Dealing with Wrong-Way Riders

loki

"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LK-dnb_ZpN6Zne7d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> "Father Haskell" <FraHaskell@mayfield.edu> wrote in message
> news:4072F7D6.24F9@mayfield.edu...
> > MP wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right, of course. WWC is more serious, mainly because it
> > > endangers others, not just the offending cyclist.
> >
> > It's suicidal. Vehicles pulling into the street from an intersection
> > will be looking the other way.
>
> If they're only looking in one direction before pulling out they're stupid

True but frighteningly common.

--
'If I seem unduly clear to you,
you must have misunderstood what I said'
-alan greenspan

loki

"Kevan Smith" <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:8j56701rdec4eijarsq674qhq0977ahabi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:42 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from
wrote:
>
> > To wit; take a generic 'righteous' war
>
> No such thing.

Quoth Bart Simpson: 'There are no good wars - with the folowing exceptions:
The Amercian Revoltionary War, World War 2 and the Star Wars trilogy'.

--
'If I seem unduly clear to you,
you must have misunderstood what I said'
-alan greenspan

Chalo

moonshdw@xmissionz.com wrote:

> Question One: What's the best way to pass this bozo?

Courteously.

> Question Two: What, if anything, would you say to him about his
> illegal, inefficient, unsafe, stupid way of riding?

"Thanks for not driving a car."

Take a moment to remember which mode of transport is really
"inefficient, unsafe, and stupid".

Chalo Colina

DRS

Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
8j56701rdec4eijarsq674qhq0977ahabi@4ax.com
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:42 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from
> wrote:
>
>> To wit; take a generic 'righteous' war
>
> No such thing.

WWII was a righteous war. The Nazis were not just an enemy, they were
genuinely evil.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

jeffbonny

So "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> says:

>Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>8j56701rdec4eijarsq674qhq0977ahabi@4ax.com
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:42 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To wit; take a generic 'righteous' war
>>
>> No such thing.
>
>WWII was a righteous war. The Nazis were not just an enemy, they were
>genuinely evil.

Many inhabitants of our fair planet who think about such things feel
the same way about George W. Bush.

jeffb

DRS

jeffbonny <jeffbonny@REMCAPSshaw.ca> wrote in message
7th670137c92tcma2ul85984lp5g2gs9kb@4ax.com
> So "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> says:
>> Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> 8j56701rdec4eijarsq674qhq0977ahabi@4ax.com
>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:42 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To wit; take a generic 'righteous' war
>>>
>>> No such thing.
>>
>> WWII was a righteous war. The Nazis were not just an enemy, they
>> were genuinely evil.
>
> Many inhabitants of our fair planet who think about such things feel
> the same way about George W. Bush.

For all his faults, which are many and egregious, even Shrub has yet to
declare any intention much less instituted any actual policy to commit
genocide. He is a bad man but he's not even close to Hitler and nobody is
served by such loose and inappropriate comparisons. WWII was arguably
unique in history in that it was the closest war to being morally black and
white as there ever has been.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

R15757

DRS wrote:

<< For all his faults, which are many and egregious, even Shrub has yet to
declare any intention much less instituted any actual policy to commit
genocide. He is a bad man but he's not even close to Hitler and nobody is
served by such loose and inappropriate comparisons. WWII was arguably
unique in history in that it was the closest war to being morally black and
white as there ever has been. >>


Hold on there bub.

Which side was Stalin on again?

And I guess the firebombing of German and Japanese cities--called "terror
bombing" by those who decided it was a good idea--with the intent and result of
killing hundreds of thousands of women, children, and old people fits in
somehow in the moral black and white. I'm guessing we wont see a Jerry
Bruckheimer terror bombing movie. The point is that there is no moral black and
white in war, except maybe if you want to say that all war is evil.

Robert

jeffbonny

So "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> says:

>For all his faults, which are many and egregious, even Shrub has yet to
>declare any intention much less instituted any actual policy to commit
>genocide. He is a bad man but he's not even close to Hitler and nobody is
>served by such loose and inappropriate comparisons. WWII was arguably
>unique in history in that it was the closest war to being morally black and
>white as there ever has been.

