> In short, an awful lot of the traffic on Belmont is locally generated,
> rather than being a true through street, and their really are not many
> great alternatives. I've tried to walk through that area a number of
> times and stay away from traffic noise on either Belmont or Hawthorne, and
> it just doesn't work very well because there arn't enough through
> streets. They do have a signed "bike route" through the area between
> Hawthorne and Belmont (closer to Hawthorne), but it weaves around through
> a large number of obscure short running streets. I've yet to see a
> bicyclist on any of those streets.
That would be Salmon Street - on which I live - and it is CLOGGED with
bikers routinely, going to and from work. I would know, since I'm often one
of them.
--
------
Michael Zwirn, michael@no-spam
http://zwirn.com
(t) 503-232-8919 (c) 503-887-9800
"Da Parrot-chick" <just@no-spam> wrote in message news:LzDKa.13365
> > What were those idiots doing riding their bikes at 0230? Were they on
> drugs? Nature taking out the weak and stupid before they get a chance to
> reproduce?
>
> You lousy rat bastard fuckwad. I knew one of those kids. Killed by a
drunk
> driver, who lives while my sweet and hardworking friend died a horrible
and
> painful death. Fuck you jack. Fuck you. FUCK YOU!!!
Well, I guess I'll second that one.
Killed by a drunk driver while they were doing something perfectly
respectable and legal in the supposed land of the free, and because some
drunk fuck hits them this guy suggests that THEY were on drugs?
He's probably got a skeleton in his closet or something.
-c
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/10566296
08179030.xml
"Police said Llaneza was speeding and drunk, his blood-alcohol level twice
the legal limit, when he hit the cyclists about 12:20 a.m. Wednesday near
Southeast 42nd Avenue and Belmont.
...
Llaneza didn't stop until the police cruiser pulled the van over at
Southeast Belmont Street and 39th Avenue, Schmautz said. Llaneza was
driving without a valid license.
He was arrested Wednesday morning on two counts of first-degree
manslaughter and one count each of first-degree assault, felony
hit-and-run, and driving under the influence.
It was his second charge of drunken driving this year, according to police
and court records."
"sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in message news:<N7PLa.58344$e26.34374@no-spam>...
> I tried balance and reason on this subject and it seemed to have gotten
> nowhere. Now it's time be as ridiculous as the bike riders.
I get it: your idea of "reason and balance" is "cars first, everyone
else second if they can fit in without inconveniencing cars". Yes, by
that definition, you DID try "balance and reason".
--
David Barts
Portland, OR
Yes, I do see cars first..isn't that what the roads were made for? Isn't
that what taxes at the gas pumps pay for? I also assume that bicyclist carry
zero insurance for when they plow into a car also. My opinion now; If
cyclist want to be in the same position as cars, then they need to pay the
same as cars in taxes and insurance.
"David Barts" <davidb@no-spam> wrote in message
news:d1a6bf42.0306301754.67c4550a@no-spam
> "sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<N7PLa.58344$e26.34374@no-spam>...
> > I tried balance and reason on this subject and it seemed to have gotten
> > nowhere. Now it's time be as ridiculous as the bike riders.
>
> I get it: your idea of "reason and balance" is "cars first, everyone
> else second if they can fit in without inconveniencing cars". Yes, by
> that definition, you DID try "balance and reason".
>
> --
> David Barts
> Portland, OR
"John Lienhart" <John@no-spam> wrote in message
news:9vjMa.12$C_4.3788@no-spam
>
> "sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:UjaMa.5719$fG.3739@no-spam
> My opinion now; If
> > cyclist want to be in the same position as cars, then they need to pay
the
> > same as cars in taxes and insurance.
> >
> Since most surface streets, including Belmont, are paid for by property
> taxes, those cyclists are paying the same as drivers for most streets that
> they use.
>
> As far as insurance, I don't know. I suspect that bicyclists actions are
> covered for the most part by homeowner's insurance or some rider attached
> thereto. If that is correct, they do pay for the insurance coverage they
> need in regard to damaging property or injuring people. Does anyone know
> for sure?
It would be true provided the bicyclist was a homeowner and the insurance
rider (not the bicyclist) included this sort of circumstance. But this
wouldn't apply to bicyclists who are renting. More specifically, there are
no state laws mandating insurance for bicycle users like car drivers must
have. I doubt even such a policy exists. And there are no licensing
requirements to operate a bicycle, either, although bicyclists are subject
to the same traffic laws as cars regarding signals, signs, speed, etc.
Witness one of those idiot Critical Mass riders who was busted during their
protest (it was NOT a funeral procession as they claim) last Friday for DUI.
Idiots.
"JP" <jptoon2001@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdurj2019v6@no-spam
> Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> >
> > It would be true provided the bicyclist was a homeowner and the
> > insurance rider (not the bicyclist) included this sort of
> > circumstance. But this wouldn't apply to bicyclists who are renting.
>
> A small point. Unless their landlord is either a truly generous soul or
> an idiot, most renters pay property taxes too. Just not directly to the
> State.
To the best of my knowledge, renters pay only rent to their landlords,
nothing else. The rent money goes to pay expenses such as maintenance,
taxes, mortgage, security, and sometimes some utilities. The actual renter
doesn't get a property tax statement, the landlord does.
davidb@no-spam (David Barts) wrote in message news:<d1a6bf42.0306281915.23d9cf9f@no-spam>...
> "sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in message news:<f4LKa.27294$XG4.18975@no-spam>...
>
> > Actually, I'm promoting the idea of making roads safe for ALL people. It is
> > safer for bikes to remain on roads that are less traveled by 2-ton cars
> > driving at high speeds. I don't think that asking bicyclist to make a one or
> > two block detour to side streets is regulating them as second-class
> > citizens. But then again, I'm not a Bike Nazi.
>
> Cute... you propose tying up me and my fellow cyclists with silly
> onerous rules, then have the gall to call ME the Nazi.
>
> Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute ...
>
Should you be able to ride your bicycle on I-5? If not, why?
Oh fucking great. Insurance and licensing. All the
corporate/government/bureaucratic bullshit people go through because
of the "freedom" (hah! snort! I laugh!) of owing a car.
And it's not as if bicycles injure or kill innocents at anywhere near
the rate cars do (ya know, the public purpose behind the
licensing/insurance requirements). No, it's just a sado-masochistic
desire amongst some cage drivers to see others suffer through the same
crap they've bought into.
I can hear the screams of "no, no, it's not that, we just want balance
and symmetry" already. Yeah, right.
But, hey, your envy at those of us that don't have to put up with the
BS your own lifestyle imposes on you is duly noted. (You're welcome.)
--
David Barts
Portland, OR