In article <d1a6bf42.0306301800.6ad97fd5@no-spam>,
davidb@no-spam (David Barts) wrote:
> I once knew someone who ordered a replacement horn for a VW Bug and
> wired it into his 6-volt rechargable lighting system. He claimed it
> was an effective tool for getting the attention of oblivious drivers.
>
> Haven't done so myself mainly because I feel that activating the horn
> would be an activity that detracts from the more pressing issue of
> engaging in evasive maneuvers to save my ass.
Certainly that is also the case in driving as well. I don't bother using
the horn on the car if I have to concentrate on avoiding some idiot.
However, cars have horns for a reason, and they can also be an effective
tool at preventing a problem.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
brasil98@no-spam (brasil98@no-spam wrote in message news:<brasil98-2906031852490001@no-spam>...
> Maybe even an electric horn wired into the battery that you have for your
> electric headlight?
I once knew someone who ordered a replacement horn for a VW Bug and
wired it into his 6-volt rechargable lighting system. He claimed it
was an effective tool for getting the attention of oblivious drivers.
Haven't done so myself mainly because I feel that activating the horn
would be an activity that detracts from the more pressing issue of
engaging in evasive maneuvers to save my ass.
--
David Barts
Portland, OR
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, gatt wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> > One can never be sure of course but from the accident reconstruction
> > diagram published in the Big "O", it appears that bike lanes could
> > well have made a difference.
> What I fear is that the taxpayers will spend hundreds of thousands of
> dollars on defense council who will use this same general argument that, if
> there had been bike lanes, even though his client was shitface drunk and
> driving illegally after having a previous conviction the same year for drunk
> driving, it could have been provided.
Rest easy, Chris, that ain't gonna happen.
> You see, it's our fault for not having arbitrary white lines to protect our
> citizens from alcoholic outlaw drivers who fail to obey the law anyhow. It's
> a shame it happened, yaddayadda, but really we as a community are partly to
> blame and all that.
No, we as a community are not to "blame" - after all, we cannot do
-everything- which might make things safer. Choices must be made
and it's not clear which investment yeilds the biggest "bang for
the buck", safety-wise.
But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well worth spending
the 1% or so of highway dollars which we spend on such things.
Peace and justice,
gatt wrote:
> What I fear is that the taxpayers will spend hundreds of thousands of
> dollars on defense council who will use this same general argument that,
> if there had been bike lanes
You know, those four cyclists could have used less-used
streets parallel to arterials such as Belmont. That's
where they're safer.
> You see, it's our fault for not having arbitrary white
> lines to protect our citizens from alcoholic outlaw
> drivers
Or even first time drunk drivers with all the
necessary papers.
Bob T
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well
> worth spending the 1% or so of highway dollars which
> we spend on such things.
1% for what, white paint for striping
and bicycle symbols? Outrageous.
Bob t
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> writes:
> 1% for what, white paint for striping
> and bicycle symbols? Outrageous.
He pulled the number out of his ass, Bob. Be outraged over that.
Sheesh.
Darrell
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> writes:
> > 1% for what, white paint for striping
> > and bicycle symbols? Outrageous.
> He pulled the number out of his ass, Bob. Be outraged over that.
Actually, the 1% figure was pulled from state law.
> Sheesh.
Indeed.
Peace and justice,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, gatt wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> > But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well worth spending
> > the 1% or so of highway dollars which we spend on such things.
> What do you think about requiring registration fees for commuter-quality
> bikes? (Ie, not the little pink one with the white tires that the little
> girl is riding out in front of my house, or the BMX bike that the little
> dude down the street rides out in the field?)
> It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists justify the expense
> of additional bike lanes, and it would prevent people from suggesting that
> bike lanes are subsidized by drivers.
In principal, not a bad idea. But, it's difficult to envision
a "modest" registration fee which would not cost more to administer,
collect, and enforce than it would raise.
And, of course, BT would be instantly bitchin' 'bout "more statist
gubmint regulations!"
Peace and justice,
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307081225250.2671-100000@no-spam>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> > It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists justify the expense
> > of additional bike lanes, and it would prevent people from suggesting that
> > bike lanes are subsidized by drivers.
>
> In principal, not a bad idea. But, it's difficult to envision
> a "modest" registration fee which would not cost more to administer,
> collect, and enforce than it would raise.
