 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2007Another Florida, "Jury Gone Wild."
Ref: http://www.news4jax.com/news/10903669/detail.html << note: above was kinda slow to download. >> The short of it, The teen driver blew a stop sign and got Darwinized for it. Grieving parents sue seemingly everyone in sight and get $4 Million for their daughter's shitty driving. Ka-CHING!!! Scott, Brent and a few others, you might want to brace (as I will) for the inevitable posts from the kids "relatives," that will emminate from various web based servers.  Signature"Who the hell you calling crazy? You wouldn't know what crazy was If Charles Manson was eating Froot Loops on your front porch...." --Suicidal Tendencies > Ref: http://www.news4jax.com/news/10903669/detail.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the inevitable posts from the kids "relatives," that will emminate from > various web based servers. This link has a bit more detail about the actual accident: http://www.news4jax.com/news/10882304/detail.html - Peter > This link has a bit more detail about the actual accident: > http://www.news4jax.com/news/10882304/detail.html Hmm... "Ladue's family, represented by attorney Bob Spohrer, claims the intersection was cluttered with debris, barrels, building material and 10-foot high mound of crushed rock that made it nearly impossible for Ladue to see the oncoming truck." This sounds like my daily commute home for the last year. I wonder if I have a lawsuit for emotional distress and lost time when I passed up gaps because I couldn't see well enough. Seriously, it sounds like she just didn't have proper training and/or sufficent experience behind the wheel to deal with that sort of situation. She may have even been tought to drive by someone who follows the 'other people will brake for me' method of driving we see all too often on the road. These are people who take any gap where they feel the traffic closing in on them has enough time to react and brake for them. Those sort of drivers who count on "consideration" from other road users to keep their sheet metal straight. If they can prove: "Also, in a complaint filed by the family's attorney, they said the truck driver had been driving too many hours that day, was speeding and that the truck only had one working headlight at the time of the crash." They might have something for a contribution to the collision with the headlamp and fatigue parts. The speeding part if they can show the trucker was overdriving his sightlines, which it sounds as though he may have. Of course that doesn't outweigh the teenager violating right-of-way rules. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > If they can prove: > "Also, in a complaint filed by the family's attorney, they said the truck > driver had been driving too many hours that day, was speeding and that > the truck only had one working headlight at the time of the crash." I have to disagree on this point. After all, motorcycles only have one working headlight. If could see a motorcycle comming, then she should beable to see the truck. Granted, the trucker probablly was overdriving his sightlines, but he did have right of way, which to me makes the girl 100% at fault for the accident. SignatureAunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>," and what a "thread," is: "Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile me TWICE in the same thread and you expect people to take you seriously???" Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9 > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > his sightlines, but he did have right of way, which to me makes the girl > 100% at fault for the accident. Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a single headlamp vehicle. I've encountered vehicles that were dark on one side and because of that, I could not tell they were there as soon as I would have been able to otherwise. It's not so much that it's one headlamp, but where that one headlamp is relative to the obstructions. When a particular teenager took out my passenger side headlamp and turnsignal/marker light on my mustang the first thing I did was put a spare maverick turn signal lamp in place of the marker/turnsignal lamp that was smashed. Shortly after I was able to put a spare headlamp in as well. I wasn't going to drive around with one light. It looked like a.s, but it worked. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a >single headlamp vehicle. Try telling that to the loud-pipes-Harley-mouth-breather crowd... SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a > single headlamp vehicle. No, motorcyclists AVOID the center of the lane. That is the worst place to ride. On a motorcycle, you ride to the right, or to the left, of the lane. WHICH SIDE is better, is up to debate, still. Only 100% agreed-on view is that you do NOT ride down the center. I tend to ride on the right, usually, unless stuck in traffic. Nobody rides a motorcycle down the center of a lane. -Dave >> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a >> single headlamp vehicle. > No, motorcyclists AVOID the center of the lane. That is the worst place to > ride. On a motorcycle, you ride to the right, or to the left, of the lane. > WHICH SIDE is better, is up to debate, still. Only 100% agreed-on view is > that you do NOT ride down the center. I tend to ride on the right, usually, > unless stuck in traffic. Nobody rides a motorcycle down the center of a > lane. -Dave Only on usenet.... ok... slightly off center... but they damn well don't ride in the right or left tire tracks like a bicyclist. >>> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a >>> single headlamp vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ok... slightly off center... but they damn well don't ride in the right > or left tire tracks like a bicyclist. Well yes, as a matter of fact, they do. I've tried riding down the center of a lane in a motorcycle, just to see why it is generally agreed upon that this is NOT a good idea. It's a very uncomfortable feeling, as the bike will not stay straight, and you constantly feel like you're falling over. You have to fight the bike constantly to keep it on course. Besides which, the road is often pretty slippery in the center of a travel lane. Where a road is "worn" enough to have tire tracks on it, you ride in the right or left tire track. This takes very little effort, the bike pretty much handles itself just fine. There is no such thing as "slightly off center". For each single traffic lane, there are TWO lanes for a motorcycle (right and left). If you are riding with other motorcyclists, you are supposed to ride staggered. This means leaving an appropriate following distance between motorcycles AND alternating which side of the lane you are riding in. First bike might ride on the left tire track, next bike is 3 seconds behind in the right tire track, next one 3 seconds behind in the left tire track, etc. You do this for an extra margin of safety. You are supposed to leave enough space to stop if the bike ahead of you has to stop suddenly. But as you are staggered, you have (theoretically, at least) even more stopping room, if you need it. Lots of motorcyclists will ride right beside each other, one in the left tire track and one in the right tire track. It happens. It's not safe, but that doesn't stop it from happening. No motorcyclist is stupid enough to ride anywhere near