roscoe

A shake? Milk and ice cream? It costs five dollars? You don't put bourbon in it or anything?

I keep hearing about Niagara and everyone says the same thing, it's different.

Could you describe how it's different? Just the setup, or is it different when you're using it?

Even in Maine and Nebraska, two of their electrical votes are statewide just some are allocated to CDs. A state's electrical votes are determined by their total number of senators and representatives. The ones that correspond to the two senators are statewide.

So we're both in agreement that driving too fast is irresponsible.

But you think diving an unlighted buggy at night is fine. And furthermore, if that unlighted buggy gets in an accident with a car, it's definitely the driver of the car obeying all the laws at fault, never the fault of the buggy driving scofflaw.

Nope, doesn't sound like dogmatic culty thinking to me at all.

BTW: the appeal to authority fallacy is no better than a straw man. Much like traffic laws, they're all important.

Lol, nice straw man.

Hey, let me ask you a few questions.

What if the next law these fucking jerks decide they don't want to follow is driving on the right? You come to one of the bends you go around and instead of a deer standing there, or a fallen tree, there are two horses pulling a carriage toward you making the combined speed too high to stop in time. Your hood takes out their legs and a couple thousand pounds of house torso blasts through your windshield killing you and your family.

Are you and your deceased family victims now? Or is the victim still somehow the asshole driving the carriage who miraculously always remains blameless just because they're not driving a car?

What does fuck cars mean to you?

To me it means drastically reducing the share of infrastructure and space given to the operation and storage of cars by improving public transportation and cycling/pedestrian friendly infrastructure to reduce, or even eliminate, the need for personal motor vehicles larger than an E-Bike in most, or even all cases.

Based on your comments "fuck cars" is just a mantra. A mantra you've repeated often enough to inspire a religious-like conviction that the driver of a motor vehicle is always at fault when they come in conflict with any other road user, no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound.

I suppose you could try to pass laws against animals or fallen trees in the roadway. I don't know how successful that might be. Fining a bear for being in the road also presents challenges.

Using a road in any way is never going to be completely safe. All we can do is make rules that reduce or eliminate known hazards.

We're not taking about a deer being a deer. We're talking about a group of stubborn dickheads who despite knowing damn well that they're sharing the road with vehicles that have large speed differentials, refuse to make themselves visible for the benefit of everyone's safety.

The victim is the person injured or killed by someone committing an illegal act. Not the person acting illegally.

They have a very good chance of seeing me while I'm cycling because I'm lighted. If I'm forced to walk on the road at night without a light I'll stay out of the roadway when cars are coming. Doing otherwise would be stupid, just as stupid as driving an unlighted vehicle with a significant speed differential at night.

I don't necessarily disagree. But someome using the road legally needs be able to assume others are too. If you can't, what do you do? Walking, riding a bike, or driving do you stop at every green light to make sure no one is going to decide the red lights don't apply to them? Do you idle down the road at 10mph whenever it's dark or there is reduced visibility to make sure someone didn't decide the laws don't apply to them and drove an unlighted vehicle?

The most important thing about using a road safely, whether you're walking, riding, or driving, is to be predictable. A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.

If you think the law should be changed and some other accommodation made, that's a reasonable opinion. But until that happens, the person injured or killed by illegal activity is the victim, not the person acting illegally.

They're not using it legally, hence the legal proceedings.

By victims I assume you mean unsuspecting drivers coming across a dark, unlighted vehicle in the road at night who could be injured or killed by an accident or swerving to avoid one, right?

I don't have any books anymore. I took them all, several hundred, to Goodwill a few years ago. I hadn't bought any in years because I've buying ebooks exclusively for a long time now. I have about 700 in my reader and almost any Internet connected device I have access to. My reading list is too long to reread anything, I thought others might get some use out of them.

Not having books in the house doesn't mean what it once did.

A person would only drop a couple points over time. 80s, and especially 70s, would be significantly impaired.