HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dave Snyder <davesnyder@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:53 PDT
Subject: Re: Buses and Bikes - Summary (Long)
Nf-ID: #R:Bv4A6u.2yD@u36.kwnet.on.ca:-316146485:cdp:1702500007:000:945
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!davesnyder    Sep 29 17:53:00 1992


Two more systems I've learned about that provide
biek access on their buses.

Washington State:
Tacoma and Everett cities both provide bike access.

Seattle is considering amore comprehensive program
than currently it rpovides. See the next response for
more detailed information about this.

California:

Santa Rosa County will allow you to take you bike on
the bus on many of its cross-county lines. Santa Rosa
is two counties north of San Francisco.

The San Francisco bicycle coalition and the East Bay bicycle
coalition of the SF Bay area is about to convince AC Transit
to allow bikes *on* the buses that link Oakland and 
San Francisco across the bayt bridge during the hours
of midnight to 6 a.m., when the only other alternative
for cyclists (the BART subway) is closed.

BTW, I'm not sure what the address for me listed above 
is. I'm on the IGC networks (PeaceNet, Econet, etc.) I thnk
my Internet address is davesnyder@igc.apc.org.
From: tims@cci632.cci.com (Tim Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: quote the law, was Re: Dangerous situation - advice wanted
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:32:54 GMT
Reply-To: tims@cci.com (Tim Sullivan)
Organization: Northern Telecom NAS, Rochester, NY


bob@cc.usu.edu (Bob Bayn) wrote this about 
"quote the law, was Re: Dangerous situation - advice wanted":
[deleted]
>41-6-56(1) The operator of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the
>right of another vehicle only:
>	(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making or preparing to make
>	    a left turn;
>	(b) upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient 
>	    width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully 
>	    in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle; 
>	    or
>	(c) upon a one way highway ... where the roadway is free from 
>	    obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines 
>	    of moving vehicles.
>
>41-6-56(2) The operator of a vehicle may overtake and pass another
>vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting the movement
>with safety.  The movement may not be made by driving off the roadway.
>
>
>Did that make the legality of the original bike situation perfectly clear?
>I thought not.  
[deleted]

I think it does.  41-6-56(2) says that passing on the right may be done if
it can be done by not leaving the roadway and if done safely.  The
original situation described had the bike rider remaining on the roadway but,
by his own admission by shooting out from where the driver of the oncoming
vehicle would not expect. In that case he is not conducting his "movement with
safety", as required by law.

I think that with this law, passing on the right is permitted, but not
the way it was described in the original post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sullivan
tims@cci.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: cda@davos.ide.com (Charlotte Allen)
Subject: Wildlife & commuting
Organization: IDE
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:41:47 GMT


On my daily commute through urban San Francisco, I've been noticing an
increasing number of large dead flattened rats by the side of the road.
This year is the first time I've noticed them.  Wonder if it means anything.
Were they always there, and I just didn't notice?  Or has our rat population
gotten a lot larger lately?

-- 
********************************************************************************
			     Charlotte Allen
			uunet!ide!cda	cda@ide.com
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,dc.driving,dc.general
From: jpitts@norfolk.vak12ed.edu (Joseph R. Pitts)
Subject: Re: HOV abolished!
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Norfolk)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 15:30:45 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp  writes:
> Wonderful news folks!  Governor Wilder today has abolished the HOV lane
> effective Monday on the Toll Road.  I guess it's not useless to voice
> one's opinion to their elective representatives after all.  Kudos to
> Congressman Wolf for his ingenuity in bringing this about.
> -- 
> John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
> HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
> 7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
> McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729


....yes john, that is wonderful news........NOT!!!!, now you
space-hogging, fume-causing, drivers from Nooorthern Virginia
can ruin more of the area that could remain undeveloped and un
spoiled....way to go!!! by the way...we are not supposed to
ride our bikes in the HOV lane anyway!!! 

				joe pitts
				whro-norfolk
ride your bike....and
eat your spinach!
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: ampe@cbnews.cb.att.com (john.e.ampe)
Subject: Re: quote the law, was Re: Dangerous situation - advice wanted
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.090509.59228@cc.usu.edu> bob@cc.usu.edu (Bob Bayn) writes:
>41-6-56(1) The operator of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the
>right of another vehicle only:
>	(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making or preparing to make
>	    a left turn;
>	(b) upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient 
>	    width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully 
>	    in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle; 
>	    or

This is the law in Massachusetts, but it has always baffled me.  Many
roads around Boston are just barely wide enough for two lanes of
traffic, but are not marked as such.  The above rule allows passing on
the right (or left), but it is never exactly clear when this is legal
and when it is not.  Why the road cannot be striped so that it is
clearly one lane or clearly two is beyond me.  It is apparently legal
for me to drive down the middle of such roads (in a car), preventing
cars from passing to either side.  Of course, this law allows cars to
pass bicycles in the same lane, when there is room.

