[PLUG] OT: PGP Sigs in Spam

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Tue Oct 14 23:09:02 UTC 2003


* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-10-14 17:03]:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > I disagree. ANYONE going more than 10 miles under the speed limit when
> > not impeded by condition is committing the traffic violation of
> > "Impeding traffic".
> 
> Excuse me?  The speed limit is an UPPER BOUND, not a gauranteed rate of
> travel.

Explain that to the 10 tickets I've had for impeding traffic. Look it up
in ORS 811.130. I have been recently introduced to a case where an
appeals court affirmed that bicycles are not subject to the impeding
traffic statute. I happen to disagree with this ruling, but that's
neither here nor there. Impeding traffic is dangerous. It IS coded, and
it is the law. The court let the bicycling off on a technicality that
they use "motor vehicle" in that particular statute. Striking the word
"motor" from that section would do wonders. On top of that, he was
STANDING with his bike, not riding it at the time of the citation. I
would have argued that he was a pedestrian, and cited him for something
a little more applicable. 

> And what do you qualify as "not impeded by condition"?  I would say having
> a few hundred bicycles around you in traffic as a condition of impediment
> to high speed travel.  I know I wouldn't ride at full speed while
> surrounded by that many people.  It's just not safe.

No it's not, and the Critical Mass rides do everything in their power to
encourage that unsafeness. 

> > Those bicycles go 5 or 10 mph in a 20 - 25 mph zone. If they weren't
> > impeding traffic, it wouldn't be an issue, as they'd just move along
> > with the rest of the flow, as they should.
> 
> As a matter of fact, Critical Mass is usually outpacing traffic downtown.

That's not what I see from the third floor I work on. I've watched
several rides, and many of the people I see are riding in circles, going
back and forth among the riders, and there are litteraly hundreds of
cars backed up, belching exhaust up Broadway waiting for the slower
bicycles to get out of the way. 

> > They purposefully block ALL traffic lanes in one direction.
> 
> They ARE traffic, silly.  They can't be BLOCKING traffic.  They are moving
> vehicles on the roadway.  They have every right to use the road for that
> purpose.

Yes. They can block traffic... By going slower than necessary to arrive
at their destination. The purpose of a road is to travel (in whatever
vehicle) from point A to point B. The purpose of the CM rides is to
disrupt life. It's a statement, not a journey. 

> > They cut in and out of traffic and ride on the line between lanes and
> > between cars.
> 
> Lane changes and passing are legal.  And bicycles are an exception to the
> "one vehicle per lane" law.

So you are saying that bicycle can share the lane with my Explorer? I
realize they can ride several bikes abreast in a lane. I'm talking about
passing between cars that are in adjacent lanes. That's not legal, and
it's downright dangerous. 

> > I know, as I almost hit one that was riding next to me on 4th street. He
> > was next to me IN MY LANE!
> 
> Right... see above.  Bicycles are allowed to share the lane with motor
> traffic and other bicycles.

Not when it's a car and a bicycle IN THE SAME LANE. There's not room for
a car and a bicycle in the same lane. Show me law that states this is
so. 

> > If it's the people responsible for the spam hitting my mail server (74%
> > rejection rate yesterday!) more power to him.
> 
> That's exactly my point.  You're just spreading misery.

If I was actually doing this, I'd just be giving them back what they
give me. All's fair in love and war. Fighting spam is a war. 

> Is that what you want?  Do you want people to try to hurt other people?

Sending them spam and/or calling them at dinner isn't hurting them. If I
was advocating shooting them, then that would be hurting them. 

> That is the example you set.  That is the world you make.

Again, where is the difference? The CM rides are hurting others. They
are NOT folks just trying to get from A to B. They are folks trying to
make a statement, and causing a lot of grief and hard feelings in the process. 

> > > Second, I think that if you want a world with a bunch of people on
> > > bicycles (whether it's "nothing but" or otherwise), riding around on a
> > > bicycle is a VERY GOOD WAY of getting there.
> >
> > Yes, it is, to a point. However, when you stage a group event that blocks
> > streets, you are inconvienencing others. Exactly the type of thing you
> > are admonishing Rich about.
> 
> First, Critical Mass is not a staged event.  It is not arranged or
> promoted.  It just happens.

