It can definitely be a bit of a dance. There's also the situation where you've got three cars at a four-way, and the first car goes in a direction that allows the car that should be third in line to start its travel before the first car is done. Should car 3 wait, or go ahead?
If both cars arrived at the same time, you're supposed to go in alphabetical order by car make/model.
When my wife was first learning to drive she thought that the "all way" under the stop sign meant you had to come to a complete stop- the ones without that sign you were allowed to do a rolling stop (aka a "California roll.")
A friend of mine in high school figured out an elegant solution to this dilemma. He treated a 4-way stop sign as a green light.
4: My oldest brother had a practice "If you hold down your horn from a ways away, and keep holding it, you can drive through anything."
In L.A. cars go in descending order of cost unless some of the others are full of guys wearing backward ball caps, waving guns, and playing music at ear-damaging levels.
I thought it was "the person who's going the most important place goes first." No?
5: "If you hold down your horn from a ways away, waving a bottle of Wild Turkey out the window you can drive through anything."
Well, whoever's on the main road has right of way, and the people on the side road have to give way.
Well, whoever's on the main road has right of way, and the people on the side road have to give way.
Silly Europeans with their class-based road systems. In America all roads are equal.
asilon has a funny story about her husband, i believe, giving way on a narrow Scottish road to a nice old lady in a Rover . . .
I've always thought the person with the nicest car should go first. Deference to beauty.
In Paris, deference normally goes to the person with the oldest and most battered car, on the grounds that they will be the least worried about a few additional dents and scratches and will thus go first whatever the rest of you do.
14: That was my theory when I was driving old beaters. Now I've rethought it, and it turns out it is still me who goes first, although the theoretical underpinnings of the position have not been fully worked out.
I hit a lot of 4-way stops on my common routes and there seems to be an understanding that the two cars facing each other go at the the same time, then the other pair goes, and they alternate back and forth, so you're just watching which pair in front of you has gone last. If there aren't enough cars to have a pattern established, then somebody (usually me) takes the initiative and sets the pattern in motion.
Recently, Durham has replaced several 4-way stops and stoplights with traffic circles which seem to work more efficiently.
There is evidence that removing formal rules reduces collisions. As I understood it, the theory as to why was that making people relate to people instead of Shiny Metal Boxes forced coordination.
18: I thought it was because things looked more dangerous, so people paid more attention. If so, I wonder if it would still work if it became commonplace.
Replacing airbags with razor wire might help.
Sure, woonerfs sound great, but before long they become havens for parkour and fartlek.
20: Or not, as people would soon grow accustomed to the razor wire. What you need is something like a RFID chip that gets activated near intersections and makes a spike protrude out of the steering column.
12 - ha, yes, I am glad that the passing spaces on our single track A road were on *our* side, because making the Queen pull over is probably treasonous.
We don't have 4 way stops here, but we do have a lot of mini roundabouts which work similarly. I do find I'm the one going, "ok, really, no one's moving? I'll go then".
Alternative 23.last now that I've stumbled upon the asilon vernacular: I see you are an idiot, whatever else you may be. Demonstrate to me, once and for all, or I shall lose my patience. Are you going?
Recently, Durham has replaced several 4-way stops and stoplights with traffic circles which seem to work more efficiently.
Curse your sudden but inevitable saying what I was I going to say. Well, not the Durham bit, but the roundabouts bit.
19:
I don't know. But if things look more dangerous, leading to less damage when people zip around, as opposed to actually being more dangerous, is that a good thing?
making the Queen pull over is probably treasonous.
She actually does own the bloody road.
27: Throw off the yoke of royal oppression, ajay. The road is rightfully yours. Defend your property.
Four-way stop behavior can only be understood in terms of animal dominance signalling. Alpha types seize the initiative and go first no matter who arrived first.
I hate-hate-hate when people who are in the traffic circle stop to wave in cars who are waiting to enter. No, you ignorant motherfucker. It's your fucking turn, and now you just got rear-ended because you suck at driving.
You know what I have been hating lately? Cars that abruptly stop to wave a car or pedestrian or bicycle across while I am traveling next to them in the bike lane. Thank you for encouraging people who can't see me to run into me, you generous soul!
As a driver and non-biker, I know I am morally in the wrong on all matters, but yesterday I got totally screwed by a biker! Not in the good way! I was leaving the parking garage, had just paid my ticket and the gate was going up, when a guy on a bike swoops into my lane and out under my gate, giving me a wave of acknowledgment I guess for pausing instead of driving into him. But that meant I had paused enough for the gate to go back down! I had to sit there listening to a rapid loop of "Please insert your ticket with the stripe up and to the right" in a Boston accent 50 times while the parking office attendant messed around with my receipt and figured out a way for me to get out.