>	(c) upon a one way highway ... where the roadway is free from 
>	    obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines 
>	    of moving vehicles.

This is explicitly illegal in Connecticut (just part of their policy of
collecting revenue through traffic violations).

John_Ampe@att.com
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: DO YOU shower after a commute?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:05:45 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Sep28.143414.15731@cbnewse.cb.att.com> pwyc@cbnewse.cb.att.com (peter.w.chen) writes:

>So, my question to those who live in other parts of the world: do you find
>showering facilities a big issue in bike commuting?  Is that more important
>than, say, better parking facilities and safer routes?

I find that if I have to commute more than a couple of miles, I have a choice
between washing and getting lynched. However, a soapless bird-bath, with 
nothing but a washcloth and a sink, works fine. 

I'd have to put the route first in importance. I can always park my bike
in my office.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: mmf@evolving.com (Mark Frazier)
Subject: Re: Dangerous situation - advice wanted
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:36:39 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <1992Sep26.040334.12445@linus.mitre.org> bchivers@smiley.mitre.org (Brent Chivers) writes:
: >
: >Correct -- if you have only 1 lane on your side (as was depicted),
: >then this is passing on the right -- illegal.  They didn't teach it
: 
: This is piculiar to the state where it occurred.
: 
: In California passing on the right is legal if the vehicle ahead
: is making a left hand turn.

As I learned the hard way once, passing on the right in Colorado is legal
IF you don't have to leave the pavement to do so (actually, I didn't know
I was going to leave the pavement, since it was dark)

MMF
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: quote the law, was Re: Dangerous situation - advice wanted
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:14:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep28.180613.10787@cbnews.cb.att.com> ampe@cbnews.cb.att.com (john.e.ampe) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.090509.59228@cc.usu.edu> bob@cc.usu.edu (Bob Bayn) writes:
>>41-6-56(1) The operator of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the
>>right of another vehicle only:
>>	(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making or preparing to make
>>	    a left turn;
>>	(b) upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient 
>>	    width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully 
>>	    in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle; 
>>	    or
>
>This is the law in Massachusetts, but it has always baffled me.  Many
>roads around Boston are just barely wide enough for two lanes of
>traffic, but are not marked as such.  The above rule allows passing on
>the right (or left), but it is never exactly clear when this is legal
>and when it is not.

This is _not_ very clear in the written law. But perhaps I can extend this
interpretation a little. While making a _right_ turn I was waiting at a
light in a company van. When it was safe to go I started out and heard
a loud noise. Somehow a car had managed to get it's front end in between me
and the curb, this _despite_ the fact that I had the entire lane blocked
and my turn signal on and he had approached from behind!

The judge found _for_ him. He said that if there was enough room for him 
to get in there, there was enough room to qualify as a lane! I failed
to let the _right_turn_lane_ have right-of-way!

Yeh, in California.



Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Senior Citizen Slaughters Cyclist, Gainesville Florida
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:03:04 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   23 Sep 92 22:08:20 GMT
>FROM:   David Csseres <casseres@apple.com>
>
>In article <1992Sep22.131635.18051@eng.ufl.edu>, gwl@wasp.eng.ufl.edu
>(Gerry Lawrence) wrote:
>
>[News article about a cyclist killed by a driver 60 years old who said he
>was looking at his temperature gauge]> 
>
>> Poster's comments.  "Looked at his temperature gauge"???  For 45
>> seconds? I think this can be translated into: "Fell asleep at the
>> wheel". 
>
>Maybe he fell asleep, maybe he didn't.  Your "45 seconds" is out of thin
>air.
>
>> Oh well.  He'll probobly get a "jury of his peers" which means 12 old
>> people who fall asleep at the wheel all the time and don't see anything
>> wrong with it.  I doubt that he will lose his driving "priviledge."
>
>Sounds like you have an emotional problem about old people.
>I agree, he is unlikely to lose his driving privilege (and it IS a
>privilege).  Just like the people in their teens and 20's and 30's and 40's
>and 50's who kill people with their cars.

It seems to me that both sides of this debate are overlooking the main 
point. Old people (and young people, too) *do* fall asleep at the wheel. 
People drink, people get frantic and take foolish risks, people get mad 
and commit crimes in the heat of the moment. That's what people are like.

Engineering should take into account the nature of the materials 
employed. This ourotherwise beautifully-engineered transportation network has 
most signally failed to do. It has apparently been designed on the 
assumption that people are, or can be made, other than what they are. It 
depends on flawless performance by millions of fallible humans.

Perhaps, among other reasons, juries mollycoddle automotive 
criminals because they know all too well that they themselves come 
within a hair of doing the same thing, a dozen times a week. 