Wrong. I know for a fact it's staged. The website even says it. The last
Friday of every month @ 5:30. Meet at Waterfront Park, under the
Burnside Bridge. 

> Second, convenience is one of the perceived evils that some Massers would
> like to see questioned.  So that's somewhat the reverse of your argument.

I don't see convenience as an evil. It's convenient for me to ride Max
to work, so I do. When it was convenient to drive, I did that. For some,
it's convenient to drive everywhere. For others, it's just as convenient
to bike everywhere. We do what is most convenient for each of us,
according to our values.

> Lastly, Rich is hoping to put people in exactly the position he himself
> does NOT want to be in.  This is the crux of my gripe.

No, Rich is simply dealing a little of what has landed in his lap back
to those who sent it to him.

> > It all depends on who's bull is being gored.
> 
> So you keep writing (though I still don't know what it means).

I can't believe that you've never heard that before. If you really
haven't I can explain it. 

> > In my book, a group of bikes, riding up the street for no other purpose
> > except to make their presence known is annoying, and outside the intent
> > of "the golden rule".
> 
> The intent of the Golden Rule is to create a world that makes you happy by
> living as if that is already the way things are.  Some people think that
> riding bicycles around on the street for any reason OR no reason at all is
> the kind of world they'd like to see.  You can't tell someone else what
> kind of world they should like.  (But you can hint... and heavily.)

I don't see that at all. The intent of the "Golden Rule" is simply to
govern ones actions. Nothing more, nothing less. 

> And the purpose of Critical Mass is different for every rider.

Not according to this:

http://criticalmassrides.info/

"Critical Mass is a monthly bicycle ride to celebrate cycling and to
assert cyclists' right to the road. The idea started in San Francisco in
September 1992, and quickly spread to cities all over the world."

> Many riders are just along for the ride from downtown to a point near
> their home where they break off.  It's just part of the daily commute.

I get the feeling from the CM website that it's not that way. 

> > Maybe I should stage a turtle stampede in front of the bikes, so the
> > folks riding the bikes know how the cars behind them feel.
> 
> The cars don't feel anything.  They're just hunks of belching metal.

No, but those cars have drivers, and they do feel frustration, among
other things. So now you are saying that CM rides can inflict upon the
drivers what you are admonishing Rich for. 

> However, I'll refer you to the above comment about cyclists moving MUCH
> faster than automobiles through city traffic nearly all the time.

Some do. And some should be cited for speeding.

> Also, you do not have a RIGHT to go as fast as your car is capable of
> going.  You must respect other users of the road.

You don't even have a right to drive. I know that. But blocking traffic
is wrong, no matter the reason. 

> Sounds to me like you've got a bad case of the greeds.

Huh?

> > The really ironic part of this is the Critical Mass ride is responsible
> > for MORE pollution, since they cause traffic to back up and remain on
> > the street longer than if they all just went about their business.
> 
> Why is that ironic?  You baselessly assume so much crap that you've been
> spoon fed about the motivations of those with which you do not agree that
> you don't even question it or guess that there might be some OTHER
> explanation for the behavior you see.

Baseless? It's from several CM websites.

> Do you really think that people ride their bikes only to stop cars and
> only because cars pollute?  Use some imagination.

>From talking to several riders, I know that's exactly why they are out
there. Some of those folks are out there specifically to piss off as
many car drivers as possible. 

> I would rank pollution about number six in my "Reasons why nobody should
> drive a personal private automobile within a city limits".

And there are many reasons why we should. It's a trade off. Currently,
it's the best solution we have for many tasks. Get over it. 

> Oh, and way to redirect a comment on your antisocial view of punishment
> and pain-dealing into a slam on people doing nondestructive, positive
> things.

Let's see. Causing backed up traffic, forcing drivers of cars stuck in
traffic to use more of the finite resources we have. That's not
nondestructive or positive. 

Causing ill will with much of the rest of the population, once a month.
That's not positive either. 

You see, there's always at least three sides to an argument, and you
fail to see any side but your own. I acknowledge that bikes have a right
to use the road. I do not believe they should take over the road. 

That's it... Once a month. CM occupies the roads. Bush just took a page
from CM and occupied Iraq. The difference is, no one is shooting at the
bicyclists. 

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Is it a co-incidence that there are 42 characters, including spaces, in the following sentence:

"Answer to life the universe and everything"




More information about the PLUG mailing list