The bike I used to use still had a State of Michigan bicycle registration
tag from the 1970's on it. So, perhaps it would be a good idea to see
what other states are doing along this same line? Not every concept
discussed on this newsgroup has to be a re-invention of the wheel from
scratch.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> gatt wrote:
> > It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists
> > justify the expense of additional bike lanes, and it
> > would prevent people from suggesting that bike lanes
> > are subsidized by drivers.
> In principal, not a bad idea. But, it's difficult to envision
> a "modest" registration fee which would not cost more to
> administer, collect, and enforce than it would raise.
You give government too much credit. What makes you
think they're interested in at least breaking even?
If anything, they'd be more interested in doing this
just to make cyclists comply, and then go after those
who don't. That kind of things means more to The
State than any benevolence you can think of.
Bob T
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > gatt wrote:
> > > It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists
> > > justify the expense of additional bike lanes, and it
> > > would prevent people from suggesting that bike lanes
> > > are subsidized by drivers.
> > In principal, not a bad idea. But, it's difficult to envision
> > a "modest" registration fee which would not cost more to
> > administer, collect, and enforce than it would raise.
> You give government too much credit. What makes you
> think they're interested in at least breaking even?
Oh, twenty-three years of working for government.
The first question with -any- new proposal was "what will it
cost?" The second question was "how will you pay for it?"
> If anything, they'd be more interested in doing this
> just to make cyclists comply, and then go after those
> who don't.
You've just obviously never worked for government. Or
even been involved in the government process.
The FIRST question is -always-, "what will it cost?"
The second is always "how will you pay for it?"
> That kind of things means more to The
> State than any benevolence you can think of.
You've no clue. But that's ok, we've known that for
quite some time.
Peace and justice,
sinistersteve wrote:
> In fact, I don't like the idea of police using deadly
> force, but sometimes they have to.
The worst part about it is that in order to
minimize the chances of a lawsuit the
police shoot to kill (and make sure of it).
If you or I were contronted in our
homes and had but a second to make
a what we believed to be a life or
death decision, and shot the
perp a dozen times (revolver in
each hand) before stopping (just
like the cops do), do you think
we'd be given the same benefit of
the doubt? Why should *we* stop
after one to see if a second is needed?
Bob t
sinistersteve wrote:
> Another thing that is obvious is the fact that the police chief is
> recommending a suspension to the officer solely on the principle that
> the blacks will burn down their neighborhoods if they get his head on a
> silver platter.
That's of course the wrong reason to do that.
Bob T
Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0307082210130.4679-100000@no-spam>...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > > gatt wrote:
>
> > > > It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists
> > > > justify the expense of additional bike lanes, and it
> > > > would prevent people from suggesting that bike lanes
> > > > are subsidized by drivers.
>
> > > In principal, not a bad idea. But, it's difficult to envision
> > > a "modest" registration fee which would not cost more to
> > > administer, collect, and enforce than it would raise.
>
> > You give government too much credit. What makes you
> > think they're interested in at least breaking even?
>
> Oh, twenty-three years of working for government.
>
> The first question with -any- new proposal was "what will it
> cost?" The second question was "how will you pay for it?"
The third question is "how do we mislead the voters to pay for the
tax increase required?"
>
> > If anything, they'd be more interested in doing this
> > just to make cyclists comply, and then go after those
> > who don't.
>
> You've just obviously never worked for government. Or
> even been involved in the government process.
>
> The FIRST question is -always-, "what will it cost?"
> The second is always "how will you pay for it?"
And the third is "how do we sneak another tax increase
on the voters?"
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> sinistersteve wrote:
> > Another thing that is obvious is the fact that the police chief is
> > recommending a suspension to the officer solely on the principle that
> > the blacks will burn down their neighborhoods if they get his head on a
> > silver platter.
> That's of course the wrong reason to do that.
What's the right reason to burn down one's neighborhood, then?
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > In principal, not a bad idea. But, it's difficult to envision
> > > a "modest" registration fee which would not cost more to
> > > administer, collect, and enforce than it would raise.
> > You give government too much credit. What makes you
> > think they're interested in at least breaking even?
> Oh, twenty-three years of working for government.
That could make you as brain dead to reality as
it could anything else.
> The first question with -any- new proposal was "what will it
> cost?" The second question was "how will you pay for it?"
(snicker).