I know I am morally in the wrong on all matters
Nah. That sounds irritating.
For the record, when I park my bike in a garage I usually walk it out, since there are not generally other good options (take the narrow-ass pedestrian accessway, thus irritating pedestrians! Try and awkwardly wedge your way past the gate!) for egress.
Oh now I'm in complain mode, though: so usually when the situation in 32 happens it's just mildly irritating, because it's either a pedestrian who's right of way I would be violating (through no fault of my own!) or somebody making a left in the normal fashion, which means they have time to notice me (or I them). But t'other day I was riding along a relatively busy street where the traffic was backed up, but the bike lane was clear, when some dude travelling the other way saw a parking spot and decided to abruptly hit a hard left (through traffic) and floor it so he could most efficiently find himself nose-in perpendicular to the spot (I guess?). I cleared his front bumper by like a foot, maybe, due to my cat-like agility.
What happened next? Of course! He screamed at me and flipped me off!
But yeah, I realize this is not the audience, but in general, if there is a traffic lane and a bike lane, stopped traffic in the traffic lane DOES NOT MEAN that bikes are stopped as well. Whole other lane. Right there, right next to the regular one. You can see the lines on the pavement.
Oh well.
What happened next? Of course! He screamed at me and flipped me off!
"This is my world! Who said you were allowed in?"
"How dare you make me do something stupid and illegal that almost killed you!"
It occurs to me that the behavior in 32 is one that drivers and cyclists can unite in hating. You know that thing where somebody in the left lane of a two lane road stops to let you in? Yay, thanks, good citizen. Now I can get t-boned by a car in the lane to your right, who can't see me any better than I can see them because you're right f'in' in between us.
Indeed. You fail your driving test for doing things like 32.
Traffic in Boston seems too complicated.
Anyway, when I'm in the left lane of a two lane road and I stop, it isn't to let somebody in. I just stop sometimes because life is too fast and we all need to take in the scenery from time to time.
My brother's first accident was caused by someone in a stopped lane waving him on into getting hit by someone in the next lane. Follow the damn rules, you think you're being nice to one person, but you're actually being an asshole to everyone.
Moby Hick is like Ferdinand, but in traffic, rather than under a cork tree.
I'm really stopping to text because I know you shouldn't text and drive.
It occurs to me that the behavior in 32 is one that drivers and cyclists can unite in hating. You know that thing where somebody in the left lane of a two lane road stops to let you in? Yay, thanks, good citizen. Now I can get t-boned by a car in the lane to your right, who can't see me any better than I can see them because you're right f'in' in between us.
Yessss, so maddening.
32, 35, 48, etc.: Watching for this was something people new to L.A. have to learn quickly. Both my kids and I nearly collected grille-meat until we started watching for sudden attacks of idiotic politeness.
oooh, is this the bike thread? I need to share my story of my 11 year old son shouting at an "old lady" (his words). Yes, I was quite surprised too when he told me that's what he had done.
Anyway, he was walking with a friend on the (UK) pavement, actually along a route that he has often cycled. The road isn't that wide and is quite busy, and the pavement on the other side of the road is a shared cycle path/footpath, but the side he was on isn't. A woman on a bike rode past them, on the pavement (which isn't very wide) and clipped his arm. And then shouted back over her shoulder, "Get out the way, why don't you!" to which he replied, "You should be in the road!" I was kind of impressed but had to tell him not to do it round here or he's likely to get himself punched. I do it, but I figure I'm at less risk of being punched than him.
And when I say I do it, I don't mena I shout at old ladies. I speak firmly to inconsiderate young men, mostly.
It's (unfortunately) legal to bike on the sidewalk here, which has caused some near deaths of cyclists caused by me when I'm pulling out of my office garage. It is literally impossible to see you barreling down the sidewalk at, I dunno, 30 mph while I am at the bottom of a small hill and driving up to cross the sidewalk! AFAICT things should be simple: bikes should be treated like motor vehicles, should ride in the motor vehicle lanes, and obey the motor vehicle rules. Like motorcycles but for hippies instead of fat badasses.
32, 48: Yes, it's maddening even when you're the person being "let in." Umm rando Good Samaritan? I don't actually trust you to have checked out that other lane for me? And so this is going to be tricky? And yet one kind of has to go!
