| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:45:15 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,670 |
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them
here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them
here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of
judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than
appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.
On 5/6/2025 1:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them
here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of >>> judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than >>> appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge
ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my
shit.
Is Canada's Constitution much more "liberal" than the U.S.'s?
May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them
here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of >>judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than >>appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling >that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.
On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them
here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of
judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than
appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.
On 2025-05-06 2:18 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 5/6/2025 1:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them >>>> here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of >>>> judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than >>>> appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge
ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my
shit.
Is Canada's Constitution much more "liberal" than the U.S.'s?
Our equivalent to the US Constitution is the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Whether it is more liberal than the US's depends on how you
define "liberal". Overall, I would say it is considerably weaker in
terms of individual rights with more emphasis on "peace, order, and good government" than a strong interest in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We have nothing like the 2nd Amendment to protect gun
ownership and whatever rights we had have been dramatically eroded
during the past 10 years of Liberal governance.
. . .
Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally >protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes
I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when
they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is >squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the
10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly >thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.
. . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally
protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes
I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when
they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is
squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the
10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly
thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was
the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?
On 2025-05-06 1:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:I know you are frustrated by the bike lanes in your own area and how
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them
here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of >>> judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than >>> appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling >> that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.
they are being made by closing car lanes in already over-crowded
streets.
Toronto city council is gung ho for bike lanes - as are just about all
the municipalities in this area. Virtually EVERY candidate for public
office ritually affirms their support for bike lanes, as if there is
some widespread demand for them. If there is, I have yet to hear it: I'm convinced that this is coming from city planners because that is what
their governing bodies have deemed the right thing to do.
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago. I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street.
Then a few years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago.
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years >back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
On May 6, 2025 at 12:08:20 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-06 1:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I know you are frustrated by the bike lanes in your own area and how
wrote:
America is not the only country that has activist judges. We have them >>>> here in Canada too. Brian Lilley and Adam Zivo describe several cases of >>>> judicial activism and consider remedies like electing judges rather than >>>> appointing them as we currently do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R4cVgqfZA [16 minutes]
I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.
they are being made by closing car lanes in already over-crowded
streets.
And they sit completely unused.
This is Southern California with its perfect year-around weather, so naturally
many people bike.
For recreation!
They do it on weekends and holidays on the dedicated bike trails in the hills and on the beach. Not on the city roads. They don't use bikes to commute to work or run grocery errands or any of that stuff. I couldn't bike to my former
job and survive the trip even if I wanted to bike 48 miles/day (24 to the office and 24 back home). There's no way to get from where I live to downtown that doesn't involve cutting through some of the most violent and gang-infested neighborhoods in the country. Imagine how long a white guy pedaling along on his bike would last in Compton or Watts or Inglewood.
Toronto city council is gung ho for bike lanes - as are just about all
the municipalities in this area. Virtually EVERY candidate for public
office ritually affirms their support for bike lanes, as if there is
some widespread demand for them. If there is, I have yet to hear it: I'm
convinced that this is coming from city planners because that is what
their governing bodies have deemed the right thing to do.
Here it's the Climate Cult that's responsible for the proliferation of bike lanes everywhere. They really believe 14 million people are going to give up their cars and start biking vast distances to work and back everyday. Like I said, my trip would be 48 miles. But there are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people who live in the Valley and commute into downtown or to places like Hollywood or Century City. Those people would not only have that same 50-mile roundtrip commute, but they have a mountain range in between their homes and their work. Nothing like biking through the Sepulveda Pass and
over the Santa Monica mountains in high summer when the temps are 90-100 degrees. Even if you survive the coronary, you arrive at work a sweaty sopping
mess.
The Climate Cult is simply nuts when it comes to their utopian vision of bike lanes, just like they are with everything else.
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago. I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street.
Our city bans overnight parking to keep people who live in their cars and vans
from setting up a permanent 'residence' right in front of people's homes. It's
an anti-vagrant ordinance and thank god for it.
Then a few years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
May 6, 2025 at 12:22:41 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally >>>protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes >>>I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when
they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is >>>squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the >>>10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly >>>thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was >>the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights >>only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the >>Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have >>infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass >>communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that >>hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of >>publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of >>distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?
I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over local >traffic laws and road design.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of
course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
dropped off or picked up.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
May 6, 2025 at 12:22:41 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally >>>> protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes >>>> I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when
they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is
squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the >>>> 10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly >>>> thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was >>> the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass
communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of
distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?