the center of the lane, though. You try it once, and you quickly realize that it's not a healthy habit to get into. :) -Dave >>>> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a >>>> single headlamp vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> ok... slightly off center... but they damn well don't ride in the right >> or left tire tracks like a bicyclist. > Well yes, as a matter of fact, they do. When two are in the same lane or they are looking to lane split, but other than that, in a region I consider the center.... sure not dead on, but not the right or left tire tracks. It's a region that as bicyclist, I consider the 'center' as it is the location I use when I take the lane. > I've tried riding down the center > of a lane in a motorcycle, just to see why it is generally agreed upon that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > left tire track. This takes very little effort, the bike pretty much > handles itself just fine. If motorcyclists were riding in the right tire track they would be passed like bicyclists get passed in the same lane by many a MFFY driver. Motorcyclists I see ride in what I consider the center of the lane, a lane position that is what I use to take the lane to prevent in-lane passing or the symmetric location to the left, which I use on a bicycle for making a left turn and preventing in-lane passing. The tire track locations do not block in-lane passing. > There is no such thing as "slightly off center". For each single traffic > lane, there are TWO lanes for a motorcycle (right and left). If you are > riding with other motorcyclists, you are supposed to ride staggered. This > means leaving an appropriate following distance between motorcycles AND > alternating which side of the lane you are riding in. If were a group there would be MULTIPLE headlamps, not ONE. Thanks for the non-applicable case. >>>>> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a >>>>> single headlamp vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > but not the right or left tire tracks. It's a region that as bicyclist, I > consider the 'center' as it is the location I use when I take the lane. I'm not sure what Mike's about, but when I ride my motorcycle I usually ride in the center of the lane. If there are vehicles behind me, which means by default there are vehicles in front of me, I ride to the left as much as possible. Mostly because it gives me better visibility, but also, of course, it's easier to pass. >> I've tried riding down the center >> of a lane in a motorcycle, just to see why it is generally agreed upon that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If were a group there would be MULTIPLE headlamps, not ONE. Thanks for > the non-applicable case. Ulf >If motorcyclists were riding in the right tire track they would be passed >like bicyclists get passed in the same lane by many a MFFY driver. They do ride in the tire tracks and they would get passed in the same lane -- if they went as slow as a bicycle. They don't. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>If motorcyclists were riding in the right tire track they would be passed >>like bicyclists get passed in the same lane by many a MFFY driver. > > They do ride in the tire tracks and they would get passed in the same > lane -- if they went as slow as a bicycle. They don't. A motorcyclist riding at the speed limit when the flow speed is higher needs to be more towards the center otherwise he'll be passed like a bicyclist would be. >>>If motorcyclists were riding in the right tire track they would be passed >>>like bicyclists get passed in the same lane by many a MFFY driver. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >needs to be more towards the center otherwise he'll be passed like a >bicyclist would be. Perhaps. But I've never actually seen any such animal. Lone motorcyclists never go that slow, and groups tend to ride staggered (and even then rarely go slow). SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>If motorcyclists were riding in the right tire track they would be passed >>>>like bicyclists get passed in the same lane by many a MFFY driver. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > motorcyclists never go that slow, and groups tend to ride staggered > (and even then rarely go slow). I've seen lone motorcyclists go the posted speed limit numerous times. I've ridden posted speed limits on my bicycle in the right tire track, and even in 25mph residential areas drivers will kick up their speed to 40mph to pass me. I've had the same occur in 30-35mph zones, but of course I achieve those speeds much less often. I can't maintain speeds over 35mph long enough to know about anything faster. Motorcyclists I've noticed take the lane, especially when traveling the posted limit. I now do it as well when I reach the posted limit. On Feb 6, 1:29 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <jt-dnZqS0_NPe1XYnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > motorcyclists never go that slow, and groups tend to ride staggered > (and even then rarely go slow). As a former motorcyclist and bicycle commuter, I'd have to agree with you. I NEVER rode in the grease stripe - it's slick, even in good weather. I rode the right tire track. On my bicycle, too. By sticking to the left part of the right tire track, brush-passing was pretty much eliminated from my bicycle commutes. I was never brush-passed while on a motorcycle. Either Brent is not observant, or Chicago motorcycle riders are uniformly idiotic. E.P. > Either Brent is not observant, or Chicago motorcycle riders are > uniformly idiotic. Obviously you live in a universe where one micron left of the right tire track is the exact center of the lane. In universe I live in, there is a considerable distance (compared to the width of a bicycle) between the right tire track and the exact center. I ride in the right tire track. Motorcyclists ride to the left of that location, a _region_ I refer to as the center of the lane. True, as I stated earlier, they don't ride in the exact center, they are off center, but not as off center as a bicyclist. I've been riding in the right tire track and brush passed by lazy motorcyclists who didn't want to move further left. I've seen their lane location while they were well in front of me, and it was to the left of where I normally ride almost uniformally. When driving, motorcyclists are almost always more center than my mustang's marker lights, which are in line with the tires. But not in the oil stained area from dripping cars and trucks. Maybe it is a chicago thing, but when I see a motorcyclist get as far over as the tire track, he's either looking for an opening or is starting the process of lane splitting. Crappy ASCII fixed font graphic: bc = bicycle mc = motorcycle The two common motorcycle locations shown and a bicyclist in the right tire track. The right most mc location is where I ride to take the lane, and is thusly what I consider to be the center region, essentially in line with the passenger seat, inboard of the tires. | [ a ] | | [ u ] | | [ t ] | | [ o] | | | | m | | c | | | | m b | | c c | > In article <1170798379.648780.206...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Either Brent is not observant, or Chicago motorcycle riders are > > uniformly idiotic. > > Obviously you live in a universe where ... Obviously, you're an idiot who can't have any conversation without engaging in logical fallacy. E.P. >> In article <1170798379.648780.206...