NEWS FLASH! Eleven of the EPAs employee unions have been trying to get the EPA to classify fluoride as a 'zero-tolerance' substance for years now, as a carcinogen! As the nation's ONLY "protected pollutant" fluoride has a special place in the American legal landscape. Wonder why all that is....hmmmmm
Sorry Merc "News" staff. you got this one WRONG!
fluoride will, at best, prevent 1 cavity over the lifetime of someone exposed to it in drinking water, HAS been linked to adverse health effects by a Harvard study (had a little too much to drink the night before you did that part of your "research"?), and can be provided in ways that don't force people to be exposed to a toxic, carcinogenic substance. Based on your support of fluoride in drinking water, due to the large number of "studies" that support it, one can only assume that you also support the following ideas: Iraq deserved to be invaded (all of the intelligence said so, right?), the moon landings never happened (all those you tube video can possibly be wrong), and that the CIAs historically repeated efforts at overthrowing democratically elected governments were justified ( those barbarians can't possibly be trusted with democracy!). There's lot of written support for those ideas. The question is, who is the source and do their arguments hold water?
ummm, I'm on my way to meet a customer, usually. Or do you have a problem with that, too?
I would just like to say to nandar:
the reason I am willing to take my chances passing cars on the right at intersections is manifold:
1. I am used to taking chances with cars. If you think passing on the right at a stop sign is risky, you should try going down Greeley/Interstate headed toward downtown sometime!
2. The alternative to passing you on the right at an intersection is to sit behind you with your exhaust going right up my nose.
3. It is, actually, legal for me to slide up beside you at an intersection. 811.415 Unsafe passing on right; penalty.
(c) Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaking vehicle is a bicycle that may safely make the passage under the existing conditions.
In the final analysis, it is very hard for me to have any attitude other than "cars should be required to bear the burden of preventing accidents". You have all the advantages given to you (speed of travel, ease of travel, and even vast stretches of road reserved for you, without bicycles having ANY access to them- interstates... which we ALL pay for). With great power and advantage should come great responsibility. This seems like a no-brainer until we start talking about cars, doesn't it?
It is often difficult, if not impossible, to see the other's point of view, and the car/bike chasm is often very large. When it comes down to it, though, I hope that you would see the sense in my asking a driver of a car to take the high road, as it were. Everyone, at some point, walks. But, not everyone drives. A larger number of people bike than drive cars, at least at some point in their lives. (this IS an assumption, but do we really need to do a scientific study to support my overall point?)
Since the fewest number of people are the ones who drive, exclusively, it makes sense to adopt a protective attitude toward pedestrians AND cyclists. If you argue that cars should be given some sort of higher status, then just remember that your kid may someday want to ride a bike. If you have supported a culture that gives the car not only precedence but license to misbehave, won't you feel any guilt should your kid get hurt as a result of a less-than-protective/defensive attitude among drivers? I hope that it never happens to you, but I also hope that you don't need to experience such a situation to understand it.
As a biker, I simply do less damage than you do as a driver, of that there can be no debate. Shouldn't you give something back in return? All we are really asking is that car drivers show some gratitude for their luxury.
-ps, I find it very hard to respect cars as an honorable mode of transport. Using one, and especially taking the privilege for granted as I see happen SO often (a behavior I freely admit that I have been guilty of), is simply selfish behavior. Cars are the root cause of a huge number of social ills. Yet, we like to pretend that their ability to "improve people's lives" and allow access to places and people, somehow negates the inherent evil of these machines.
-pps( while I accept that it is the bicyclist responsibility to make sure that it is safe to make the right side pass, it is lawful to do so. You are justified in feeling the way you do about it, but it is not illegal. The concept of demanding our rights is more than what is being discussed, here. It is a choice to lay down and let the cars rule our lives or not. I prefer the not.)
-ppps, I bet that if you saw me going through stop signs as I typically do, you'd think that I didn't know what I was doing. But, I can tell you, most assuredly, that I do know what I am doing and that I go through stop signs because they, from my perspective, are usually nothing but a nuisance. I could explain better if we had the chance to go for a ride together.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |