 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / April 2007The Holiday Rambler Crowd
http://www.holidayrambler.com/models/hr.aspx?content=index&model=ambassador I see lots of these things on the road. They usually have a color-matched RV being towed along behind. They always seem to be in some great hurry and few, if any, of them are courteous drivers. They act like they own the road and refuse to pass with care. These are among the very worst offenders when it comes to giving cyclists their legal right to the road. You have to wonder why somebody who can afford an expensive RV like this has so little courtesy and common sense. Seems to me like they have a whole lot to loose in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit. . . Shad O'Shay > http://www.holidayrambler.com/models/hr.aspx?content=index&model=ambassador > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > me like they have a whole lot to loose in a personal injury or wrongful > death lawsuit. . . Most Motorhomes are out on the interstates and not on city streets most of the time. Why are you riding your bicycle where its often illegal to be doing so? What I hate is bicycle riders who insist on riding in the street making it very dangerous when there is a bike path right along side. >> http://www.holidayrambler.com/models/hr.aspx?content=index&model=ambassador >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > riding in the street making it very dangerous when there is a bike > path right along side. I don't ride on the interstate highways, never. It's not legal. Secondary roads like state and county roads are best for training rides. Lot's of RVs on the secondary roads. Better scenery there. Bike paths are too dangerous for me to ride on. Too many people jogging, walking their dogs, pushing baby strollers and that kind of slow stuff. I quit riding on the bike paths the day a girl's dog which she had on a leash ran right in front of me and I ran it over. The poor girl cried big crocodile tears. The dog was hurt but it didn't die thank God. I managed to sort of jump the bike over it at the last minute because there was no way I could have stopped or swerved to avoid it. A sweet little doggie, too. I regularly train at speeds around 30mph and it's not fair or honorable for me to endanger pedestrians even if they have taken over the so-called bicycle paths. Believe it or not, it's safer on the roadways for fast cyclists. Shad O'Shay . . >I don't ride on the interstate highways, never. It's not legal. >Secondary roads like state and county roads are best for training rides. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >way I could have stopped or swerved to avoid it. A sweet little doggie, >too. >Shad O'Shay Sounds like a cyclist/RV scenario. If I was that young girl, I would have owned your smarmy a.s since you would have been every bit as liable as you claim we RVers are when we splash your a.s all over the road. I can't 'jump' my RV over you though. (wouldn't even if I could) And you are a 'sweet little doggie, too'. > . . > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > road. I can't 'jump' my RV over you though. (wouldn't even if I > could) A cyclist must yield to a pedestrian on a sidewalk but on a bike path the cyclist has the right of way. When passing a pedestrian from behind him, even on a bike path, a cyclist is required to give a sound signal and pass safely. Usually the ringing of a bell is the best signal. People recognize it and they don't jump right out in front of you. However, when approaching a pedestrian on a bike path from the front one is not required to ring a bell. And if a dog happens to run right across the bike path in front of a cyclist the cyclist is not responsible for the actions of the dog should it get killed or injured. The owner should love it enough and be paying attention and keep it on a short leash at the approach of a cyclist to keep it from doing what most dogs love to to - chase a bicycle. That's why I felt so badly for the little dog. It was hurt and it was hurt because it had a stupid mistress who didn't love it enough or care for it enough to keep it safe. > And you are a 'sweet little doggie, too'. Huh? Shad O'Shay >Sounds like a cyclist/RV scenario. If I was that young girl, I would >have owned your smarmy a.s.... Actually, not. _IF_ the person is found guilty, under the law, dogs are considered property and only the value of the dog is considered. No "pain and suffering" for lost property. As an RV owner as well as a cyclist, I have seen both ends of the spectrum in this issue. I rarely have had a problem with RV drivers when cycling. Have had car drivers open a door of a parked car in front of me when I was doing 25-30MPH, legally on my road bike. They never even checked the mirror. Think that's exciting? Try motorcycling.. You find out just how bad American drivers really are. I am now in the habit, when I see someone talking on a cell phone and driving, of yelling out, "hang up and drive!" But that's another story. From Randy & Val 1990 30' Rexhal Airex >>> http://www.holidayrambler.com/models/hr.aspx?content=index&model=ambassador >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Shad O'Shay Aren't you the same guy that sails that 53" Amel Super Maramu 2000? I guess it's long enough so you could cycle around on deck. >>>> http://www.holidayrambler.com/models/hr.aspx?content=index&model=ambassador >>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Aren't you the same guy that sails that 53" Amel Super Maramu 2000? I > guess it's long enough so you could cycle around on deck. It's really my dad's corporation that owns the boat. So, though it's not really mine, I have the use of it. The captain and crew looks after it. Shad O'Shay > I regularly train at speeds around 30mph and it's not fair or honorable > for me to endanger pedestrians even if they have taken over the > so-called bicycle paths. Believe it or not, it's safer on the roadways > for fast cyclists. I see. So you endanger motorists by riding on the roadways when there is a bike path and then complain about the motorists!! Where I live that would be illegal to do. >> I regularly train at speeds around 30mph and it's