I'm certainly in favor of ferocious penalties against drivers who 
misbehave, or even just screw up, but *not* in order to improve people's 
driving -- rather, it's just one more thing that encourages 'em to stay 
out of their damn cars. License revocations on a Herodian scale would 
suit me just fine, but I wouldn't realistically expect it to improve the 
level of driving I see.

It's a mistake, I think, to say that we need to improve people's driving 
or encourage "safe driving." This phrase is an oxymoron. Driving, as a 
way for people in general to get around, is inherently unsafe and cannot 
be made safe. By focusing attention on the "nut behind the wheel" -- he 
was drunk, or too old, or too young -- we risk losing sight of the 
monumental craziness of the whole design. 

--Michael Smith
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: The Bird
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:41:44 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:06:42 EDT
>FROM:   Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
>
>I have a little ethical dilema here . .  I have noticed that my middle 
>finger is starting to pop up alot easier lately when cars honk at me, 

Yes, indeed. Just consider it part of the wonderful all-body exercise 
you get from cycling. As for the "bad rap", does anybody really believe 
that motorists would treat us better if *we* were nicer?
From: p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: no bicycles allowed on Main Street
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:13:51 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>In article <1992Sep23.185940.1742@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>,
> tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
> [A Southampton, LI, NY] village
>> ordinance forbids bicycle riding on the two main streets.  The village
>> requires cyclists to walk their bikes on those streets.
>
>This kind of law is very common, and typically applies to shopping
>areas with lots of pedestrians.  
>
>Use of public roads is not a right, so I wouldn't get too upset about
>this particular ordinance.  
>
>Brian Case  

I may well be mistaken about this, but I was under the impression that 
there is some NY *state* law restricting municipalities' power to do 
this kind of thing. Can someone more knowledgeable supply more info?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: bike trail info wanted
From: ndrose@husc8.harvard.edu (Nathan Rose)
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:00:53 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Can anyone provide information on something called the East Coast Bike
Trail, supposedly to run from Boston to Florida? Will this be an actual
bike trail, or merely a suggested route along normal roads? What's been
done on it so far?

Nathan Rose

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske)
Subject: Re: ROOLING STOPS
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:52:39 GMT

jamesg@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (James Gillespie) writes:

>In article <901003l.5.717257757@ace.acadiau.ca> 901003l@ace.acadiau.ca (MISMA LEBLANC) writes:
>>Can anyone tell me in which cities are rooling stops permitted on bicycles.
>>
>> By rooling I mean much reduced speed.
>>    ^^^^^^^
>>Misha LeBlanc 901003l@ace.acadiau.ca

>Shouldn't this be rolling?  (Otherwise known as a California stop?) 

And a Texas stop, and a (insert your favortie here) stop, and a ...

John
From: ROCKY@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Rocky Essex - University of Florida)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: driver kills cyclist
Date: 27 Sep 92 06:20:39 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, NERDC

In article <37169@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>
x3420abo@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:
 
>
>9/21/92 A man driving in the fast lane of US 441 says he "looked"
>down at his temperature gauge for a moment.  In that moment he swerved
>from the fast lane into the bike lane and struck MY friend Tom Hayes
>a 24 yr. old sophomore at the University of Florida.  Tom was picked
**part deleted**
>Always yeild to a car.  Lastly, Tom
>wasn't wearing a helmet not that it would have made a difference, but
>I and Team Florida strongly adivise getting one and wearing it all
>the time.  Helmets are not hotter than no helmet at all; studies
>have proven this.  In fact they're cooler because less water is lost
>due to evaporation.  Ride smart. Use your noodle.  Buy a helmet because
>you only have one brain and one life, and remember Tom Hayes.
***
Yes remember Tom Hayes!  Another example of a senseless death due to un-
fortunate circumstances.  I have ridden this stretch of road several times
in my life and know the dangers, but the biggest danger are motorists
that are not aware of their surroundings.  Last night my wife and I were
on 441 and I couldn't help but think of Tom.  I noticed that the visibility
is exceptional.  You can see for literally miles on both sides of the road
which leads me to wonder exactly what happened.  I find it very hard to
believe the motorist just glanced down at his temperature gauge.  I even
tried this to see the amount of time it would take.  First of all, if the
motorist would have been paying attention he could have seen Tom (and for
that fact any cyclist) at least 1 mile before he looked at his gauge.  He
could have moved to the outside lane - the one farthest from the bike lane,
or could have waited til he passed the cyclist.  Even then, looking at
his gauge would not have caused him to swerve INTO the bike lane.  There
would have had to be more happen the just a glimpse at the dashboard.
The sad thing is that a young man lost his life due to someone else's
carelessness.  Sadder yet, is the motorist was only charged with care-
less driving, not homicide, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or
vehicular manslaughter.  I feel for the motorist knowing he has to live
with Tom's death on his conscious, but I feel much, much more, for Tom's
family and friends who lost a friend needlessly.
From: pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com (Peter Z. Simpson)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Senior Citizen Slaughters Cyclist, Gainesville Florida
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:49:08 GMT
	<casseres-230992145705@kip2-15.apple.com>
	<PERLEY.92Sep25161134@trub.crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc
Organization: Data General Corp., Westboro, MA

