Riding vs Flying -- How many here ride?

in article , Matt Barrow at
wrote on 7/3/06 7:47 PM:


"Philip S." wrote in message
...
in article , Matt Barrow at
wrote on 7/3/06 7:08 PM:


"Philip S." wrote in message
...
in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 7/3/06 5:58 PM:

Philip S. wrote:

This is funny, and it reminds me of a guy I used to know whom I
christened
"F***in' cops". He'd storm into work at least once or twice a month
muttering "F***in' cops!". And yes, as you've probably already
guessed,
he
got one or two traffic tickets a month. Naturally, it never dawned on
him
that driving the speed limit might be the answer to his troubles.

What state was that? In PA or NY, you do that for about two months and
you'd no longer have a license.

Sounds like an urban legend to me...

Matt

Washington State. And I can assure you, it's no urban legend. I have no
idea
whether the guy in question ever had his license revoked, though.

My one time in traffic court, I listened as the rap sheets of other
drivers
were read out, and some of them ran on for a considerable time. And they
all
had valid licenses. For the moment, anyway.

Hmmm...when I had jury duty (twice...we don't have a lot of potential
jurors
around here) the bailiff read the charges, but no one EVER read the rap
sheets. AAMOF, a persons record is NOT admissible in court, and that
would
only be a points summary if the judge was going to revoke the drivers
license.

Try again.

Umm...try again with *what*, exactly--somebody else's personal experience?
Sorry, Matt, I can only give you my own.

And my particular traffic court didn't have a jury. Perhaps it's different
where you live.

My experience wasn't traffic court, it was judicial court. That court had
jurisdiction for an traffic offenses that were classified as misdemeanor or
higher.

Well, that certainly explains why you felt qualified to comment on my
experience in traffic court.

IAC, a subjects record is _not likely_ to be read into the record for a
traffic court. In our area, a license cannot be revoked by a traffic court,
only a judicial court.

I don't live in your area.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message

Never read Shakespeare, have 'ya?


Methinks he doth protest too much.

"Philip S." wrote in message

Methinks you exaggerate....grossly.

Excuse me, not to be a grammarian or anything, but shouldn't that be "I
think"?

Old English usage, considered archaic today, but not unheard of. Format
made famous by Big Bill the Writer. :-)

in article , John Gaquin at
wrote on 7/3/06 7:58 PM:


"Philip S." wrote in message

Methinks you exaggerate....grossly.

Excuse me, not to be a grammarian or anything, but shouldn't that be "I
think"?

Old English usage, considered archaic today, but not unheard of. Format
made famous by Big Bill the Writer. :-)

Actually, it's circa the mid-1980s, derived from the Woody Harrelson.

Serves me right, quoting from such an obscure television series.

I won't criticise anyone for erring on the side of safety. That is
their perogative - and I appreciate the lack of traffic when the
weather turns nasty. It's just that it is obvious that their comfort
level with the conditions is significantly less than mine. I've seen
the exact opposite in other parts of the world - where the unprepared
plunge headlong into the unknown - and frequently pay the price for
their foolishness. I haven't had any run-ins with rednecks yet, but you
never know what will be around the next curve. Just this evening I had
an encounter with a groundhog while riding that could easily have
turned dramatic.

As for the debate about whitelining - I am not opposed to it in
principle. I favor making the most efficient use of the available
resources (pavement in this case), and do feel that the American
mindset of "stay in line and follow the leader" doesn't jibe with it.
That doesn't make it wrong - but does make it dangerous. I have driven
in third world countries where it is par for the course for the
2-wheelers (and sometimes 3-wheelers) to maneuver around all the cars,
trucks and buses stopped at a light -so as to be at the front when it
changes. Everyone accepts this situation - so it isn't a problem. Now
if we can get ower the notion that someone who passes you when you are
stuck in traffic (because their vehicle gives them the ability to do
so) is somehow taking unfair advantage of the situation, our highways
will be a better (and safer) place to be. Having said that, do I
whiteline? Nope - because I'm well aware of the hazards involved. The
closest I will come is to use a partial lane to make a right or left
turn. In other words, I'l pass on the left or right of stopped traffic
if I'm planning to turn (provided there is adequate space to do so
safely)- but never down the middle.