not fair or >> honorable for me to endanger pedestrians even if they have taken over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is a bike path and then complain about the motorists!! Where I live > that would be illegal to do. Sorry, but as I have explained about a dozen times a cyclist has as much legal right to the roadway as any other vehicle. A cyclist may choose to operate on the roadway and it remains legal to do so even if a bike path is along side the roadway. So please stop already with the ignorant outbursts. They tend to paint all RVers with the same brush of stupidity, arrogance and bullying. Shad O'Shay > Sorry, but as I have explained about a dozen times a cyclist has as much > legal right to the roadway as any other vehicle. A cyclist may choose to > operate on the roadway and it remains legal to do so even if a bike path > is along side the roadway. That is simply not true in many cities here. If there is a bike path the cyclist must use it rather than the road if they want to be legal. I'm sure laws vary by state but in all of the southwest USA states I've been to its illegal if there is a bike path. >> Sorry, but as I have explained about a dozen times a cyclist has as >> much legal right to the roadway as any other vehicle. A cyclist may [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm sure laws vary by state but in all of the southwest USA states > I've been to its illegal if there is a bike path. Simply not so. Show me the statute or ordinance, please... The state UTC cannot be declared invalid by local ordinances. As long as the state UTC says it's legal for cyclists to operate on the roadway any local ordinance that says otherwise won't stand up in court. See Trotwood v. Selz. Shad O'Shay Shad O'Shay > The state UTC > cannot be declared invalid by local ordinances. As long as the state UTC > says it's legal for cyclists to operate on the roadway any local > ordinance that says otherwise won't stand up in court. That depends on the city and state. There are no Federal laws applying. There have been court battles on the issue here but most were in the 70's when bike paths started being built all over town. Take a look at the Phoenix Police website. Note the words LAWS TO REMEMBER. Think its bogus? Then come here and challenge it and see if you win. You won't. http://phoenix.gov/POLICE/bikesa1.html Miles, why don't you filter that twit and quit responding. he keeps morphing and telling one wild tale after the other and it's down to a couple of you that just want stop responding and let him DIE. Tom J who hasn't seen one of his post directly in days >> The state UTC cannot be declared invalid by local ordinances. As >> long as the state UTC says it's legal for cyclists to operate on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://phoenix.gov/POLICE/bikesa1.html Sorry, but that's suggestions from a biased, self-serving municipality and contradicts state law.. This is Arizona state law: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00815.htm&Title=28 &DocType=ARS Pay particular attention to subsection E which states local authorities can't supercede section D. 28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations: 1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. 2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. 3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards. 4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or local authorities. D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway. E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority. Shad O'Shay > Pay particular attention to subsection E which states local authorities > can't supercede section D. Thats not what it states at all!! It says section D doesn't prohibit which is true. It makes no mention if a local authority can set a law forcing bicycles to use a path if one is available. Phoenix law does just that and his has been held up in court. Try it yourself and then post your whines here after paying the fine. D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway. E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority. >> http://www.holidayrambler.com/models/hr.aspx?content=index&model=ambassador >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > be doing so? What I hate is bicycle riders who insist on riding in the > street making it very dangerous when there is a bike path right along side. I only saw this idiot because of your reply. Simply plonk this troll. If you don't feed him he will wither away. not much > Shad O'Shay BLOWITOUTCHERASS TROLL Hugh > not much >> >> Shad O'Shay > > BLOWITOUTCHERASS TROLL > Hugh Hugh is yet another demonstration of the ugly RVer! Shad O'Shay > Hugh is yet another demonstration of the ugly RVer! You've shown yourself to be the ugly cyclist. >> Hugh is yet another demonstration of the ugly RVer! > > You've shown yourself to be the ugly cyclist. Oh, please! I'm quite good-looking and ripped. The girls can't seem to keep their hands (and other body parts) off me. ;-) Shad O'Shay Only a TROLL changes his name so that he can bother the people who have blocked him. This is the third time I have blocked you, all under different names. GO AWAY !!! Shad O'Shay  SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > Only a TROLL changes his name so that he can bother the people who have > blocked him. > This is the third time I have blocked you, all under different names. > GO AWAY !!! > > Shad O'Shay Just ignore him he will go away. > Only a TROLL changes his name so that he can bother the people who > have blocked him. > This is the third time I have blocked you, all under different names. > GO AWAY !!! > > Shad O'Shay You need some lessons on how to filter. How's about setting up a rule that says when "Shad" appears in the from: line then delete message. It's pretty darned easy. The only reason you'd have to do it three times is if you're doing it wrong. So don't blame your troubles on somebody else when it's all your own fault. Shad O'Shay >> not much >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Shad O'Shay I only get ugly with Trolls. I repeat; BLOWITOUTCHERASS!! Hugh |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.