53: indeed! And it is even suckier on a bicycle, since you have strong prior confidence that nobody has checked to see if you're there.
The other day somebody did this with me (on my bicycle) as the let-in party. Was there a bike coming to whom I had to apologize rather than trying to wave the traffic-blocking idiot on (thus leaving a whole line of cars stranded at the red light after he didn't get the hint)? Indeed!
52: Walking on the sidewalk isn't much fun either when the speed ratio is as high as it often is.
Go fuck yourself. I'm not talking about barreling onto the sidewalk. I pull out slowly to cross the sidewalk, and the bike comes barreling down and swerves at the last minute (sometimes into traffic or another pedestrian) to avoid the car. It's a problem with a combo of the garage design and the sidewalk, but, since you can't get rid of the garages, the right solution would be to put cyclists onto the street, which is safer for them and everyone else.
I have a friend, originally from Texas, who now lives outside Boston. I remember him doing a three point turn across some monstrous road on the Cambridge side of the river, explaining, while I cringed in the seat beside him, that Boston traffic was terrifying, and everyone here was a maniac after Texas.
I think that in general Americans are less inhibited about turning at 90 degrees into the opposite lane when not at a junction. I've never seen it done here even once. Probably a function of huge empty roads.
58.1: The asshole U turn is a coming thing in Pittsburgh. I have no idea why, but no road is too busy for someone to try it.
(Also, glad to see you up.)
52.last is incredibly stupid.
57: The right solution is for the garage to have a warning light when the door is open or a mirror allowing the car to see whether a bike is coming before pulling onto the sidewalk.
Could you be fucked to explain why? When I learned to cycle, I was taught "act like a car, unless you're in a special bike lane" and there appears to be something called "vehicular cycling" that shares the same philosophy: ""Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". In what universe is it an awesome idea for bikes -- or more precisely, for the safety of bicyclists -- to be on sidewalks and treated like pedestrians instead of drivers.
Almost all cities ban bikes on sidewalks for obvious reasons, LA is an exception. In the road, where you are looking for fast-moving vehicles, it is easy and consistent with standard building design to look for bikes.
Halford seems completely right here except for his stereotypes of bicyclists (actually should be "young people") and motorcyclists (actually should be "old people").
61: There is a warning light when the garage door is open. It doesn't solve the problem, because the cyclists ignore it (and are going too fast, often, to stop in time). A mirror would help, but it would have to be a pretty big mirror. Also, it's not like there's a ton of cyclist traffic -- it's very occasional, but not so rare that the problem hasn't occurred for me personally a few times.
First, because cars will refuse to treat you like a real car. Second, because ordinary bike commuting speeds are much much lower than car speeds. Third, because that means you're always on infrastructure designed for cars instead of for bikes.
I'm not saying allowing bikes on sidewalks is a good idea, it isn't. What we should do is get rid of street parking in cities (gradually) and replace it with dedicated bike lanes.
60: What's wrong with 52.last? Every cyclist I know agrees with it. Around here, no one but total beginners who don't know better bikes on sidewalks; it's too dangerous.
As a habitual pedestrian I'm entirely with Halford here.
Or have separate bike streets. In NYC you could dedicate one avenue on the east side and one on the westside to bikes only (with maybe a dedicated bus lane if there's room), and then ban them on other avenues. I nominate CPW and 5th. NYC streets are generally fine for mixed bike/car traffic.
It's like none of you have ever been somewhere where bicyclists are treated as full citizens.
67: Ah, it's another "The current system is terrible and unacceptable, compared to my utterly impossible dream scenario" argument.
In a hypothetical alternative universe with multiple dedicated bike streets, I am totally fine with bikes going on those dedicated bike streets. In the world that we have, I think that bikes should be on the streets with motor vehicles and obey the motor vehicle rules.
Actually since you can bike in the park, probably it'd make more sense to go with something farther out. You need 3 avenues on each side, one with timed lights in each direction and one for bikes only.
pwned! We've been getting bike lanes here, but, due to local laws, they're much more dangerous riding in traffic.
Cars are allowed to park in bike lanes, and they're not wide enough for you to clear a door if someone suddenly opens their door without looking. So, if you want to ride in the bike lanes, your options are to stay in the lane and take your chances with people getting out of their cars, or swerve around every parked car, surprising drivers who don't understand that passing within three feet of a parked car is asking for a serious accident.
As a result, no one uses bike lanes and drivers complain that cyclists take up the street when there are perfectly good bike lanes.
