawl through the turn. I have to brake not to rear end the second one because the gear I was in (a pretty slack one at that) offered too much acceleration compared to his sloth. Ulimate driving maching maybe, piss poor drivers for certain. What's the point of a 50+ grand car if you can't turn and accelerate with it better than some guy on a cannondale? >> Not too long ago, BrentP accused me of being a pedalcyclist hater >> because I would post stories about the bad things I saw pedalcyclists [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Um not quite. At the time you didn't even consider legal bicycling to be >something worthy. That's what I didn't like. How did you get that impression? >>> Not too long ago, BrentP accused me of being a pedalcyclist hater >>> because I would post stories about the bad things I saw pedalcyclists [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How did you get that impression? Either google is broken or you blocked archiving. It's not turning up any posts by you with bicycle or pedalcyclist or bicyclist. However, my posts, with your quoted material are archived. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/cc6840a429113802 Also your thoughts that bicyclists had to remain in the center of the glorified shoulder: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/browse_frm/thread/a429bde1 8da5c5a6/c9fcb40cff85c8e9?q=scott+bicycle++group:rec.autos.driving+author:brent& rnum=38&hl=en#c9fcb40cff85c8e9 Anyway..... >>>> Not too long ago, BrentP accused me of being a pedalcyclist hater >>>> because I would post stories about the bad things I saw pedalcyclists [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/cc6840a429113802 OK, that post is one where I described my own ride to work on a bicycle. Could you point out the part where I claim that legal pedalcycling is unworthy? >Also your thoughts that bicyclists had to remain in the center of the glorified >shoulder: > >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/browse_frm/thread/a429bde1 8da5c5a6/c9fcb40cff85c8e9?q=scott+bicycle++group:rec.autos.driving+author:brent& rnum=38&hl=en#c9fcb40cff85c8e9 And I stand by that statement. Around here, the bike lanes were designed into the roads - they are not afterthoughts like you are used to in Chicagoland; they are not "glorified shoulders" but separate lanes in their own right, wide enough to drive a car through (and cars do drive through them, since the bike lane also doubles as a right turn lane near some intersections). There's nothing legal whatsoever about driving a vehicle - ANY vehicle - on top of the lane separation line so that half of the vehicle is in one lane and half is in another. And, as I stated in the first post you quoted, I have no problems with these mysterious "debris" that you claim are causing pedalcyclists to eschew the bike lane. When I ride my bike on these same roads, I can ride in the bike lane just fine - I'm not slipping and sliding or getting flat tires on these phantom debris. Bottom line (pun intended), there is no justification whatsoever for the pedalcyclists who ride on top of the lane separation line. They are required by law to remain entirely within the bike lane or, if they can maintain the 40 MPH minimum speed of the 65 MPH road, they can legally ride in the rightmost traffic lane. Although I wouldn't consider that a particularly smart option, I suppose it *is* legal...  SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > Bottom line (pun intended), there is no justification whatsoever for > the pedalcyclists who ride on top of the lane separation line. In chicago, king richard the 2nd's crews painted the bike lane line right where I have been riding since 1990. I am not about to change my lane location from that best balanced spot because some moron had a line painted there. I have drivers like you get pissed off rutinely because I'm not in the bike lane. Of course they don't get pissed on roads without the stupid stripe painted on them. Supposedly CA has these remarkable magic bicycle lanes where bicyclists never need to leave them even to make a left turn. I fail to see how these work. And my guess is that if the line wasn't painted you wouldn't have a problem either. And yes, it's a glorified shoulder. Drivers around here use shoulders as right turn lanes too, doesn't change it from being a shoulder. >> Bottom line (pun intended), there is no justification whatsoever for >> the pedalcyclists who ride on top of the lane separation line. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >location from that best balanced spot because some moron had a line >painted there. I think we've thoroughly established that my comments only apply to proper bike lanes which were designed into the road, not the afterthought bike lanes that were added to the already-too-narrow horse-and-buggy streets that you have in Chicago. >Supposedly CA has these remarkable magic bicycle lanes where bicyclists >never need to leave them even to make a left turn. Who told you that? It most defnitely wasn't me... >And yes, it's a glorified shoulder. No, it's part of the regular pavement. There is a regular shoulder (or curb) to the right of it. Here's a picture of a typical one: http://tinypic.com/50qers The car is parked on the shoulder. The bike lane is nice and wide, and clear of debris. The road next to it is posted 65 MPH. Go ahead and tell me why you'd want to ride on top of that solid white stripe that separates the bike lane from the main traffic lanes. