Bryan

He is the best ever by a very wide margin. The problem is, the bar has been set VERY low. His position on Israel disgusts me, but his domestic policies are still several orders of magnitude better than the current alternatives, making him still the only credible option at this time. Start with Plan D, then move forward from there. Israel attacks first, ALWAYS. Palestinians try to defend themselves, then Israel claims that they are the ones under attack, and use that as an excuse to launch an all out assault. That assault is always a cover for just taking more Palestinian land to build more Israeli settlements. Then they starve out the remaining villagers in the area, cut off their water supply, bulldoze their orchards, and commandeer any vessels that try to sent in aid. Israel are war criminals in every sense of the word.

And Palestinians will kill as many Israelis as they need to get Israel to stop their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Israel started this, just like they started the whole conflict. Stop terrorizing Palestinians, and they'll stop trying to defend themselves.

I've seen them.

The dirt paths covered with large uneven rocks that the Romans had is an entirely different thing than a modern smooth road. I mean, sure, technically an abacus is a computer, but no one is going to try to claim that the ancient Chinese invented "computers". But, if you want to continue to be nit-picky for sport, I can revise the statement accordingly: Roads that were smooth enough that it's even possible to drive a car on them only exist specifically because they were developed for bicycles.

Ancient Romans didn't have pavement.

Roads were built for bicycles. Cars came much later.

If the cars weren't there, the accident wouldn't happen. That means the cars are the cause. That's how cause works.

You have the relationship backwards. Most bicycle accidents are caused by car drivers. http://www.research.utoronto.ca/smart-cycling/

I don't have a problem with that, as long as pedestrians are not allowed on paths. The fun part is the dual expectations of many non-cyclists. They talk out of both sides of their mouths -- "they're an obstacle on the road, they're too slow" is immediately followed by "they're too dangerous on the paths, they're too fast"

It's that "share the lane" idea that causes the problem. If it's OK for you to pass me inside my own lane when I'm ahead of you, then me passing you is sharing equally. This is one of those areas where the law is irrelevant -- you should never ride on the right side of the lane because it only encourages motorists to do things that are a direct threat to your life. If they have to properly pass you by changing lanes (the same way they would if you were a slower moving car), it greatly minimizes the incidents where you get stuck against the curb and makes it less likely for cars to turn across your path.

The thing is, the real story is usually the opposite. Most of the time its: the cyclist makes several attempts to warn the pedestrians they were coming (verbally and with bells/horns), only to have the pedestrian step right in front of them as they were passing by. I've had so many narrow misses like this I've lost count. Granted, I also slow right down, and I keep my hands ready on the brake levers, so the severity of such a collision would be greatly minimized. And the riding without brakes trend just baffles me. It's really a popular thing to either buy a fixed gear bike that doesn't have brakes in the first place, or to remove all of the brakes immediately upon purchase. If you like to play with your toys like that on a closed space like at the skate park or on an open parking lot, that's one thing, but riding at full speed amongst traffic and/or pedestrians? How does someone make the decision to do that in the first place? Yeah, there is far too much nanny state mentality going on when it comes to bikes, but surely having a rule that you have to be able to stop is the bare minimum?

Absolutely not. Racing past you and cutting you off is not a "successful pass", it's attempted murder.

Sorry, you're wrong. It's got nothing to do with me passing the car. If the car passes ME to my left, and cuts me off by turning right, it's 100% his fault, PERIOD.

That's because they DO have the right of way. If you're to the left of me, that's MY lane. If you try to occupy the same lane as me to my left, you're the one breaking the law. If you turn in front of me, that collision is 100% your fault.

Not special, just somewhat disinterested in being killed by motorists who are so inattentive that they don't even know that they are the problem. You'll never see me calling for bike lanes, and neither will the vast majority of cyclists. Those people doing all the begging are a very small minority. If they build something I never asked for, that is far more dangerous than what i already used, why would I use it?

This is exactly what I'm talking about: A cyclist that you just passed within the same lane, then tried to kill by turning in front of him. You're the one who is 100% at fault there, and you're completely oblivious to it. Pay attention or get off the road.

Thankfully I don't live in a place where police act like gestapo. Police here are actually aware of what most of the laws actually are. For the few that don't, I have my helmet cam. Again, it's still you that's doing all of the whining.

More like judge agrees with cyclist, dismisses fine and reprimands cop for being an idiot. Even that is only if the cop is that much of an idiot that he writes tickets for things that are not illegal.

Designated bike lane is not safe, cyclist stays in lane that is safe. Motorist rationalizes that he is "special" and wants cyclist out of "his" lane.

Before I get bent out of shape about what we're hearing, I want to know if the "eye witness" accounts are anything close to what really happened. Given where it happened, and that community's adversarial at best relationship with the police, I'm not taking anyone's word for it without other corroborating evidence.

Laws only apply to cyclists if those laws aren't risking their lives. Some bike lanes are well designed and safe, but most of them are far more dangerous. They have painted many of them here in Winnipeg that I would NEVER travel in. They go right alongside a row of parked cars so you're riding right in the door zone. I will not even think about riding in those. If the lanes are right against the curb, they are subject to debris, potholes, drainage grates, cars constantly parking in them, and cars on your left making right turns directly in front of you. They are the least safe place to be on the entire road. You're the one who is whining. Car driver sees that a lane is continuously blocked, he changes lanes and stays out of the blocked one. Cyclist avoiding the bike lane is doing the same thing.

When hear someone complain about cyclists driving badly, I know I'm listening to a motorist who needs to be taken off the road. Cyclists get blamed for "coming out of nowhere" or swerving around" or "blowing through stop signs" when more often than not, they were right there the whole time obeying the laws to the same degree the drivers were. The real issue is drivers who simply do not pay attention to their surroundings so that they don't see the cyclist who was right there the whole time. That cyclists who "blew through the stop sign"? Slowed to a significantly slower pace than you did in your car when you insisted that you came to a complete stop. The one who "swerved in front of you"? He was right there the entire time -- take your eyes off your phone and keep it on the road. Do they start swearing at you? Yeah, because you're such an idiot that you have no idea that you came within an inch of killing them twice in the last block.

Yes, it's obvious that was not the way he wanted the conversation to go. He was trying to stay on script, but eventually had to give that up. Still better than what most politicians would have done, which is call Tom Harris a "denier" and cut him off.

It's almost refereshing to hear a politician admit he doesn't know something, instead of sticking to his talking points in an intractable manner. Harris certainly does have a point though, it's blurring the line between actual pollution and CO2 emissions, coupled with referring to the latter as "carbon" that causes a lot of confusion, and leads otherwise well-meaning people to waste a lot of money on fantasy schemes. Using the word "carbon" is not an accident, it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the two terms in people's minds and make them think of CO2 as "dirty".

Absolutely.