Ya know, when Portland had it's "specialist"
checking out applications for sidewalk
tables in front of restaurants, less
money was collected in application fees
than in what was paid to this guy and
anyone on staff helping him.
In other words, quit seeing government
through those rose-colored glasses.
> > If anything, they'd be more interested in doing this
> > just to make cyclists comply, and then go after those
> > who don't.
> You've just obviously never worked for government. Or
> even been involved in the government process.
I've been close enough to see a lot of stupidity.
> The FIRST question is -always-, "what will it cost?"
> The second is always "how will you pay for it?"
Is that what was discussed behind closed doors
in that meeting to hammer out the details of
PGE Park deal--you know, the meeting that
involved details the public wasn't to know
about until later? (by the way, that was
no "conspiracy theory" as you deemed it, as
it was reported in the news right after
the meeting, and then again after the details
became known, but alas too late to stop the
damage).
> > That kind of things means more to The
> > State than any benevolence you can think of.
> You've no clue. But that's ok, we've known that for
> quite some time.
That's funny. Your posts regarding the
government lies about Iraq make you
one of those "rabid" government haters.
So, which is it?
Bob T
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
-snips-
> Anyway, the police officer should be suspended
> (or fired and prosecuted) if it's found he
> erred in his action with Ms. William,
A bit severe for merely erring, whouldn't you think?
You know -anyone- who never errs in their job?
Prosecution for mere errors seems a bit much.
A bit more would seem required.
Peace and justice,
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
-snips-
> > > You give government too much credit. What makes you
> > > think they're interested in at least breaking even?
> > Oh, twenty-three years of working for government.
> That could make you as brain dead to reality as
> it could anything else.
It could, I suppose. Do you find me to be "brain dead"?
> > The first question with -any- new proposal was "what will it
> > cost?" The second question was "how will you pay for it?"
> (snicker).
Whatever.
> Ya know, when Portland had it's "specialist"
> checking out applications for sidewalk
> tables in front of restaurants, less
> money was collected in application fees
> than in what was paid to this guy and
> anyone on staff helping him.
As I recall, that effort was mostly funded by diverting resources
from other programs - which was the answer to "how will you pay
for it?" Partially fees but mostly diversion of other resources.
The sorts of choices gubmint makes all the time.
The problem, IIRC was that there was no provision for
sidewalk cafes which just sort grew. Some "grew" to the point of
blocking sidewalk access for pedestrians, generating some considerable
citizen complaints.
Recognizing that sidewalk cafes were, at least in the abstract, a
"good thing" while blocking pedestrian use of the sidewalks was a
"bad thing", obviously some system for allowing sidewalk cafes while
preserving pedestrian access was required. In otherwords a system to
permit sidewalk cafe tables while ensuring that adequate pedestrian
access was maintained. Charging cafe owners the -full- cost of the
program would have made the permits prohibitively expensive for most
cafe operators and would have eliminated most such sidewalk cafes.
Wishing to maintain sidewalk cafes at a reasonable cost, the city
council elected to partially fund the program by diverting resources
from other programs deemed of a lower priority. An entirely
reasonable approach.
But reasonable approaches are anathemas to ideologues such as yerself.
Which is why -you- will never be made Grand High Pooh-bah.
Governing requires compromises and reasonable adjustments to accommodate
competing interests for the greater good of all.
Ideologues such as yerself jest don't get it.
Assuming someone died and made YOU Pooh-bah, jest how would YOU
have dealt with the competing demands for sidewalk space between the
cafe owners who wanted to put tables there and pedestrians who wanted
to walk there, unimpeded? And how would you pay for yer solution?
> In other words, quit seeing government
> through those rose-colored glasses.
Heh!
> > > If anything, they'd be more interested in doing this
> > > just to make cyclists comply, and then go after those
> > > who don't.
> > You've just obviously never worked for government. Or
> > even been involved in the government process.
> I've been close enough to see a lot of stupidity.
Gubmint is no more immune to "stupidity" than any other organization.
It certainly isn't perfect and it makes its share of mistakes.
But, that doesn't mean government doesn't -try- to avoid mistakes.
It does. Quite diligently. -Its- mistakes end up on the 10 o'clock
news and on the front page of the big O's Metro section. Something
which seldom happens with most folks' mistakes.
> > The FIRST question is -always-, "what will it cost?"
> > The second is always "how will you pay for it?"