I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over local >> traffic laws and road design.
It's inferred in the postal clause.
Furthermore, if a letter carrier
violates restrictions on road use, he isn't subject to citations for nonmoving violations per national supremacy.
The way it's worked throughout the entire automobile era, predating
Johnson's Department of Transportaton as a Great Society program and predating Roosevelt's WPA/PWA, is that state highway commissioners,
acting through AASHTO, would agree upon highway designs, and if these
designs were thought to benefit from federal standards, the standard
would be incorporated by regulation of FHWA and predecessor agencies.
There actually have been major aspects of road design standards with
federal regulation and it does not violate federalism.
But there's absolutely an argument that road design can and does violate
the unenumerated right of freedom to travel.
The Constitution doesn't address all human liberty, nor was it intended
to.
May 6, 2025 at 12:41:48 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
May 6, 2025 at 12:22:41 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally >>>>>protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes >>>>>I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when >>>>>they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is >>>>>squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the >>>>>10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly >>>>>thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would >>>>be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was >>>>the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights >>>>only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the >>>>Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have >>>>infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass >>>>communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that >>>>hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of >>>>publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of >>>>distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?
I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over >>>local traffic laws and road design.
It's inferred in the postal clause.
That's exactly the kind of judicial fantasy that I despise.
If the Founders had wanted the federal government to have the power to tell >the states how to design their roads and local traffic laws, then they would >have made that an explicit enumerated power. "Inferring" federal power where >there is none is what got us Roe v Wade and Wickard v. Filburn.
. . .
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of
course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
dropped off or picked up.
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the >sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for >pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us, >but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
On May 6, 2025 at 12:28:41 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted, >>> for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us, but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years >>> back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has >>> an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of
course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
dropped off or picked up.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the
sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us, >> but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
Good point
Ok. I could have done without the narrator and his ads, but that's
un-fucking believable. 100s of assistant corporation counsels and they
forget to obtain an easement? I wonder if there are utilities down
there.
Bet the city is going to have to pay him, plus reimbursement for
the judgment against him for the woman.
On May 6, 2025 at 12:28:41 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted, for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term parking.
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us, but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get dropped off or picked up.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:33:28 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 12:28:41 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted, >>>> for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the >>>> city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the
sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
I peeked at that video and comments earlier and it just seems
like celebrating a scam artist. It does not seem to merit the
title "Queens Man OUT SMARTS NYC Democrats".
Often enough I saw "actual justice warrior" post about something
actually important and then it's just lengthy videos
about other videos without even allowing ten seconds of what he's
talking about to be shown or heard.
Videos of talking heads looking at the camera demanding the
viewer trust what he is ranting on about are my least favorite
form of mass communications. Let's get back to reading and writing!
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us, >> but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years >>>> back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down >>>> our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has >>>> an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I >>>> can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even >>>> for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of
course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
dropped off or picked up.
I suggest that if activists want bicycles to be treated as a serious
method of transportation than start doing it: require all bicycles
to have side view mirrors like motorcycles have and prosecute bike theft seriously, and not as some sort of harmless practice like even car theft
is often treated as. But "activists" don't want normal people to
bike, they want it to have an outlaw image like "activists" have.
On 2025-05-08 04:17:17 +0000, Pluted Pup said:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:33:28 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 12:28:41 PM PDT, ""Adam H.
Kerman""<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we
wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the >>>>> city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned
the
sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
I peeked at that video and comments earlier and it just seems
like celebrating a scam artist. It does not seem to merit the
title "Queens Man OUT SMARTS NYC Democrats".
Often enough I saw "actual justice warrior" post about something
actually important and then it's just lengthy videos
about other videos without even allowing ten seconds of what he's
talking about to be shown or heard.
Videos of talking heads looking at the camera demanding the
viewer trust what he is ranting on about are my least favorite
form of mass communications. Let's get back to reading and writing!
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive
for us,
but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal >>>>> being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few
years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down >>>>> our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially >>>>> useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk
which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I >>>>> can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now >>>>> illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket
even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of >>>> course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
dropped off or picked up.
I suggest that if activists want bicycles to be treated as a serious
method of transportation than start doing it: require all bicycles
to have side view mirrors like motorcycles have and prosecute bike theft
seriously, and not as some sort of harmless practice like even car theft
is often treated as. But "activists" don't want normal people to
bike, they want it to have an outlaw image like "activists" have.