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> > Either Brent is not observant, or Chicago motorcycle riders are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obviously, you're an idiot who can't have any conversation without > engaging in logical fallacy. Once again you start something, but don't like it flung back at you. >> They do ride in the tire tracks and they would get passed in the same >> lane -- if they went as slow as a bicycle. They don't. > > A motorcyclist riding at the speed limit when the flow speed is higher > needs to be more towards the center otherwise he'll be passed like a > bicyclist would be. It's hilarious to read comments from people who don't ride motorcycles. If you ride in the right or left tire track, you don't get passed in the same lane. It's not an issue. People who pass you, do so in a different lane, just like they were passing a car. -Dave >>> They do ride in the tire tracks and they would get passed in the same >>> lane -- if they went as slow as a bicycle. They don't. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lane. It's not an issue. People who pass you, do so in a different lane, > just like they were passing a car. -Dave I've had people pass and attempt to pass in the same lane when I'm driving a car on rare occasion. The right tire track is not far enough left to stop many people from passing in the same lane when riding a bicycle. I would be shocked to find that these same drivers are better behaved around motorcyclists. > I've had people pass and attempt to pass in the same lane when I'm > driving a car on rare occasion. The right tire track is not far enough [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would be shocked to find that these same drivers are better behaved > around motorcyclists. Be shocked, then. Motorcyclists have to put up with many dumb stunts pulled by cagers. Passing in the same lane isn't one of them. Most often, it is cars turning left in front of you when you (the motorcyclist) have the right of way. -Dave > >> They do ride in the tire tracks and they would get passed in the same > >> lane -- if they went as slow as a bicycle. They don't. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lane. It's not an issue. People who pass you, do so in a different lane, > just like they were passing a car. -Dave Exactly. Never once while I was on a motorcycle did ANYONE pass me in the same lane. City riding, dense traffic, riding in the right wheel track. On my bicycle, it was a different story. But "taking the lane" meant riding, you guessed it, in the right wheel track. And that worked out fine most of the time, except on roads >30mph. Maybe in Chicago, it really is different. I have never seen what Brent describes, anywhere. For bicycles, yes. For motorcycles, no. I seriously doubt *he's* seen such a thing with motorcycles, either. E.P. > Never once while I was on a motorcycle did ANYONE pass me in the same > lane. City riding, dense traffic, riding in the right wheel track. > On my bicycle, it was a different story. But "taking the lane" meant > riding, you guessed it, in the right wheel track. And that worked out > fine most of the time, except on roads >30mph. Taking the lane is not in the right tire track. Taking the lane means geting further to the left than that. > I seriously doubt *he's* seen such a thing with motorcycles, either. Not exactly, but close to it. I've seen motorists not get completely into a neighboring lane to pass motorcyclists who were in one of the tire tracks. Sure, they were mostly in the other lane. Lazy MFFY drivers, as usual. > In article <1170866838.951876.221...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Never once while I was on a motorcycle did ANYONE pass me in the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Taking the lane is not in the right tire track. Of course it is. If a car can't be fully in the lane right beside you, then you have indeed taken the lane. Now, your OPINION on whether or not that's sufficient is immaterial. E.P. >> Taking the lane is not in the right tire track. > Of course it is. If a car can't be fully in the lane right beside > you, then you have indeed taken the lane. The working definition of taking the lane is being far enough left that most drivers will have to move so far into the next lane to the left, that they will tend to go all the way and _CHANGE_ lanes. Most drivers won't do that with a bicyclist in the right tire track. > In article <1170878307.721700.169...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> Taking the lane is not in the right tire track. > > Of course it is. If a car can't be fully in the lane right beside > > you, then you have indeed taken the lane. > > The working definition of taking the lane is being far enough ... Redefining the term to suit your purposes is weak. > Most drivers won't do that with a bicyclist in the right tire track. You have no clue of the habits of "most drivers" when it comes to interactions with bicycles. You only know what happens in your small geographical area - since it's unlikely you've encountered even a miniscule fraction of "most drivers". E.P. >> In article <1170878307.721700.169...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >> Taking the lane is not in the right tire track. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Redefining the term to suit your purposes is weak. I am using the common definition and have been using the same one since the first time I ever used it. >> Most drivers won't do that with a bicyclist in the right tire track. > You have no clue of the habits of "most drivers" when it comes to > interactions with bicycles. > You only know what happens in your small geographical area - since > it's unlikely you've encountered even a miniscule fraction of "most > drivers". Here's Ed again, restorting to sniping by nitpicking. It's implied that it is in my experience. But you already knew that. Seems gpstroll is rubbing off on you. >>> The working definition of taking the lane is being far enough ... >> Redefining the term to suit your purposes is weak. > > I am using the common definition and have been using the same one since > the first time I ever used it. Furthermore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_lane "A bicyclist is using the full lane (also known as "taking the lane") when traveling along near the center of a marked travel lane instead of the side. Using the full lane normally precludes passing within the same lane by drivers of wide motor vehicles, while being positioned next to a lane line usually encourages such passing." Sorry, Ed, You're the one with the special definition. > In article <bJydnZpFt9cDxlfYnZ2dnUVZ_hzin...@comcast.com>, Brent P wrote: > > In article <1170886955.970913.190...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sorry, Ed, You're the one with the special definition. Sorry, I don't recognize wiki as a legitimate source for anything. And riding in the grease stripe is absolutely stupid on any two- wheeled vehicle. E.P. >> Sorry, Ed, You're the one with the special definition. > > Sorry, I don't recognize wiki as a legitimate source for anything. You'll say that about any source I put up http://www.vcbike.org/daily_news-11-8-01.htm " Do not try to share the lane if it is too narrow - ride in the center. Cyclists call this "taking the lane."" > And riding in the grease stripe is absolutely stupid on any two- > wheeled vehicle. It's not 1977 any more and most of live places where it rains. > In article <1170890380.978143.143...