> Is that what was discussed behind closed doors
> in that meeting to hammer out the details of
> PGE Park deal
Yep. Pretty much. They just came up with some incorrect
conclusions. Mistakes happen. Hell, I'm even pretty sure
YOU'VE made a mistake or two from time to time.
> --you know, the meeting that
> involved details the public wasn't to know
> about until later? (by the way, that was
> no "conspiracy theory" as you deemed it, as
> it was reported in the news right after
> the meeting, and then again after the details
> became known, but alas too late to stop the
> damage).
Whatchagonna do? The city council got sold a bill of
goods by some -private- enterprise flimflam men. Or, perhaps,
jest some overly optimistic private entrepreneurs.
It happens. With both governments -and- private enterprise.
> > > That kind of things means more to The
> > > State than any benevolence you can think of.
> > You've no clue. But that's ok, we've known that for
> > quite some time.
> That's funny. Your posts regarding the
> government lies about Iraq make you
> one of those "rabid" government haters.
> So, which is it?
I'm quite willing to criticize government when I think it wrong
and support it when I think it correct.
Gubmint is pretty much like any human undertaking - brilliant
at times, stupid at times, venial at times, but most of the time
muddling through in a more or less acceptable manner.
I'm perfectly willing to praise the brilliance, criticize the
stupidity, condemn the veniality, and recognize the muddling
through for what it is - a good faith effort to achieve a workable
solution.
Unlike some ideologues I could name who feel the only alternative
to perfection (as THEY see perfection) is outright condemnation.
But, I'm quite sure YOU are never less than brilliant. Under all
circumstances. 'Cause you're PERFECT, no?
Sheesh.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Anyway, the police officer should be suspended
> > (or fired and prosecuted) if it's found he
> > erred in his action with Ms. William,
> A bit severe for merely erring, whouldn't you think?
>
> You know -anyone- who never errs in their job?
>
> Prosecution for mere errors seems a bit much.
> A bit more would seem required.
Depends on what "erred" means. By that I
meant to avoid saying (as the lefties
are saying) that the shooting was typical
police overkill reaction, and to avoid
saying (as the righties are saying) that
somehow Ms. Williams' previous record
and refusal to be 100% compliant
justified the usual shoot-to-kill
response.
Police departments all around the country
really need to reform themselves regarding
these matters.
And no, Bill, I don't like to see
cops protected from prosecution
just because they, in theory,
represent "the people of the United
States" whenever they think they
might get a foot run over and
shoot back, "just for us", as
if a Ms. Williams was about to
"run over the American People".
Bob T
Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> That's the theory, anyway. But remember the LA
> riots of 1991? After the Rodney King case? Or,
> more locally, the bogus "community forum" here in
> PDX on the Kendra James shooting? Those avenues
> are useless if grievances aren't addressed, taken
> seriously, and dealt with. That's what causes
> riots, not just lack of opportunity to air grievances.
This is nonsense, and myth. The LA riots had
very little to do with any real outrage among
black Americans and everything to do with
gangs (most of them Hispanic) taking advantage
of some minor incidents that grew by misreporting
on the news. Gang violence masquerading as
black outrage being released doesn't cut it.
And later, when people took advantage of the
chaos to rob stores, we saw looting plain and
simple, and no actual black outrage worthy
of being called that.
The typical black person in the area of the
riots was more likely to be like those who
intervened to keep Mr. Denny from being
murdered by those pukes than to be taking
part in his beating.
Those who push these incidents as proof
of real problems are those who *want*
the climate or misery to remain. There's
lots of $$$$ in it for people like
Jesse jackson, clearly one of the worst
people in this country.
Bob Tiernan
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > -snips-
> > > Anyway, the police officer should be suspended
> > > (or fired and prosecuted) if it's found he
> > > erred in his action with Ms. William,
> > A bit severe for merely erring, whouldn't you think?
> > You know -anyone- who never errs in their job?
> > Prosecution for mere errors seems a bit much.
> > A bit more would seem required.
> When someone's mere error causes death, and that someone has the
> legally-sanctioned power of life and death over their charges, the code of
> responsibility is higher than someone who spilled gasoline on your trunk
> lid, don't you think?
But -prosecution_? For errors?
Usually we require at least gross negligence to prosecute folks, not
mere errors in judgment or technique.
Peace and justice
Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> writes:
> Prosecution for mere errors seems a bit much.