Forth, because a bike doesn't pose the danger to others in the road that a car does. Fifth, because bicycle riders have a much different awareness of the road than drivers do (riders have considerably more view of the road than drivers do; riders are up on the front of their vehicles, but drivers are set back from the front of their vehicle.).
I confess that I don't understand the mechanics of the "wave through" action people are talking about. As in, I can't picture what's actually going on on the street. I'm sure it's annoying, whatever it is.
I'm also totally fine with the creation of bike lanes (assuming that they work, and don't cause the problems identified in 75). What I don't get at all is the idea that in the current existing American infrastructure the basic rule shouldn't be that cyclists stay in the road, not the sidewalk, and obey the standard traffic laws applicable to motor vehicles. That's how I was taught to bike and it seems obviously safer for both cyclists themselves and pedestrians.
I think bikes should be allowed on the sidewalk provided they don't go too fast to stop for a pedestrian.
79 is the current law in LA, but even the LA City government thinks that it's way safer for cyclists to be on the road and recommends that cyclists stay in the road for safety.
76: Forth
The sign in the stairwell by my cube at work says "Forth Floor" and it's like the property management company put it there specifically to trigger my technical editor OCD.
"Forth Flour"
Scottish baked goods. Or possibly deep fried.
Yes, 55 and 56 are wrong and also opposed by my local bike advocacy group (and I believe most such groups). More and wider bike lanes, yes, but with or without them, bikes need to be treated as motor vehicles by both motorists and the law, for reasons of visibility and predictability.
Yeah, fuck this, I'm with Halford et al - pavements here have lots of people walking on them, and it is completely right that only children under 10 should be allowed to ride on them.
I don't think bikes should ride on the sidewalk as a general rule.
They sure as shit aren't going thirty miles an hour, though, and if your garage is such that you can't see people approaching on the sidewalk, I'm pretty you're the one with a problem to solve, not people using the sidewalk.
The sidewalks in LA, incidentally, are not crowded with pedestrians. They're generally quite empty, which is why it's somewhat posssible to get away with having blind driveways that you back out of.
Also, vehicular cycling is fine, but if what you're saying is that people wanting to take a left turn off of (say) Melrose, or any other road in LA (where the median speed people drive on surface streets is 40mph+) need to take first the right lane, then the left lane, then sit in the intersection holding the left lane until cross-traffic clears, what you're actually saying is that people in LA shouldn't ride bikes.
LA needs more bike infrastructure (bike lanes, whether at street or sidewalk level, protected bikeways, traffic signals specifically for bikes), but until that happens, "make it harder to bike places" is not going to be a good solution to anything except "make it easier to drive places", which sure as shit isn't what LA needs.
I may have used regrettable shorthand for this series of points above.
The sidewalks in LA, incidentally, are not crowded with pedestrians.
How about chronically?
77: Picture someone wanting to cross road from your right side of the road between intersections. The panel truck in right lane suddenly stops and the driver waves the pedestrian across. You in your Ferrari are flying down the left lane and can't see the pedestrian until they clear the front of the truck, and that pedestrian is too fuckin' dumb to check before stepping beyond the coverage of the truck.
Imagining variations on this scenario and the other damages that might occur are left as an exercise for the reader, I've seen too many out here to bother elaborating.
The problem with the garage is that normal rates of pulling the car out to check for pedestrians (i.e. slow) don't work for bicycles. Bicycles in the street would totally solve that problem.
I think LA's pretty easy to bike around, with a few exceptions. It's true that it's helpful to avoid some major streets. I don't have a very strong view on how left turns need to be performed by a bike, but at most it should involve using the crosswalks, not rolling on the sidewalk. There are definitely also lots of people on major streets who make normal (ie normal for cars) left turns. I see it all the time, do it myself with my kid on the bike pretty easily on fairly busy streets, admittedly not the busiest ones during rush hour in the week. I don't see that moving cyclists into the road is difficult or impossible. I mean, as noted above, it's what the city bike promotion people themselves recommend.
88: The sidewalks in WeHo and many other places have lots of pedestrians except during gunfights between rival gangs or law firms.
Biking is nice enough, but unlike walking or driving, you can't pee while in motion and keep yourself clean.
89: Thanks, I think I get that picture. I guess what I don't get is why a driver would wave a bike through in that situation, which is why I thought people were describing something else.
Doesn't the law (in CA, at least) require all cars in adjacent lanes to stop if one car in another lane going the same direction has stopped? Not that they do, but I thought that was the rule.