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> Sorry, Ed, You're the one with the special definition. > > > Sorry, I don't recognize wiki as a legitimate source for anything. > > You'll say that about any source I put up Actually, no. I'll accept the one you gave. > > And riding in the grease stripe is absolutely stupid on any two- > > wheeled vehicle. > > It's not 1977 any more and most of live places where it rains. Look at the road. See that dark stripe running down the middle of the lane? It's more slick than the tire tracks. Go try it in a motorcycle some time. Make sure your health insurance is paid up. E.P. >> > And riding in the grease stripe is absolutely stupid on any two- >> > wheeled vehicle. >> It's not 1977 any more and most of live places where it rains. > Look at the road. See that dark stripe running down the middle of the > lane? It's more slick than the tire tracks. I know what you're talking about, but it isn't the way it used to be. On almost all roads (that I have driven, seen, ridden on) there is no color difference to speak of. On the rest it is very slight. Of course, I haven't driven through deserts and other places where rain is infrequent. > In article <1170891721.776574.65...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> > And riding in the grease stripe is absolutely stupid on any two- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I know what you're talking about... You most obviously don't. > On almost all roads (that I have driven, seen, ridden on) there is no > color difference to speak of. ??? > On the rest it is very slight. Of course, > I haven't driven through deserts and other places where rain is > infrequent. I'm talking Seattle and Portland here. Hardly desert by any stretch of the wild imagination. During rains, those strips are like riding on ice. After the rain, they are still slick. Here, which gets about half the precip typical of those places, the grease strip is very pronounced. Riding it would be an invitation to crash. E.P. >> I know what you're talking about... > You most obviously don't. Yes, I do. I remember grease strips, just haven't seen much of them since the 80s. >> On almost all roads (that I have driven, seen, ridden on) there is no >> color difference to speak of. > ??? You stated it was 'dark' as in darker, as in a color difference. Of course you're just playing as usual. > Here, which gets about half the precip typical of those places, the > grease strip is very pronounced. Maybe you have a lot of 'aunt judys' around driving leaky beaters. > Riding it would be an invitation to crash. I've never had a problem when taking the lane, even with bald road bicycle tires. I've ridden in IL,IN,MI,WI,HI,WV > In article <1170893094.246038.208...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> I know what you're talking about... > > You most obviously don't. > > Yes, I do. I remember grease strips, just haven't seen much of them since > the 80s. Then you haven't been riding or driving anywhere. That's fine - go to San Diego some time. It rains there. Look at the pavement. Anaheim? Vancouver, B.C.? You're welcome. E.P. >> In article <1170893094.246038.208...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >> I know what you're talking about... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then you haven't been riding or driving anywhere. Now you want me to add the states and countries I've driven in without seeing this 'grease strip'? Of course not, you're just making another one of your smart a.s remarks. You're the one claiming the 'grease strip' universally exists making the center of the lane universally a stupid place to ride any two wheeled vehicle. Yet, you complain about universal arguments. POT-KETTLE-BLACK. On Feb 7, 11:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1170909351.444656.67...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <1170893094.246038.208...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > seeing this 'grease strip'? Of course not, you're just making another one > of your smart a.s remarks. You not seeing it could be chalked up to your lack of observation skills. > You're the one claiming the 'grease strip' universally exists ... Uh, no. I've listed the places where I've seen one. Where I've ridden that there's been one. Where it's been damn slick to the point of danger. I've made no "typical" claims, anywhere. But, I will make this claim: I have been a lot of places Your lack of logic and reading comprehension skills is staggering. E.P. >> seeing this 'grease strip'? Of course not, you're just making another one >> of your smart a.s remarks. > > You not seeing it could be chalked up to your lack of observation > skills. *laugh* When in doubt, insult. Your usual routine where if my experience doesn't match yours, there's something wrong with me. >> You're the one claiming the 'grease strip' universally exists ... > Uh, no. I've listed the places where I've seen one. Where I've > ridden that there's been one. Where it's been damn slick to the point > of danger. I've made no "typical" claims, anywhere. But, I will make > this claim: I have been a lot of places Go back a few posts. You make your 'grease strip' claims without any disclaimers or limitations. Which, means, by your own rules, a universal argument. > Your lack of logic and reading comprehension skills is staggering. Your pot-kettle-black approch to semantic nit picking of usenet posts is becoming as tiresome as gpstroll's sniping. On Feb 8, 10:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1170958621.279889.314...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> seeing this 'grease strip'? Of course not, you're just making another one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > *laugh* When in doubt, insult. I'm sorry you took it that way - I'm just offering an alternate explanation. There is another one - that you just are saying it because you're trying to win a usenet argument. > Your usual routine where if my experience doesn't match yours, there's > something wrong with me. Well, there's no doubt that there's something wrong with you, but your lack of universal experience is not unique to you. Making the implied claim that riding down the center of the lane is OK everywhere is kinda dumb, however. > >> You're the one claiming the 'grease strip' universally exists ... > > Uh, no. I've listed the places where I've seen one. Where I've [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Go back a few posts. You make your 'grease strip' claims without any > disclaimers or limitations. Yup. They're everywhere I've been. > Which, means, by your own rules, a universal > argument. Yup. Your lack of observation skills doesn't imply that I'm wrong. > > Your lack of logic and reading comprehension skills is staggering. > > Your pot-kettle-black approch to semantic nit picking of usenet posts is > becoming as tiresome as gpstroll's sniping. Feel free not to read and reply, then - if you have the self-control, that is. LOL. E.P. > Well, there's no doubt that there's something wrong with you, but your > lack of universal experience is not unique to you. > Making the implied claim that riding down the center of the