> A bit more would seem required.
Well it rather depends, and the law reflects that. Rather the
difference between negligence, criminal negligence, and negligent
homicide, I would think. (IANAL, etc. etc.)
Darrell
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> IMO when a death occurs at the hands of police, a terrible error has
> occurred.
Nonsense. Sometimes there is no "error" at all and the cops did
-exactly- what needed to be done. I don't think that was the case
in the Kendra James incident but to claim that "when a death occurs
at the hands of police, a terrible error has occured" is an exaggeration
of the grossest sort.
> It may have been the cop fired when he didn't need to, or it may
> be that the cop was returning fire.
If the cop was returning fire, there was no error. Sometimes bad
people do stupid things that endanger innocent folks - including innocent
cops - and if they get shot, it's no more than is required under the
circumstances.
> It doesn't matter; someone is dead.
When bad people do stupid things, some times they end up dead.
They should refrain from doing stupid things. Then they wouldn't
end up dead.
> If
> the error was a matter of inadequate training or the wrong person issued a
> badge, then IMO that is prosecutable.
"Inadequate training" is NOT prosecutable. Who would you prosecute in
any event? Who, exactly, failed to provide adequate training?
> The grand jury cleared Officer
> McCollister in the death of Kendra James, but that doesn't mean that it was
> a simple error.
It means merely that the grand jury didn't find probable cause to believe
a crime was committed. Nothing more, nothing less. The error, however
you wish to characterize it, didn't rise to the level of a criminal
offense. Which is how it should be whether or not the individual
involved was a cop.
> She didn't deserve to be killed; she wasn't attacking him.
According to -his- story, she was. The error was placing himself in
a position where he -could- be attacked.
But that sort of error doesn't rise to the level of a criminal offense.
McCollister apparently made several mistakes. He probably deserves
discipline. He may even deserve to be dismissed. But, at least on
the facts as we now know them, he doesn't deserve to be prosecuted.
Peace and justice,
Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> IMO when a death occurs at the hands of police,
> a terrible error has occurred.
I agree--but whether the error was made by
the police or by the man who's dead is what
needs to be determined. Yes, I know you
meant that the "cop" made the error. But
that's nonsense to assume that it's
always an error on the part of the police.
Did you see that video of the cops shooting
that guy in the parking lot of a convenience
store (as seen on O'Reilly tonight)? Was
really stupid of him to do a half-turn and
point his hand with cellphone in the direction
of the two cops trying to get him to stop
moving away from them.
> The grand jury cleared Officer McCollister in the
> death of Kendra James, but that doesn't mean that
> it was a simple error. She didn't deserve to be
> killed; she wasn't attacking him.
I've not studied this one enough so I won't
automatically jump on the bandwagon of any
side as so many people do with automaton
predictability (whether it was those who
backed the officers beating Rodney King
or those lefties who start chanting "Free
Abu-jamal" only 30 seconds after first
hearing about his case).
Anyway, my preliminary knowledge of the
case is that she did not show any interest
in doing what the police were asking her to
do. When that is not done the situation
goes up a level. Since it's well known what
the police are capable of doing (and getting
away with it), it's really stupid to not
comply.
Bob t
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Ya know, when Portland had it's "specialist"
> > checking out applications for sidewalk
> > tables in front of restaurants, less
> > money was collected in application fees
> > than in what was paid to this guy and
> > anyone on staff helping him.
> As I recall, that effort was mostly funded by
> diverting resources from other programs
I knew a restaurant owner in Sellwood who
got the scoop on this from the man in
charge (the owner always squeezed info
like this from government employees).
The money came from the establishments
paying he permit fees.
> The problem, IIRC was that there was no provision for
> sidewalk cafes which just sort grew. Some "grew" to
> the point of blocking sidewalk access for pedestrians,
> generating some considerable citizen complaints.
No argument from me that it was an issue to be
dealt with, but I'm just pointing out that,
like I said, the government doesn't always
base its decisions on whether the new task
will cost the public more than it will
gain.
[snip]
> Governing requires compromises and reasonable
> adjustments to accommodate competing interests
> for the greater good of all.
Hilarious stuff. There's less "government"
needed when a sports team owner builds his
own stadium than when the government gets
involved to the extent is usually does.