CA rules:
Always stop for any pedestrian crossing at corners or other crosswalks, even if the crosswalk is in the middle of the block, at corners with or without traffic lights, whether or not the crosswalks are marked by painted lines.
Do not pass a vehicle that has stopped at a crosswalk. A pedestrian you cannot see may be crossing the street. Stop, then proceed when all pedestrians have crossed the street.
The problem is in the execution. People also stop in the right lane for parking, to make turns, pick up passengers, give cars to valets, and to look at store windows.
93: Honestly, how can you call what you do when simultaneously locomoting and peeing "walking?" It is much more "waddling."
I'm so embarrassed that I didn't figure that out.
So what if you drive in reverse... wait.
It's (unfortunately) legal to walk backward while pissing on the sidewalk here, which has caused some near deaths of piss artists caused by me when I'm pulling out of my office garage. It is literally impossible to see you shuffling down the sidewalk at, I dunno, 30 feet per minute while I am at the bottom of a small hill and driving up to cross the sidewalk!
The garage under my building has a big mirror, a flashing light, and a really fucking loud bell for when a car is coming out.
Or possibly Gromit. Do you have a garden gnome?
I don't see that moving cyclists into the road is difficult or impossible. I mean, as noted above, it's what the city bike promotion people themselves recommend.
This isn't entirely true. There are great internet wars between people who want all vehicular cycling all the time and people who advocate for more dedicated bike infrastructure. I think most regular cyclists would prefer a well thought-out mixture between the two.
Dedicated bike infrastructure doesn't necessarily entail cycle tracks on the sidewalk, but it can in some places.
Just back from a week in Greece, where I've been driving in the remote Peloponnese [on crumbling cliff-side roads up mountains and shit]. Any comments I ever make re: British roads or drivers can now be revised/ignored. First time I've driven a left-hand drive car, and I was worried I'd find the gear-changing with the right hand,and being on the 'wrong' side of the road difficult, but actually that only took a few minutes to adjust to. The roads themselves, not quite so easy.
And motherfuckers should not ride their bikes on the fucking pavement.
Berlin all the bike lanes are on the sidewalk (do you really call the sidewalk the "pavement" in the UK? So weird!). Seems to work pretty well (I mean, everybody rides everywhere, so it can't be too bad).
re: 107
Shared use spaces, marked and designed as such are fine. Fuckholes riding down the pavement towards me with their big headphones on, at 'road speed', otoh, need a kicking.*
* language intemperate for 'catching up with political news after a week out of the country, and wanting to launch violent bloody revolution' reasons.
Fuckholes riding down the pavement towards me with their big headphones on, at 'road speed', otoh, need a kicking.*
Oh, sure. But I suspect very few bike advocates or city planners are working on the "give 'em a kicking" plan, so you might have to handle that one as an independent agent.
Here riding on the sidewalk is legal (at walking speed), but I'm almost pathological about never doing it, because I've discovered that the more law-abiding I am, the more self-righteous I can be about all the other people who don't meet my standard; a cool, natural high.
Oh and it's illegal in crowded sort of business districts. Anyhow it is not very high on the list of problems, locally.
How about people jogging in the bike lane (like, in the road, inevitably against traffic)? Where do people come down on that?
I just saw a car honk at another car because that car stopped for a pedestrian crossing with the light. I don't think a system without kicking will work.
111: They need a kicking too. Kickings for all!
102/03: Can I choose? I'd really dig wearing the cap and sash, but I'm awfully fond of cheese.
I can provide licensed kicking-training. This sounds like a plan where I can make $$$$$.
It is true. Kickings would help.
Everybody knows about the substantial number of people who will say "bikes should get off the road!" any time any story about bikes comes up, right? I imagine that people who say that are (at least in this country) in at least a one-to-one ratio with people who say "bikes should get off the sidewalk!", except that more of them have the ability to, you know, run bikes off the road (a motorcycle tried to buzz us or run us off the road or something the other day. It actually came off as pathetic (dude, you're on a motorcycle. We know it would suck for you, too. And yes, we know you don't have headers on your Harley, coach)). So between the "get of the sidewalk" crowd, the "get off the road" crowd, and the fact that bike lanes and bike paths immediately get colonized by pedestrians (and roller-bladers, and double-wide strollers, and segways and obvs double-parked cars) a fella can get kicky a/f/a making some space for his preferred mode of transport.
I think driving got worse when gas prices increased a few years back. People are paying more and feel entitled to better service.
111.2: Have definitely done it. To be fair, I've never seen an actual bicycle in that lane. People in the suburbs ride SUVs, mostly.
To be fair, I've never seen an actual bicycle in that lane. People in the suburbs ride SUVs, mostly.
Yes, veering out of the way of a jogger into the path of a giant SUV does tend to dissuade people from doing too much biking.
(I'm sure you're right that they're underused, and the reasons above are a minor part of it, if anything, but the idea that bike lanes are underused and therefore colonizable by other uses is one I would definitely like to push back on.)
Prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes could be given work release to ride in the bike lane.
Around here they are given work release to sweep grass clippings and trash into the bike lane, if my recent experience is characteristic.
Great. There's already an infrastructure to bring them to the lanes.
How about people jogging in the bike lane (like, in the road, inevitably against traffic)? Where do people come down on that?
That's a terrible thing to do.
Have definitely done it.
When I encounter a jogger in the bike lane, I ding my bell insistently, and then if they don't move, I pass as closely as possible, hoping to make the idiot think I'm going to hit them. I know this isn't bright from a safety standpoint, but it pleases me.
Do you know what it's like to fall in the bike lane and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot?
They're doing it because they'd rather run on asphalt than concrete, to protect against shin splints and assorted aches and pains. I'm not saying that they're right, but that's the reasoning.
Yeah, I get the reasoning. It's just that I'd rather ride safely along in the bike lane than swerve into the path of a bus.
126: well, right. And because shin splints and assorted aches and pains are worse than getting run down by a bicycle apparently. (Nah. Nobody thinks that. They think "oh, the bikes will make way", because they are assholes.)
They think "oh, the bikes will make way", because they are assholes.
Maybe. Maybe they just think, oh look, here's something for me. ME ME ME ME ME.
I actually do wish that bikes were as dangerous to pedestrians as people pretend that they are. Because then maybe people would get the fuck out of bike lanes/off of bike paths with their headphones and their strollers and their classes of preschool students making chalk drawings on a blind turn and BAH.
You can't have kids make chalk drawings on the street, you monster.
If a difference between asphalt and concrete was enough to prevent such injuries, couldn't they capture those benefits with a slightly more cushioned running shoe? Or with paved soles?
I really saw that once! These people had taken their whole pre-school class out for a fun activity making chalk drawings on the bike path on a blind turn. What were they thinking? "Oh, the bike path is always empty, and people can just go around", I guess.
130: Bikes are more dangerous to dogs and children.
What were they thinking?
"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Bikes are more dangerous to dogs and children.
In the situation where a dog runs into the path of a bike, I'm quite a bit more concerned about the biker than the uncontrolled dog.
134: Dog don't have thumbs and can't use the brakes. Children can bike fine if they can reach the pedals.
134: then why is the bike path full of them?
And 136 is right. I think what eggplant meant is that children and dogs are dangerous to bicyclists, because what would actually happen is that the cyclist would do an emergency manuever to avoid some idiot's dog and then crack their fucking skull open.
Would running right into the dog be safer for the cyclist?
Speaking of dogs and their sometimes-idiot owners, yesterday I was run off the sidewalk for the second time in a week by this chick riding her skateboard rather inexpertly with her dog running next to her on a leash. Maybe you should take some time to learn to skateboard first, before you combine it with dog walking! Just a thought!
I thought you were in some type of experimental science.
140,142: I knew a guy who failed to dodge a small quadruped on his bike and basically broke his face and actually destroyed his bike.
||
I'm used to "look at my theory of everything" emails, but this one is special:
I have written an art/icle called 'Fusion' which explains, first, how the gov/ernment of the United States works just like a gre/ater atom: greater quarks, positive and neg/ative forces, magnetic polarities, the wh/ole thing. Then it explains how we can use a tre/mendous burst of greater fusion energy to change and upg/rade (unfreeze, then make changes, then refre/eze) the political and economic foundation both of Amer/ica and the world, to move us forward into a higher s/tate of existence.
Good luck with that, Mr G/ill/ies.
|>
I have a just-developed theory that the standard model was developed in part to deter cranks, who would feel that using names like "squark" or "neutralino" or "gluino" in their crank-emails would just not pass the mature adult smell test.
Refine your theory and mail it to essear.
OT: Apparently, if a telemarketer calls you at work and you do your usual tactic (bang the mouthpiece on something hard), everybody at work thinks you have too much stress.
I was just talking about the danger bikes can pose to small, low profile creatures, not about their respective rights to occupy whatever space they're in. And a dog doesn't have to be uncontrolled to be run over, as in the last week mine has almost been run down by bikes on pedestrian paths twice, while a few feet away from me.