I wasn't saying that for all his faults Geo Jr. has first hand sunk to
the evils of the nazis. Just pointing out that justification of war is
a matter of perspective. Many who are starving and oppressed by
governments the US supports may not see the niceties of your
suggestion of "loose and inappropriate".

Q: To a hypothetical you who is worse? The man who you believe funds
the regime that has killed and imprisoned your family during the last
five years or Hitler?

I'm talking about perspective not whether baby Bush is actually as bad
as Hitler. IMO he's not smart or charismatic enough to achieve evil on
the scale Hitler did.

jeffb

Dan Brussee

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:27:39 +1000, "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>jeffbonny <jeffbonny@REMCAPSshaw.ca> wrote in message
>7th670137c92tcma2ul85984lp5g2gs9kb@4ax.com
>> So "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> says:
>>> Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>> 8j56701rdec4eijarsq674qhq0977ahabi@4ax.com
>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:42 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To wit; take a generic 'righteous' war
>>>>
>>>> No such thing.
>>>
>>> WWII was a righteous war. The Nazis were not just an enemy, they
>>> were genuinely evil.
>>
>> Many inhabitants of our fair planet who think about such things feel
>> the same way about George W. Bush.
>
>For all his faults, which are many and egregious, even Shrub has yet to
>declare any intention much less instituted any actual policy to commit
>genocide. He is a bad man but he's not even close to Hitler and nobody is
>served by such loose and inappropriate comparisons. WWII was arguably
>unique in history in that it was the closest war to being morally black and
>white as there ever has been.

Being the closed to... does not make such.

A: whatever
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet - to you???

Mark Hickey

Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:11:18 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from wrote:
>
>>"Kevan Smith" <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>news:8j56701rdec4eijarsq674qhq0977ahabi@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:42 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> from
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> > To wit; take a generic 'righteous' war
>>>
>>> No such thing.
>>
>> Quoth Bart Simpson: 'There are no good wars - with the folowing exceptions:
>>The Amercian Revoltionary War, World War 2 and the Star Wars trilogy'.
>
>
>I don't know anyone with an admirable conscience who would call any war "good."
>
>Wars are bad, mmmkay? Even the ones you people supposedly "had to fight."

The question should be "is the war worse than what would happen had it
not been fought?". I agree with you - all wars are inherently bad, in
the simplest terms.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

S o r n i

Dan Brussee wrote:

> Being the closed to... does not make such.

Say wha?

Bill "no amount of content would save that sentence" S.

AustinMN

Q. wrote:
<snip>
>
> If they're only looking in one direction before pulling out they're stupid
> too ... don't forget, joggers are supposed to be on the "wrong" side of
the
> road. Any driver should always look both ways, and all around them all
the
> time.
>

Do you look back over your left shoulder (behind you) when turning left into
a side street? Or do you just watch the left side of the road while still
approaching the intersection? In heavier traffic, the WWC will be traveling
as fast as you, so you will not see him as you approach, and looking behind
before turning is something virtually nobody does.

Austin

Curtis L. Russell

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:11:18 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Quoth Bart Simpson: 'There are no good wars - with the folowing exceptions:
>The Amercian Revoltionary War, World War 2 and the Star Wars trilogy'.

And we shoulda let Sauron rule Middle Earth?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:07:38 -0400, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:

>If they're only looking in one direction before pulling out they're stupid
>too ... don't forget, joggers are supposed to be on the "wrong" side of the
>road. Any driver should always look both ways, and all around them all the
>time.

Not the same. You can pick up slow moving oblects that will
necessarily be near at hand to be at issue with a short look: looking
for objects moving at speed - and a bike usually qualifies - takes a
longer look. So while most drivers do look both ways, the look toward
oncoming traffic on a right turn is the longer one.

Pedestrians OTOH are a different story. The first couple of days in
Britain evidently can be deadly, or at least frightening, for U.S.
pedestrians. Habit is habit...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...