lane is OK > everywhere is kinda dumb, however. I never made that argument. You made the argument it was universally dumb. I simply stated I've never had a problem riding in the center of the lane. >> Go back a few posts. You make your 'grease strip' claims without any >> disclaimers or limitations. > Yup. They're everywhere I've been. You missed that "everywhere I've been" disclaimer initially. I knew what you meant, just as you knew what I meant when you decided to semantically nit pick for whatever personal reason drives you to do that. >> Which, means, by your own rules, a universal argument. > Yup. Your lack of observation skills doesn't imply that I'm wrong. Another perfect example of Ed's double standard. His experience is universal. Someone who has had a different one lacks observation skills. However should someone think their experience typical, and Ed's is different, that person is making a false 'universal' claim. >> > Your lack of logic and reading comprehension skills is staggering. >> Your pot-kettle-black approch to semantic nit picking of usenet posts is >> becoming as tiresome as gpstroll's sniping. > Feel free not to read and reply, then - if you have the self-control, > that is. You could take that advice yourself, Ed. > LOL. Exactly. On Feb 8, 12:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1170962851.048059.246...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Well, there's no doubt that there's something wrong with you, but your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I never made that argument. Look up the meaning of the word "implied". > >> Go back a few posts. You make your 'grease strip' claims without any > >> disclaimers or limitations. > > Yup. They're everywhere I've been. > > You missed that "everywhere I've been" disclaimer initially. Actually, I didn't miss it. If you look at photos of roads, this grease strip is *almost universal*. I didn't mean nor imply that the grease strip only exists in the places I've been. The only places grease strips don't exist is on new roads. Or roads that don't allow vehicular traffic. Your inability to see them has nothing to do with that. > >> Which, means, by your own rules, a universal argument. > > Yup. Your lack of observation skills doesn't imply that I'm wrong. > > Another perfect example of Ed's double standard. No double standard. Your lack of observation or cognitive skills is in no way related to the presense or absense of grease strips. > >> > Your lack of logic and reading comprehension skills is staggering. > >> Your pot-kettle-black approch to semantic nit picking of usenet posts is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You could take that advice yourself, Ed. I'm not the one complaining. I find your drivel quite amusing. I wouldn't miss one of your paranoid rants for all the world. Nor your shocked pain at being shown for the black-helicopter k00k you are. Or whatever other criticism that you can't bear letting slide without angry indignation. What's more, you just can't control yourself. Even when you killfile people, you third-party snipe them. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were an insecure high-school geek. Yes, I do know you're not in high school any more. E.P. > On Feb 8, 12:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Look up the meaning of the word "implied". It wasn't. >> >> Go back a few posts. You make your 'grease strip' claims without any >> >> disclaimers or limitations. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The only places grease strips don't exist is on new roads. > Or roads that don't allow vehicular traffic. Guess I'll have to take some pictures for you. There simply isn't a strip of grease down the middle. Nearly the entire lane is the same color, cept for maybe some variation practically on the lane lines. I take the lane, riding where you say it is and make left turns not even thinking of iand have yet to fall or even have the least bit of instability because of this grease strip that I'm supposedly not seeing. And this is on tires with practically no tread, less than inch wide, at 120 psi. > Your inability to see them has nothing to do with that. I see the road very well from a bicycle thank you very much. There is no strip of grease down the middle. >> >> Which, means, by your own rules, a universal argument. >> > Yup. Your lack of observation skills doesn't imply that I'm wrong. >> Another perfect example of Ed's double standard. > No double standard. Your lack of observation or cognitive skills is > in no way related to the presense or absense of grease strips. When cornered, insult. >> You could take that advice yourself, Ed. > I'm not the one complaining. I find your drivel quite amusing. You're the one flingin insults Ed. > I wouldn't miss one of your paranoid rants for all the world. Nor > your shocked pain at being shown for the black-helicopter k00k you > are. Or whatever other criticism that you can't bear letting slide > without angry indignation. So, Ed, why were you so silent on the thread that branched into terror? Oh, that's right... no semantic slip ups for you jump on. You rarely have anything of substance to add, for the most part you snipe at semantics and complain about how posts are constructed and fling insults. > What's more, you just can't control yourself. Even when you killfile > people, you third-party snipe them. If I didn't know better, I'd > think you were an insecure high-school geek. As usual, Ed leaves off a significant fact to make a snipe. > In article <1170968888.428962.210...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Feb 8, 12:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It wasn't. Easy to claim after the fact, after it's been clearly shown as the opposite. LOL. > >> >> Go back a few posts. You make your 'grease strip' claims without any > >> >> disclaimers or limitations. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Guess I'll have to take some pictures for you. You do that. > > Your inability to see them has nothing to do with that. > > I see the road very well from a bicycle thank you very much. There is no > strip of grease down the middle. On some relatively new road in your locale. I'd buy that. > >> You could take that advice yourself, Ed. > > I'm not the one complaining. I find your drivel quite amusing. > > You're the one flingin insults Ed. Non sequitur. > > I wouldn't miss one of your paranoid rants for all the world. Nor > > your shocked pain at being shown for the black-helicopter k00k you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, Ed, why were you so silent on the thread that branched into > terror? Nothing new there. Been over that ground already. Unlike you, I see no reason to revisit an argument that's already been hashed out. > > What's more, you just can't control yourself. Even when you killfile > > people, you third-party snipe them. If I didn't know better, I'd > > think you were an insecure high-school geek. > > As usual, Ed leaves off a significant fact to make a snipe. Nope. No significant facts have been omitted. Just a stupid lie on your part. E.P. >> >> I never made that argument. >> > Look up the meaning of the word "implied". >> It wasn't. > > Easy to claim after the fact, after it's been clearly shown as the > opposite. LOL. You haven't shown jack or sh.t. >> Guess I'll have to take some pictures for you. > You do that. Oh, that's