[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] OT License plates and covers.

[alex]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:23, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Michael Luevane wrote:
> 
> Cities aren't really that big... and the ones that are usually aren't any
> faster to get around on surface streets in automobiles than they are by
> bicycle or on foot.
> 
I'd say Portland is large enough that I would not want to walk or bike
from one end of it to the other, especially if I needed to make haste in
getting there, say in an emergency. If I needed to get to one of my
loved ones side I really wouldn't want to spend an hour or more getting
there. I would rather be able to spend 15 to 20 minutes at the most by
driving.

> 
> Right... with the person acting in an unsafe manner... like throwing a ton
> of steel down a public thoroughfare at tens of miles per hour.

Hmmmmm, isn't that why it's called a "public thoroughfare"?
If the public isn't allowed to use it as they need to then what's the
point?
Should we just outlaw all driving of vehicles within the city limits?
I think that would be unfeasible at the least, not to mention all the
parking facilities that would have to be built to serve all those that
needed to drive to the edge of town just so they could walk or bike or
ride "mass transit" the rest of the way to their destination.

> > 2. If the pedestrian can't figure out that a driver needs more than 1/2
> > sec and 3 feet to stop, I say they get what's comin' to 'em.

I think Michael makes a very valid point here. Anyone who steps in front
of a vehicle traveling legally on a "public thoroughfare" deserves
whatever their stupidity gets them.

> If a driver can't figure out that he needs to be able to respond within
> 1/2 a second and 3 feet, then he be held responsible for his unsafe
> driving.

On the other hand Jeme, if you believe that a pedestrian has the right
to step out in front of a moving vehicle then you maybe are unfamiliar
with Oregon's law covering this. Any pedestrian crossing a street may
not step onto the street if there is less than 50 feet between him and
the oncoming vehicle. That is on a city street where the speed limit is
30 mph. I personally think that isn't far enough. I would like to see at
least 75 feet or even 100 feet just to increase the margin of safety to
offset the massive stupidity of pedestrians. I can't tell you how many
times I have seen people dart out onto the street in the middle of the
block because they just can't spare the time to walk to the crosswalk
and LEGALLY cross the street. Cars slamming on their brakes to avoid the
idiot is such a wonderful sight to see. Sorry, but my life is worth more
than the few seconds that I have to spend waiting at a light to cross
safely. I would think you feel the same way about your life.


> > I also take exception to you constantly referring to vehicles as
> > "weaspons". If you want to call cars "weapons" then I'll have to call
> > *everything* a weapon, including my little white stuffed beanie teddy
> > bear...

> If your beanie baby is barbed or flung around at the maybe hundreds of
> miles per hour that it would have to go to kill somebody, then yeah...
> it's a weapon.  If you have it lunging on the end of a stick, then it's a
> weapon.

And then if this is the case then bicycles should be outlawed on "public
thoroughfares" because they can travel faster than "human speed" and, as
demonstrated a few weeks ago, can cause quite a bit of damage to a
pedestrian that is hit by one. If we were to have just as many bicycles
on the streets as cars there might be fewer deaths but I would make the
wager that injury accidents would more than make up the difference.

> A parked car isn't a weapon, but a car flying down city streets is.

I take this to mean that you feel the car driven by Kendra James has to
be considered a weapon?

I don't agree with you.
> 
> Well, then we're half way there.
> 
> J.

Not even close to half way there.
-- 
alex <alexlinux at qwest.net>