The morons in charge here in New Zealand decided a pedestrain crossing
was needed on the main road near us. Instead of simple painted stripes,
they made an over-complicated mess costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars ... for ONE pedestrian crossing:
- For no apparent reason, they moved the bus stop
on one side of the road further down.
- They installed a raised area in the road creating
a bump, which means traffic has to slow down to go over it.
- They widened the footpath at side of the crossing.
- They installed a pedestrian crossing lane with traffic lights
and a push button for the pedestrains to stop the traffic,
and lowered the curb (for people in wheelchairs, people with
babies in strollers, etc.).
- They also installed a separate "cycle crossing" lane with
its own push button and its own lowered curb ...
- They then installed a sign which reads "Cyclists Dismount",
which means cyclists then become pedestrians, so why is
there a separate crossing lane and push button!?!
(I've yet to see any cyclist or scooter rider actually dismount.)
And, after all that, you'd be lucky if a dozen people actually use it
each day! The road itself is only busy at the peak morning and afternoon times - the rest of the day it is very easy to cross anyway.
There are other similarly hideously expensive and over-complicated
pedestrian crossing installed around the city.
On 5/7/25 11:32 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-05-08 04:17:17 +0000, Pluted Pup said:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:33:28 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 6, 2025 at 12:28:41 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""<ahk@chinet.com>  wrote:
Rhino<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we
wanted, for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. >>>>>> But the city banned overnight parking many years ago.
Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with >>>>> short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the >>>> sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
pedestrians and cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
I peeked at that video and comments earlier and it just seems
like celebrating a scam artist. It does not seem to merit the
title "Queens Man OUT SMARTS NYC Democrats".
Often enough I saw "actual justice warrior" post about something
actually important and then it's just lengthy videos
about other videos without even allowing ten seconds of what he's
talking about to be shown or heard.
Videos of talking heads looking at the camera demanding the
viewer trust what he is ranting on about are my least favorite
form of mass communications. Let's get back to reading and writing!
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us,
but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal >>>>>> being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years >>>>>> back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down >>>>>> our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially >>>>>> useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has >>>>>> an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I >>>>>> can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now >>>>>> illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even >>>>>> for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of >>>>> course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get >>>>> dropped off or picked up.
I suggest that if activists want bicycles to be treated as a serious
method of transportation than start doing it: require all bicycles
to have side view mirrors like motorcycles have and prosecute bike theft >>> seriously, and not as some sort of harmless practice like even car theft >>> is often treated as. But "activists" don't want normal people to
bike, they want it to have an outlaw image like "activists" have.
The morons in charge here in New Zealand decided a pedestrain crossing
was needed on the main road near us. Instead of simple painted stripes,
they made an over-complicated mess costing many hundreds of thousands
of dollars ... for ONE pedestrian crossing:
 - For no apparent reason, they moved the bus stop
   on one side of the road further down.
 - They installed a raised area in the road creating
   a bump, which means traffic has to slow down to go over it.
 - They widened the footpath at side of the crossing.
 - They installed a pedestrian crossing lane with traffic lights
   and a push button for the pedestrains to stop the traffic,
   and lowered the curb (for people in wheelchairs, people with
   babies in strollers, etc.).
 - They also installed a separate "cycle crossing" lane with
   its own push button and its own lowered curb ...
 - They then installed a sign which reads "Cyclists Dismount",
   which means cyclists then become pedestrians, so why is
   there a separate crossing lane and push button!?!
   (I've yet to see any cyclist or scooter rider actually dismount.)
And, after all that, you'd be lucky if a dozen people actually use it
each day! The road itself is only busy at the peak morning and
afternoon times - the rest of the day it is very easy to cross anyway.
There are other similarly hideously expensive and over-complicated
pedestrian crossing installed around the city.
Goldbrick engineering. Attention seeking behavior. Symbolism
over substance. That's the type of "bike activism" that I think
of that's bad. Are bicycles a serious mode of transportation or
just another political stunt intended to annoy normal people?
The local city council has wasted billions of dollars putting cycling
lanes all over the place, and it is extremely rare to see anyone
actually using them (even most of the few cyclists you do see often
ride on the footpath, depsite it not being legal). The cycling brigade
keep campaigning for putting a cycling and walking lane over the
Harbour Bridge, but after the initial "wow" factor, it will again
barely ever be used by anyone - it's simply too steep and too long,
plus (unlike say London or Sydney) there is absolutely nothing on
either side of the bridge because it is part of the motorway system, so
that means an even longer cycle / walk to get anywhere useful.