David Johnson

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news:PGjqg.11$Oy2.3471
@news.uswest.net:


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote in news:0B5qg.61392$fb2.57224
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

It almost always boils
down to money and greed.

No, it boils down to an acceptance that life has risk.

Jose

No, it's greed. If there is a safer alternative, one with less
risk as you put it, more often than not the only thing preventing
that safer solution from being used is greed...money rules. If
some rich mutha'****a would only make 50 million instead of 100
million, it won't get done.

Not an entrepreneur, are you? :~)

If you mean, do I try to find ways to make 1 person do 10
peoples jobs and pay them squat ****, then sell the item
for 100x what it costs to manufacturer...no, I guess I'm
not an entrepeneur.

I have no problem with making a profit, even getting rich.
I do have a problem with taking it to such an extreme that
it hurts people.

Take for example this bloke who just donated 30 some odd
billion dollars to charity. Obviously he doesn't need it
nor want it. Not that I'm belittling charitble contributions,
but I have to wonder if raising all his hourly employee
wages by a buck/hour wouldn't have done far more to help
more people than this charity.

As another example, I have a family member who works for
an amusement park. Instead of them hiring a couple more
people (their shop is understaffed) and giving them a decent
wage (which is likely why they no one is applying for work),
or getting them the supplies they need, or putting in air
conditioning in the building where it get's hotter than
outside...no...they spend all the money on new rides and
buying new parks. Business isn't increasing, btw.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

No, it's greed. If there is a safer alternative, one with less
risk as you put it, more often than not the only thing preventing
that safer solution from being used is greed...money rules.

Well gee, is it greed for me to choose the gas station that sells gas
the cheapest? Is it greed for me to shop when there are sales? Is it
greed for me to ask for a raise? Is it greed for me to try to buy this
house for as little as I can squeeze the seller for?

Is it greed that I don't give my money away willy nilly?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-07-01, john smith wrote:
After reading numerous reports about crushed bones and the long
rehabilition process, I decide there would not be a motorcycle in my
future.

But instead, general aviation - which some statistics show as being
twice as dangerous as riding a motorcycle on the public highway!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in news:PGjqg.11$Oy2.3471
@news.uswest.net:


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote in news:0B5qg.61392$fb2.57224
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

It almost always boils
down to money and greed.

No, it boils down to an acceptance that life has risk.

Jose

No, it's greed. If there is a safer alternative, one with less
risk as you put it, more often than not the only thing preventing
that safer solution from being used is greed...money rules. If
some rich mutha'****a would only make 50 million instead of 100
million, it won't get done.

Not an entrepreneur, are you? :~)

If you mean, do I try to find ways to make 1 person do 10
peoples jobs and pay them squat ****, then sell the item
for 100x what it costs to manufacturer...no, I guess I'm
not an entrepeneur.

Obviously.

I have no problem with making a profit, even getting rich.
I do have a problem with taking it to such an extreme that
it hurts people.

Your logic chain here is....well, weird!

Jose wrote in news:lEtqg.165096$F_3.58799
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

No, it's greed. If there is a safer alternative, one with less
risk as you put it, more often than not the only thing preventing
that safer solution from being used is greed...money rules.

Well gee, is it greed for me to choose the gas station that sells gas
the cheapest? Is it greed for me to shop when there are sales? Is it
greed for me to ask for a raise? Is it greed for me to try to buy this
house for as little as I can squeeze the seller for?

Is it greed that I don't give my money away willy nilly?

Jose

You snipped out the important part of my post in your reply.
Here it is again,

"If some rich mutha'****a would only make 50 million
instead of 100 million, it won't get done."

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?