right, you'll just accuse me of 'cherrypicking'. Of course you argue it's everywhere... so before I go out into the cold, will one picture of a road without a grease strip do? >> > Your inability to see them has nothing to do with that. >> I see the road very well from a bicycle thank you very much. There is no >> strip of grease down the middle. > On some relatively new road in your locale. I'd buy that. The one I have in mind is rather close by. It's concrete so 'grease' would be very contrasting if it was there. Plus the road has that salty white appearance right now even more contrast from grease. It's had the same surface since before I moved to these parts over 10 years ago. Or is that too relatively new? I don't know how old it is, but guessing by the wear and tear I'd say it was probably redone between 1988 and 1992. > Non sequitur. As was your insult. > Nothing new there. Been over that ground already. > Unlike you, I see no reason to revisit an argument that's already been > hashed out. There was all sorts of 'new' there Ed. >> As usual, Ed leaves off a significant fact to make a snipe. > Nope. No significant facts have been omitted. Just a stupid lie on > your part. No lie at all, you neglect something significant, and you know what it is. After all, it's probably a tiny part of the reason you reply to gpsman's replies to my posts. > In article <1170974131.896910.25...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> >> I never made that argument. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You haven't shown jack or sh.t. Whatever you say. > >> > Your inability to see them has nothing to do with that. > >> I see the road very well from a bicycle thank you very much. There is no > >> strip of grease down the middle. > > On some relatively new road in your locale. I'd buy that. > > The one I have in mind is rather close by. I'm sure you do. One close to you, in your locale - you know, "typical." ROTFL. > > Non sequitur. > > As was your insult. Actually not, but you believe whatever suits you. > > Nothing new there. Been over that ground already. > > Unlike you, I see no reason to revisit an argument that's already been > > hashed out. > > There was all sorts of 'new' there Ed. Yes, I realize every time you repeat the same argument, it's "new." Yawn. I can't wait for the new info you've got on Real ID. It's been all over the news. It's a real shocker you haven't been all over it. *snicker* > >> As usual, Ed leaves off a significant fact to make a snipe. > > Nope. No significant facts have been omitted. Just a stupid lie on > > your part. > > No lie at all It absolutely is. No significant fact was left off. Of course, if it were a cut and dried as you want people to believe, you'd quote it, and explain why it's absense makes a difference. But no, you're just being a blowhole, with no self-control. Worse than gpstroll, actually. E.P. >> The one I have in mind is rather close by. > > I'm sure you do. One close to you, in your locale - you know, > "typical." Then we are done here, you accept the grease strip is not universal. <snip, unread> > In article <1170977239.127634.28...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> The one I have in mind is rather close by. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then we are done here, you accept the grease strip is not universal. Already qualified it with "almost". And already stipulated that your area was "special" and "different". AFAIK, your world is special and different. How about that Real ID news, Mr. Neverwrong? ROTFL. E.P. >> In article <1170977239.127634.28...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >> The one I have in mind is rather close by. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Already qualified it with "almost". back peddling... > And already stipulated that your area was "special" and "different". More back peddling.... > AFAIK, your world is special and different. How about that Real ID > news, Mr. Neverwrong? What about it? Some state legislators are growing some balls for a change. And as the song goes, Maine has the biggest balls of the all. The problem is how the federal blackmail works, and that is unchanged. Let me know when the federal government actually rolls something back other than doing slight of hand like with Dubai Ports world. > In article <1170977825.843233.277...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <1170977239.127634.28...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > back peddling... LOL. Hard to backpedal when that was the condition in the beginning. > > And already stipulated that your area was "special" and "different". > > More back peddling.... No, just making sure your special reality is acknowledged. To make you feel better. > > AFAIK, your world is special and different. How about that Real ID > > news, Mr. Neverwrong? > > What about it? Some state legislators are growing some balls for a > change. Yup. Looks like the slope ain't as slippery as you claim, Chicken Little. E.P. >> >> Then we are done here, you accept the grease strip is not universal. >> >> > Already qualified it with "almost". >> >> back peddling... > LOL. Hard to backpedal when that was the condition in the beginning. Um no. <1170891721.776574.65900@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> "Look at the road. See that dark stripe running down the middle of the lane? It's more slick than the tire tracks. Go try it in a motorcycle some time. Make sure your health insurance is paid up." No disclaimers. It's just supposed to universally exist. The disclaimers you made were about where motorcyclists ride btw. You can't even keep the content your own posts straight. > Yup. Looks like the slope ain't as slippery as you claim, Chicken > Little. Let me know when there is real change. Otherwise it's just another Dubai Ports world. The Real ID act is already passed, it has to be repealed. Let me know when that happens. So far all that has occured is that residents of Maine will need a passport to travel internally in the USA by air or other means where homeland security checks ID. Wait, what sort of nation requires internal passports agian? > In article <1170980527.595776.317...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No disclaimers. It's just supposed to universally exist. "Except on newly-paved roads". Musta slipped your mind. > > Yup. Looks like the slope ain't as slippery as you claim, Chicken > > Little. > > Let me know when there is real change. [cuckoo clock chimes] Sure thing, Mr. Little. E.P. >> In article <1170980527.595776.317...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Except on newly-paved roads". > Musta slipped your mind. Your later back peddling doesn't count. >> > Yup. Looks like the slope ain't as slippery as you claim, Chicken >> > Little. >> Let me know when there is real change. > > [cuckoo clock chimes] > Sure thing, Mr. Little. Aww... poor baby doesn't like the same thing he dishes out. > In article <1171038892.794341.89...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <1170980527.595776.317...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Your later back peddling doesn't count. Counts for me. > >> > Yup. Looks like the slope ain't as slippery as you claim, Chicken > >> > Little. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Aww... poor baby doesn't like the same thing he dishes out. ??? If you were dishing anything out, that'd make sense. Find any self-control yet? LOL. E.P. >> Your later back peddling doesn't count. > > Counts for me. But not anyone else.... same old Ed. > Find any self-control yet? LOL. Where's yours? I find this amusing, reducing you to this nonsense. > In article <1171040965.411317.213...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> Your later back peddling doesn't count. > > > Counts for me. > > But not anyone else.... same old Ed. Sure, it counts for other folks - when it makes sense. > > Find any self-control yet? LOL. > > Where's yours? I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings. That'd be you. E.P. > Sure, it counts for other folks - when it makes sense. *laff* >> > Find any self-control yet? LOL. >> >> Where's yours? > > I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings. Thats practically all you do. You bitch about the posts themselves. > That'd be you. Oh, because I think you're often tiresome... *laff* kookooO! On Feb 9, 10:17 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1171044130.206901.318...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thats practically all you do. You bitch about the posts themselves. Prove it. (I *do* point out lack of logic/reasoning, but not the posts themselves. Separate content vs. posts/posters.) > > That'd be you. > > Oh, because I think you're often tiresome... Then find some self-control, and you won't have to deal. Simple, even for you. E.P. > On Feb 9, 10:17 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Prove it. (I *do* point out lack of logic/reasoning, but not the > posts themselves. Separate content vs. posts/posters.) I don't have to prove it, you've just admitted it. You complain about the posts themselves, you complain about semantics, your rules of logic not being followed, etc and so forth. You rarely have any content to contribute in terms of post count. On Feb 9, 11:05 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1171045472.504178.63...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Feb 9, 10:17 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't have to prove it, you've just admitted it. Bzzzt. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, obviously. > You complain about the > posts themselves Asserting something false twice doesn't not make a proof. > you complain about semantics, your rules of logic *My* rules? Dude, I have nowhere claimed that I have my own special rules. Discussion groups are about the discussion of *content*, dumbass. Of course I'm going to blast you when your content is idiotic. > You rarely have any content to > contribute in terms of post count. LOL, yet another post bitch from you. Something I just don't do. Go ahead and prove otherwise. E.P. > Discussion groups are about the discussion of *content*, dumbass. Of > course I'm going to blast you when your content is idiotic. And you admit it again. You rarely discuss the topic of the post. You complain about semantics used, that it's not logical like everyone has to be some sort of Vulcan from star trek. You often complain about usages of words, trivalities that have to do with the presentation, the post itself. Your complaint where I phrase it as people not following your rules of logic. As in the rules you want people to follow, not necesscarily rules of your creation. Just another example of complaint of semantics. On Feb 9, 11:33 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1171048601.482394.285...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Discussion groups are about the discussion of *content*, dumbass. Of > > course I'm going to blast you when your content is idiotic. > > And you admit it again. No. You have reading comprehension issues. You're the one bitching about me posting *at all*, because you don't like how the discussion goes. You complain that I actually do post. > You rarely discuss the topic of the post. Of course I discuss the topic. And sometimes I discuss the reasoning behind the topic. And, every now and again, I suggest other fora where the topic is more suited to the subject matter those fora were designed for. > You complain about semantics > used, that it's not logical like everyone has to be some sort of Vulcan > from star trek. If you can't express yourself properly, don't blame me. If you can't present your point with delving into logical fallacy, then your points aren't intellectually strong. The star trek thing is a strawman argument, you do realize? [/irony] > You often complain about usages of words, trivalities > that have to do with the presentation, the post itself. The contents of the posts, and the ideas therein, either work, or fail based on how they are presented. If you don't like being criticized, I suggest you refrain from posting stuff you can't support. IOW, grow up. > Your complaint where I phrase it as people not following your rules of > logic. Again, I didn't invent them. I just use them, like most intelligent folks do. > As in the rules you want people to follow, not necesscarily rules > of your creation. Oddly, I expect *me* to follow them as well. If you can't present your point or have a discussion without resorting to logical fallacies, then your point is weak. > Just another example of complaint of semantics. Uh, no. Look up the work "your" in the dictionary, and show how it's not a possessive. Your lack of ability to use words properly in a text-based forum doesn't have anything to do with *me*. E.P. > In article <1170886955.970913.190...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <1170878307.721700.169...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I am using the common definition and have been using the same one since > the first time I ever used it. What "common" definition? One that *you* made up? LOL. > >> Most drivers won't do that with a bicyclist in the right tire track. > > You have no clue of the habits of "most drivers" when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Here's Ed again, restorting to sniping by nitpicking. It's implied that > it is in my experience. But you already knew that. Actually, I didn't. In fact, the implication is that your experience is universal. The plain fact of it is that I have NEVER been passed in my own lane on a motorcycle, and by riding my bicycle in the right wheel track, I have always been given plenty of room when drivers pass, even if they don't get all the way over into the other lane. Your disagreement with Matthew R. indicates that he thought you were implying a global approach, as opposed to the local one you're now pretending to adopt. Logic is a real bitch, huh? E.P. >> I am using the common definition and have been using the same one since >> the first time I ever used it. > > What "common" definition? One that *you* made up? > LOL. The one that has been used since before I ever heard the term 'taking the lane'. >> Here's Ed again, restorting to sniping by nitpicking. It's implied that >> it is in my experience. But you already knew that. > Actually, I didn't. In fact, the implication is that your experience > is universal. No, typical. > The plain fact of it is that I have NEVER been passed in my own lane > on a motorcycle, and by riding my bicycle in the right wheel track, I > have always been given plenty of room when drivers pass, even if they > don't get all the way over into the other lane. I've been brush passed many times in the right tire track. I ride in the right tire track so I have room to move into when I am in brush pass. > Your disagreement with Matthew R. indicates that he thought you were > implying a global approach, as opposed to the local one you're now > pretending to adopt. > Logic is a real bitch, huh? Nice mixing and matching... typical Ed. Doesn't care one wit for the subject matter, just in it for the snipes. > In article <1170890274.945737.304...