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > I think we've thoroughly established that my comments only apply to > proper bike lanes which were designed into the road, not the > afterthought bike lanes that were added to the already-too-narrow > horse-and-buggy streets that you have in Chicago. Chicago streets with their odd width are actually quite good for bicycling unless some dumbass paints a line on them. >>Supposedly CA has these remarkable magic bicycle lanes where bicyclists >>never need to leave them even to make a left turn. > > Who told you that? It most defnitely wasn't me... When I used to participate in the bicycle NG. I am not well liked there since I am for 85th percentile speed limits and proper road/signal design while I am against bike lanes and street parallel bike paths. >>And yes, it's a glorified shoulder. > No, it's part of the regular pavement. There is a regular shoulder (or > curb) to the right of it. Here's a picture of a typical one: > http://tinypic.com/50qers I see a turn out, a shoulder, two lanes, a yellow line and two more lanes. Oh and a yellow corvette. I see an off road bike path to the left side of the picture. > The car is parked on the shoulder. The bike lane is nice and wide, and > clear of debris. The road next to it is posted 65 MPH. I see a shoulder. > Go ahead and tell me why you'd want to ride on top of that solid white > stripe that separates the bike lane from the main traffic lanes. If there is any kind of cross traffic I do not want to be on that shoulder. It's a great way to be right hooked and makes left turns difficult in any sort of traffic. Now that I have a speedo on my cannondale I know how fast I am going. On that road I would be averaging 25mph. That stretch in the direction the vette is pointed in looks downhill, without cross streets. I would probably being 30mph on it. Bicycle brakes aren't the best things in the world, the last thing I want is someone right hooking me when I am doing 30mph. Drivers tend to think that all bicycles are moving at a walking pace. I rutinely have drivers go wide to pass me, but cut back in to the right when the are along side of me. It doesn't even register in their brains they nearly ran me off the road. This is why I also part of the reason I don't ride on the line if the road is shoulderless. Being on the shoulder encourages being right hooked. If this highway was some sort of effective limited access where I *knew* that shoulder did not vanish and was not pressed with rumble strips, then it would be a special case and I would ride just to the right of the line. >>>And yes, it's a glorified shoulder. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I see a shoulder. Whatever... SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > No, it's part of the regular pavement. There is a regular shoulder (or > curb) to the right of it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The car is parked on the shoulder. I don't know how you define a road shoulder, but I have never seen a discontinuous one. How else do you explain the grass directly behind your car? From what I can see, the shoulder consists of the section of blacktop to the right of the solid white line (as one is driving down it). >> No, it's part of the regular pavement. There is a regular shoulder (or >> curb) to the right of it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I don't know how you define a road shoulder, but I have never seen a >discontinuous one. Then you've never driven in SoCal. Many of the older freeways here have been "widened" by taking what was once a shoulder and making it into a regular traffic lane. Many sections of these freeways no longer have a continuous shoulder. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > Then you've never driven in SoCal. > > Many of the older freeways here have been "widened" by taking what was > once a shoulder and making it into a regular traffic lane. Many > sections of these freeways no longer have a continuous shoulder. You've just proven my point, the bike lane is a glorified shoulder. I don't see any markings in that photo and it's lined as a shoulder. But lets say there are markings not in the photo, it was created from a shoulder so my point still holds. The vette isn't parked on shoulder, it's parked in a turn out, or emergency parking area. They have those on the dan-ryan. They aren't shoulders. The continous part to right of the white edge line is the shoulder. >> Then you've never driven in SoCal. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You've just proven my point, the bike lane is a glorified shoulder. There are no bike lanes on freeways, Brent. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ >>> Then you've never driven in SoCal. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There are no bike lanes on freeways, Brent. You've still proven my point. The bikelane was (and still is) the shoulder. >>>> Then you've never driven in SoCal. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >You've still proven my point. The bikelane was (and still is) the >shoulder. If it pleases you to believe so, then be my guest. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > >> Then you've never driven in SoCal. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There are no bike lanes on freeways, Brent. There are on SOME freeways (probably a crud-filled shoulder, but wotthehell), where the freeway is the only road between here and there. No, I can't name one. SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki > "Scott en Aztlán" wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > name > one. Bicycles are allowed on freeway shoulders in WA state. There were some on I90 near Preston an hour ago when I came home. Not that it's a very pleasant-looking shoulder to ride on... Floyd >>> There are no bike lanes on freeways, Brent. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >on I90 near Preston an hour ago when I came home. Not that it's a very >pleasant-looking shoulder to ride on... And, of course, it's not a bike lane. :) SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ >> There are no bike lanes on freeways, Brent. > >There are on SOME freeways (probably a crud-filled shoulder, but wotthehell), >where the freeway is the only road between here and there. No, I can't name >one. Very few. One of them is I-8 near the San Diego/Imperial County border. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ >> >> Then you've never driven in SoCal. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > name > one. If you define freeway as a controlled-access, high-speed thruway, then I don't think bicycles are allowed on freeways. What you call a freeway may in fact just be a high-speed thruway with open crossroads--bicycles are allowed on those. Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: > >> >> Then you've never driven in SoCal. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > in fact just be a high-speed thruway with open crossroads--bicycles are > allowed on those. I meant Interstate freeways, such as I-8 mentioned by Scott the Aztlanian who probably isn't lying about it. Some do allow bicycles on the shoulder in limited areas. SignatureCheers, Bev xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." -- Hunter S. Thompson >> If you define freeway as a controlled-access, high-speed thruway, then I >> don't think bicycles are allowed on freeways. What you call a freeway may [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I meant Interstate freeways, such as I-8 mentioned by Scott the Aztlanian who >probably isn't lying about it. I have seen it myself! > Some do allow bicycles on the shoulder in >limited areas. > Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > probably isn't lying about it. Some do allow bicycles on the shoulder in > limited areas. Yes, that is correct. In certain areas of the freeways, the bikes are directed onto the freeway (using the shoulder) and then the signs also tell them when to exit the freeway. One such example: in La Jolla, the Interstate 5 North entrance off Genesee Avenue also has Bike Route signs that indicate "Sorrento Valley via I-5 shoulder". And since the very next exit is Sorrento Valley Rd., the white sign on the shoulder of the road reads "Bicycles MUST EXIT". > >> No, it's part of the regular pavement. There is a regular shoulder (or > >> curb) to the right of it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> > >> The car is parked on the shoulder. Pretty car, but I don't remember seeing a shoulder just start like that, with a little barrier. Nice bike lane, if that's what it is -- don't they usually have labels with a drawing of a bicycle on the ground? SignatureCheers, Bev =============================================================== The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who don't realize it are generally the same people." -- DAbel >Pretty car, but I don't remember seeing a shoulder just start like that, with >a little barrier. Nice bike lane, if that's what it is -- don't they usually >have labels with a drawing of a bicycle on the ground? Not down here. Of course, we don't have diagonal crosswalks, either. ;) SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > >Pretty car, but I don't remember seeing a shoulder just start like that, with > >a little barrier. Nice bike lane, if that's what it is -- don't they usually > >have labels with a drawing of a bicycle on the ground? > > Not down here. Of course, we don't have diagonal crosswalks, either. "Scramble" system? There's at least one intersection in Alhambra with one of those, and there used to be one/some in Old Pasadena, but I haven't been there for years. We also have SHARE THE ROAD signs, which help a lot :-( SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki [misc.transport.road added to distribution] >>>No, it's part of the regular pavement. There is a regular shoulder (or >>>curb) to the right of it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>>The car is parked on the shoulder. >>I don't know how you define a road shoulder, but I have never seen a >>discontinuous one. > Then you've never driven in SoCal. > > Many of the older freeways here have been "widened" by taking what was > once a shoulder and making it into a regular traffic lane. Many > sections of these freeways no longer have a continuous shoulder. A regular traffic lane is, in the case of the road in the picture, either demarcated with a solid white line to the right and a dashed white line to the left, or a yellow solid/dashed (dashed side further away from driver) line to the left and a dashed line to the right. The shoulder is the blacktop area to the right of the white line. Your car is parked on what appears to be a pullout, which doesn't fit the definition of shoulder to me. Perhaps someone in m.t.r. can clear things up as to who, if anyone, is correct. >[misc.transport.road added to distribution] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >away from driver) line to the left and a dashed line to the right. The >shoulder is the blacktop area to the right of the white line. Wrong. While a shoulder can be paved, it doesn't have to be. The shoulder is defined as the graded area outside of the lane stripe before the ditch or fill slope begins. >Your car is parked on what appears to be a pullout, which doesn't fit >the definition of shoulder to me. Perhaps someone in m.t.r. can clear >things up as to who, if anyone, is correct. It appears that the gravel area the car is parked on is indeed a pullout of some type, and I would not call it a shoulder per se even though it looks like it is functioning as one. The shoulder on this road appears to be split evenly between paved and unpaved as seen in the background, however. Everything between a ditch and the lane line is considered the shoulder on most roads. John Lansford, PE -- The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage: http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/ On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:28:37 -0400, John Lansford , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > >[misc.transport.road added to distribution] > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > shoulder is defined as the graded area outside of the lane stripe > before the ditch or fill slope begins. Question: How does the curb in the picture fit into the equation as far as defining shoulders and/or bike lanes? Note that the pull out where the car is parked has curbs (at least leading up to and including the pull out) and the other side of the road also appears to have a curb. BTW, Scott, If your car is registered in SoCal, then where is the front locense tag for your vehicle? IIRC, CA requires a tag on the front. Been tempting the cops lately? :) > >Your car is parked on what appears to be a pullout, which doesn't fit > >the definition of shoulder to me. Perhaps someone in m.t.r. can clear [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage: > http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/ >BTW, Scott, If your car is registered in SoCal, then where is the front >locense tag for your vehicle? IIRC, CA requires a tag on the