Or, like the new plan for the riverfront
development along Macadam south of downtown,
when the government gets its sticky
and smelly fingers in as deep as it
claims it has to, it makes too many of
us think that it's as necessary as it
seems to be. It's not. We *don't*
need the micromanagement that the
development is getting. But we are
getting it, and taxpayers will be
out scores of million$.
> Assuming someone died and made YOU Pooh-bah, jest how would YOU have
> dealt with the competing demands for sidewalk space between the cafe
> owners who wanted to put tables there and pedestrians who wanted to
> walk there, unimpeded? And how would you pay for yer solution?
The permit fee could be higher, for one. And being
part of a travel corridor no restaurant owner or
manager has any business blocking traffic.
> > > You've just obviously never worked for government. Or
> > > even been involved in the government process.
> > I've been close enough to see a lot of stupidity.
> Gubmint is no more immune to "stupidity" than any
> other organization.
Government has the resources to survive
stupidity in ways that private organizations
can't.
> But, that doesn't mean government doesn't -try- to
> avoid mistakes. It does. Quite diligently. -Its-
> mistakes end up on the 10 o'clock news and on the
> front page of the big O's Metro section. Something
> which seldom happens with most folks' mistakes.
Well--with apologies to Bing Crosby--Ho hum!!
Like with Jane Cease and her mega million $$$
mistake (she's now enjoying a nice pension
after first being given another plum assignment
to get her "out of the way"). Or Erik Sten
who, after his mega million dollar gaff,
got re-elected because he was the choice
of the establishment (media, developers, etc).
Yeah, Bill. Tell me about it.
> > Is that what was discussed behind closed doors
> > in that meeting to hammer out the details of
> > PGE Park deal
> Yep. Pretty much. They just came up with some
> incorrect conclusions. Mistakes happen.
Why couldn't they come up with incorrect
conclusions in an open door meeting?
But they blew it because the whole
premise was wrong. We might lose the
Beavers now because the owners cannot
make the payments. We would have been
better off leaving Civic Stadium alone
instead of putting over $35 million in
tax dollars into it in which case the
new owners were put in the hole from the
get-go.
> > --you know, the meeting that
> > involved details the public wasn't to know
> > about until later? (by the way, that was
> > no "conspiracy theory" as you deemed it, as
> > it was reported in the news right after
> > the meeting, and then again after the details
> > became known, but alas too late to stop the
> > damage).
> Whatchagonna do? The city council got
> sold a bill of goods by some -private-
> enterprise flimflam men.
Hee hee!!! The city council *wanted*
Civic Stadium to be occupied and
was only too happy to use tax dollars
to fancy it up. Besides, it's not like
there weren't enough critics of the plan
for the city council members to not be
aware of the mistake they were getting
us into. So far three of the five
council members involved in this got
re-elected.
> It happens. With both governments -and-
> private enterprise.
I expect elected policy makers to
not be so stupid.
Bob T
David Gibbons wrote:
> Most bicyclists who you see doing such are mostlikely ignorant that they
> even have rules they need to follow on the road. Instead of complaining
> about them maybe we should force liscencing for bicylcing. It seems
> kinda frightening the number of people (teenagers being a large part of
> this group) who don't even realize that they have rules they should be
> following when biking.
I really don't want to see licensing of bicycles or of
bicycle riding.
Still, people who do get around using those things
really need to start paying attention to the rules
of the roads before their violations cause a majority
of people to demand such licensing. It's also good
for their own safety to start paying attention to
signs and what we can call the unwritten rules
that are simply good driving etiquette.
The other day I was at a four-way stop near the
Hollywood Library (the intersection of 42nd and
NE Tillamook), waiting for two cars to make their
turns before I could turn, and a cyclist comes
up and goes right through making his left turn
ahead of several others.
He's the kind who needs to see a silhouette
painted in the street, complete with
image of bicycle lying there. Not based on
a real tracing, but sort of like the line
painted by James Garner in "Support Your
Local Sheriff" to mark where the cell
door was supposed to be so prisoner
Bruce Dern could know where to stop.
Bob t
There are more twits on bicycles in Portland than either Eugene or
Bend, the last two places I lived. Eugene may have more bicyclists per
capita than Portland. But in Portland, it is more common to see bikers
doing the most absurdo, unsafe maneuvers through and against traffic.
I bike, and I don't always do what cars have to do, but a bike is not
a car. You can recognize that some of the rules should be different,
without acting like stops signs don't exist.