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, typical. Look up the definition of "typical" and come back and show me that it even implies "in my experience". Good luck. > > The plain fact of it is that I have NEVER been passed in my own lane > > on a motorcycle, and by riding my bicycle in the right wheel track, I > > have always been given plenty of room when drivers pass, even if they > > don't get all the way over into the other lane. > > I've been brush passed many times in the right tire track. I haven't. So your experience isn't "typical." > > Your disagreement with Matthew R. indicates that he thought you were > > implying a global approach, as opposed to the local one you're now > > pretending to adopt. > > Logic is a real bitch, huh? > > Nice mixing and matching... typical Ed. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can't follow the conversation, why are you participating? E.P. >> No, typical. > > Look up the definition of "typical" and come back and show me that it > even implies "in my experience". Do I have to make everything for you a lengthy paragraph? My experience being more or less typical, nothing special. Or are you prepared that to tell me it is a special case? >> I've been brush passed many times in the right tire track. > I haven't. So your experience isn't "typical." Every bicyclist I've ever discussed this with other than you, has been brush passed in the right tire track. Maybe you don't ride enough. > I have no idea what you are talking about. Exactly. > If you can't follow the conversation, why are you participating? You should ask that of yourself, because you engaged me in the "conversation". > In article <1170891970.085153.197...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> No, typical. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do I have to make everything for you a lengthy paragraph? My experience > being more or less typical, nothing special. Typical implies a universal norm. > >> I've been brush passed many times in the right tire track. > > I haven't. So your experience isn't "typical." > > Every bicyclist I've ever discussed this with other than you, has been > brush passed in the right tire track. Ooo, you've discussed it with three other people, in the same area, and now you're "typical." > > I have no idea what you are talking about. > > Exactly. Snipping context is weak. Like your arguments. E.P. > Typical implies a universal norm. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typical 1. of the nature of or serving as a type or representative specimen. > Ooo, you've discussed it with three other people, in the same area, > and now you're "typical." Now you're just being a jackass. But since you must know, I used to participate in the bicycling equal of this newsgroup. And I've known far more than 3 bicyclists personally, and not all from this area at that. >> > I have no idea what you are talking about. >> >> Exactly. > > Snipping context is weak. > Like your arguments. Pot Kettle Black. > In article <1170892765.489226.242...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Typical implies a universal norm. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typical > 1. of the nature of or serving as a type or representative specimen. I am amused you think this cite supports your position. > > Ooo, you've discussed it with three other people, in the same area, > > and now you're "typical." > > Now you're just being a jackass. No, you're the jackass. I'm nowhere claiming my experience is somehow universal. > >> > I have no idea what you are talking about. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pot Kettle Black. That reply only works if I'm doing the same. I'm not, so you're just being a jerk. E.P. > No, you're the jackass. I'm nowhere claiming my experience is somehow > universal. Yeah, you just make smart a.s remarks about me being non-observant or the remote possibility that everyone in the chicago area behaves totally different. Again, pot-kettle-black. >> Pot Kettle Black. > That reply only works if I'm doing the same. I'm not, so you're just > being a jerk. You routinely trim for your own benefit. On Feb 7, 11:49 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1170909188.690947.62...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > No, you're the jackass. I'm nowhere claiming my experience is somehow [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > remote possibility that everyone in the chicago area behaves totally > different. Again, pot-kettle-black. Wrong. I have never claimed my experience is "typical." > >> Pot Kettle Black. > > That reply only works if I'm doing the same. I'm not, so you're just > > being a jerk. > > You routinely trim for your own benefit. I do not snip context to change the meaning of the quote. Ever. E.P. > On Feb 7, 11:49 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I do not snip context to change the meaning of the quote. Ever. See above. On Feb 8, 10:16 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1170958316.187703.281...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See above. Ooo, staggering proof! ROTFL. E.P. > >> They do ride in the tire tracks and they would get passed in the same > >> lane -- if they went as slow as a bicycle. They don't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's hilarious to read comments from people who don't ride motorcycles. I ride and I beg to differ. While I haven't been passed by cars *fully* in the same lane, I have been passed by cars who never fully *left* my lane (IOW, without getting their right side wheels to the left of the centerline). That's why I now generally ride to the left side of my lane as they approach from the rear (to force them over the centerline) until the passing car is beside me. Then I move to the right (while I'm in their blind spot) so they don't 'chop' me. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that) >> This link has a bit more detail about the actual accident: >> http://www.news4jax.com/news/10882304/detail.html [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > didn't have proper training and/or sufficent experience behind the wheel > to deal with that sort of situation. Yup. > She may have even been tought to drive by someone who follows the 'other > people will brake for me' method of driving we see all too often on the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > have. Of course that doesn't outweigh the teenager violating > right-of-way rules. Even with only one working headlight she shouldn't have had any problem seeing the truck. What if it had been a motorcycle instead? Judging by the pictures it looks like she pulled out right in front of it too. I feel bad for the truck driver, think about how he feels after this, maybe he should sue her family instead... Ulf > Judging by the pictures it looks like she pulled out right in front of it too. Eh ? It's hardly touched ! Graham |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message