This afternoon, I looked across the street, saw a road bike on the
sidewalk, and told my companion the rider was doing right.
Those narrow tires slice into fresh, hot asphalt.
We haven't the slightest idea why our street is being paved -- I
hadn't had the least bit of discomfort on my inch-and-a-quarter tires,
and every hole dug in it had been properly repaired -- but it *does*
look very nice.
Would have been better if they had told us in advance so people would
know to go around on Chestnut Street.
This afternoon, I looked across the street, saw a road bike on the
sidewalk, and told my companion the rider was doing right.
Those narrow tires slice into fresh, hot asphalt.
I wish I could take the mayor for a ride.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:23:45 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
I wish I could take the mayor for a ride.
Perhaps someone did. I went to look at the pylons this morning, and
there weren't any.
It's more likely that the street department said "Okay, the mayor has
had his fun; we want our pylons back."
At any rate, it was safe to ride on Main today (light traffic, so I
could ride in the middle and move into the "buffered bike lane" only
when someone was overtaking.
I think that "buffered" means that they have marked the left half of
the anti-bike lane with diagonal lines. I should have gotten off and >measured it. It's *way* too narrow to allow four feet of clearance
just by "alert drivers that the bike lanes are not intended for
motorized travel".
Not to mention that there are driveways every few feet on the "bike
lane" side of the street.
I went back to the newspaper for 22nd September for the quote, and
noticed that it is a "month-long bicycle-lane education program" that >continues "through October", so I guess it hasn't started yet.
Pity my current printer doesn't work on sticky labels. They are
putting up yard signs.
But I suspect that the biggest difference is that there is a policy
here that in a collision the biggest guy is in the wrong, unless of
course he can prove different. So if a car hits a bicycle the car is
normally liable for any and all costs, hospital, damage to the bike
and even funeral costs in the event of death. I believe that it does
make things a bit different.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 09:55:03 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But I suspect that the biggest difference is that there is a policy
here that in a collision the biggest guy is in the wrong, unless of
course he can prove different. So if a car hits a bicycle the car is
normally liable for any and all costs, hospital, damage to the bike
and even funeral costs in the event of death. I believe that it does
make things a bit different.
American society is adamantly opposed to the idea that miscreants
should pay for the damage they have done.
I don't know when that happened.
In the forties, when I was a little kid, two of the big boys broke the
little kids' teeter-totter. The janitor of the school told the boys
where they could buy a plank and supervised them while they took the
broken toy apart and rebuilt it better than it had been before. Both
grew up to be pillars of the community.
Not too long before we moved out of New York, two boys painted
graffiti on the school next door. Instead of handing the kids a wire
brush and a bottle of paint remover, they called in the police and
made criminals out of them, and the clean-up was done at taxpayer
expense.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 403 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 69:41:24 |
Calls: | 8,423 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 13,175 |
Messages: | 5,905,369 |