front. Been >tempting the cops lately? :) Are you kidding? He's no sloth - the cops are always behind him. >>On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:28:37 -0400, John Lansford , said the following in >rec.autos.driving... >> Wrong. While a shoulder can be paved, it doesn't have to be. The >> shoulder is defined as the graded area outside of the lane stripe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >car is parked has curbs (at least leading up to and including the pull >out) and the other side of the road also appears to have a curb. Well, a curb changes the equation. If it is a barrier curb (has a vertical face), then the shoulder stops right there. The area behind such a curb is then called a berm, but it's really not there for the same reason a shoulder is. The berm exists for drainage and stability reasons, and on surface streets to allow such things as sidewalk and underground utilities. A bike lane would typically go between the curb and the through lane. If this road were a high speed route, then the curb should have been placed on the outside of the regular shoulder's width; around 10'-12' from the through lanes. John Lansford, PE -- The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage: http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/ >BTW, Scott, If your car is registered in SoCal, then where is the front >locense tag for your vehicle? IIRC, CA requires a tag on the front. Been >tempting the cops lately? :) Anyone who has ever purchased a new car in CA will instantly recognize the temporary registration in the lower passenger side corner of the windshield. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:48:02 -0700, Scott en Aztlán , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > >BTW, Scott, If your car is registered in SoCal, then where is the front > >locense tag for your vehicle? IIRC, CA requires a tag on the front. Been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the temporary registration in the lower passenger side corner of the > windshield. My mistake. Over here we usually put that on the back of the car where the license tag goes when you finally get around to getting the car registered... :) > >[misc.transport.road added to distribution] > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage: > http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/ The lighter colored area to the left in the picture (behind and to the right of the Vette) is most likely a concrete drain. The tan colored area looks like a plowed fire break or an ATV track. The pullout where the Vette is parked looks like a temporary storage area for road construcion material. Nothing in the picture looks like a bike path to me. >Everything between a ditch and the lane line >is considered the shoulder on most roads. Not every road has a shoulder. The typical city street, for example, has none (unless you consier the concrete gutter to be a "shoulder"). When I think of a road shoulder, I normally picture a change in paving material and/or height. For example, a concrete slab road might have an asphalt shoulder; an asphalt road might have a gravel or dirt shoulder. In the example pictured, the paving does not change until it hits the curb (or the "turnouts"). In the case of the road in the picture, I would assert that the road has no shoulder except for the "turnouts." If you want to disqualify the turnouts from being shoulders, so be it - then I would say this road has no shoulders at all. The lane to the right of the rightmost traffic lane is also signed and striped as a bike lane, complete with dashed lines near intersections. So what do you think? Does my reasoning make sense, or is it flawed? SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ >>Everything between a ditch and the lane line >>is considered the shoulder on most roads. > >Not every road has a shoulder. The typical city street, for example, >has none (unless you consier the concrete gutter to be a "shoulder"). The typical city street doesn't have a ditch either. The curb and gutter on the edge of the pavement removes the need for either a shoulder or ditch. >When I think of a road shoulder, I normally picture a change in paving >material and/or height. For example, a concrete slab road might have >an asphalt shoulder; an asphalt road might have a gravel or dirt >shoulder. In the example pictured, the paving does not change until it >hits the curb (or the "turnouts"). That's your definition; it's certainly not mine or anyone in the industry. What about a paved shoulder made of the same material the lanes are made from? No, a shoulder is a graded area adjacent to the lanes that has no barrier on it. It can be paved or unpaved, of the same material as the travel lanes or something different. >In the case of the road in the picture, I would assert that the road >has no shoulder except for the "turnouts." If you want to disqualify [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So what do you think? Does my reasoning make sense, or is it flawed? Flawed. In the background it is clear there is a shoulder, back before the curb begins. It appears that there is a combination paved and unpaved shoulder, with the width split evenly between the two. Once the turnout and curb is present, the shoulder is interrupted by the curb, which IMPO does nothing (on the high side of superelevation) but present a hazard to motorists. John Lansford, PE -- The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage: http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/ > Wrong. While a shoulder can be paved, it doesn't have to be. The > shoulder is defined as the graded area outside of the lane stripe > before the ditch or fill slope begins. In areas where a guardrail is installed, does ths shoulder, as you've defined it, extend beyond the location of the guardrail? >> Wrong. While a shoulder can be paved, it doesn't have to be. The >> shoulder is defined as the graded area outside of the lane stripe >> before the ditch or fill slope begins. > >In areas where a guardrail is installed, does ths shoulder, as you've >defined it, extend beyond the location of the guardrail? Yes it does. Here in NC |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message