>>>>> On 25 Sep 92 21:11:34 GMT, perley@trub.crd.ge.com (Donald P Perley) said:

> I don't think they even test vision at renewal!  I recall reading in
> the paper about some blind man in Florida who drove around with his
> grandson on his lap telling him when to turn, brake, etc. According to
> the article it was all legal. This was a regular paper, not one of the
> "Enquirer" types.

    Ahhh! *That's* who who uses the braille buttons on the drive-up
ATMs :-)

--
  Peter Simpson, KA1AXY       (508) 870-9837  fax: (508) 898-4212
  Data General Corp.  E236    pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com [128.221.228.82]
  Westboro, MA  01580         #include  <std_disclaimer.h>
From: p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Let's be serious out there (Was: Re: Let's be careful out there)
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:27:55 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   24 Sep 92 22:56:04 GMT
>FROM:   SEGEL honna <honna@cs.concordia.ca>
>Recent car-jackings in DC - in which one or more of the occupants
>of the stolen car were killed - have apparently brought
>about a hue and cry in the States to make car theft a federal offence.
>It seems to me that legislation to the intended effect will 
>put automobilism in a priveleged position socially by reinforcing the
>idea that these behemoths are somehow sacred (cows).
> 
>The priveleging of automobile-ownership/use wrt bicycle-ownership/use promises
>to be bad news; the ratchet effect will likely come into play, and cyclism
>can't afford to lose *any* ground relative to the almighty car.
>
>Should cyclismists not insist that bicycle theft also be made a federal
>offence?  Why should the automobile be treated as anything more important
>than a bicycle - both are means of transportation, aren't they?

Oh, surely we can go further than this. We should declare the car thief a 
benefactor of humanity. Subsidize him. Have contests and lionize the Car 
Thief of the Year.  Start a Car Theft Hall of Fame. Develop a TV series 
about Robin Hood Ornament. 

Much madness is divinest sense.... Upon reflection, a rather good 
case could be made that the average car thief plays a more constructive 
role in our society -- by increasing the cost of car use, particularly 
in cities -- than the average driver. 

Maybe I'll start stealing cars. Trouble is, I don't *want* a car, much 
less dozens of 'em.
From: JForester@cup.portal.com (John - Forester)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: More US govt bikepath policy
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 92 15:58:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

              US LEGISLATORS WANT CYCLISTS ON BIKEPATHS

   Several accounts of discussions, and even of bike rides, with US
Congressman Joe Kennedy, the inventor of the plan to spend 3% of US
transportation funds for bicycle facilities, show that he thinks that
the bicycle portion of the highway funding act known as ISTEA is
intended to provide funds for bike paths. Congressman Jim Oberstar,
another prime author of the funds for bicycle facilities provision in
ISTEA, prepared a video that was presented at the VeloCity92
conference in Montreal. In that video, shown on practically theater-
sized screens to the entire conference, Oberstar specifically
described the ISTEA funds as intended for bike paths without
mentioning any other use of the funds.

   In response to this blatantly political announcement to the
cycling world I stood up and got my sound bite in without electronic
amplification. I said: "Notice that Oberstar puts us among the
pedestrians, the most dangerous cycling environment that we know."

   That this is also the policy of the highway administrators who
implement the laws that Congress passes is obvious from the actions
of Tom Larson, the Administrator of the FHWA. See my posting on that
subject for further details.

   It is time that American cyclists recognized the truth that the
U.S. government has been trying to hard to conceal. That is, that the
U.S. policy is against cycling as it should be done, on roadways,
preferably well-designed roadways, with the rights and duties of
drivers of vehicles. Instead, U.S. policy favors cycling on bike
paths with the rights and hazards of, and from, pedestrians. That's
no way to get around cities either effectively or safely; it is so
dangerous (both from pedestrians and from motor vehicles) that its
hazards restrict cycling to almost-walking speeds and consequent
short distances.

   American cyclists and their organizations, whether they belong to
local bike clubs, racing clubs and the USCF, or the non-racing League
of American Wheelmen, need to mount an organized defense of their
right to use the roadways with the rights and duties of drivers of
vehicles. That position is jeopardized by the enormous monetary power
of the U.S. government in alliance with the highway (transportation)
departments of the various states. By building bike paths they both
justify getting us off the roadways and use up the space and money
that could have been used to improve the roads for cycling. 
`
JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc