Another boycott
evergene
Council voted to outlaw the sale of foie gras. Since then I have not
had a single bite of Chicago pizza, I have not listened to
Howlin'Wolf, Muddy Waters or Buddy Guy, and I will not see the musical
"Chicago." And I would ask anyone traveling to Chicago to let me know
right away if they spot any geese in Lincoln Park. Thanks.
Veronique
Twenty-five or six to four, bud.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Steve Pope
>Twenty-five or six to four, bud.
So THAT'S what that song is about... a normal goose liver
weight 25 grams, a foie gras from six to four pounds.
BTW, Chicago (the band) was led by a Marin County boy
for most of its existence.
Steve
spamtr...@gmail.com
Some hippie vegans are lurking outside Trader Joe's and the pet food
stores, trying to get me to petition for an anti-farm animal "cruelty"
measure for the ballot. If that passes, I don't think boycotting the
Eagles' Hotel California, and California Pizza Kitchen are going to be
enough. Also, according to the sponsor's website, a UC Davis professor
expects the initiative, once passed, will raise the price of eggs 25%.
This will attract out-of-state producers to ship their cheaper,
cruelty-rich eggs to California. The net effect of these do-gooders
will be to raise egg eaters' carbon footprint, as California farmers
would likely rather go out of business than take two laying hens out
of every cage of six.
Mark Lipton
Just so you know, this is a law honored mostly in the breach. I've seen
foie gras on several menus since that law went into effect, and I know
that several high profile chefs are openly flauting it, one going so far
as to have an all-foie gras tasting menu. The general consensus is that
several aldermen had their heads stuffed up their collective
you-know-whats when they passed that law.
Mark Lipton
(Who doesn't really give a goose's patoot since he doesn't eat the
stuff, but finds the whole concept a bit ludicrous)
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com
Guy Bannis
evergene <eneg...@yugswen.moc> wrote:
You'd still talk to someone who has been to Chicago?!
Chester
Having closely examined the text of your post, it doesn't appear as if
you are trying to alter opinions. You are, thus, not engaging in a
boycott.
Also, if you and ten of your friends were to play a football game
against a miniature Ditka, he would still beat you...by about 500 to
zero.
Chester
SMS
I've been boycotting Hoover vacuum cleaners for decades because I didn't
like Hoover's harassment of Jack Anderson. I don't care that there is no
relationship between the company that makes the vacuum cleaners and the
former FBI director. If Ciccio can boycott Berkeley Farms milk then my
boycott makes just as much sense.
Ciccio
> spamtrap1...@gmail.com wrote:
>. If Ciccio can boycott Berkeley Farms milk then my
> boycott makes just as much sense.
Well, it might if I were boycotting Berkeley Farms. As I said, which
apparently exceeds your abilities, I'm simply turned off by the name.
Liking or not liking something has little to do with making
sense...you either like it or you don't. If the brand name Hoover
turns you off, then don't buy it.
Again, if there were a milk brand "George Bush Farms," it wouldn't be
a big seller in Berkeley.
Ciccio
"If you are reading this thank a teacher.
If you are reading this in English
thank a veteran."
SMS
Boycott: "A refusal to do business with a given party until certain
demands are met."
You won't buy Berkeley Farms milk because of the label, as you stated
publicly, which obviously means that if they changed the name and the
label you would buy it.
I guess you could mince words and claim that since no one at Berkeley
Farms probably reads ba.food that they are unaware of your demand.
Of course your refusing to do business in Berkeley is a boycott, as you
stated "Refusing to do business with people who support denouncing
me and mine, is to be expected. Indeed, it is not only my right, but
my duty." You've made the demands for reversing your decision pretty clear.
Geoff Miller
<spamtr...@gmail.com> writes:
> The net effect of these do-gooders will be to raise egg eaters'
> carbon footprint, as California farmers would likely rather go
> out of business than take two laying hens out of every cage of
> six.
I love it when lefty causes collide. The funniest example I've
seen yet was the militant blind people bitching that Priuses
were dangerous to them because they couldn't hear them coming
when they were preparing to cross the street.
Geoff
--
"Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a moderate
Muslim walk into a bar..." -- Ann Coulter
Geoff Miller
Mark Lipton <not...@eudrup.ude> writes:
> Just so you know, this is a law honored mostly in the breach.
> I've seen foie gras on several menus since that law went into
> effect, and I know that several high profile chefs are openly
> flauting it [...]
Years ago there was a flamewar in alt.peeves about the meaning
of "flaunt" versus "flout." I see you've hedged your bets.
(If I used smileys, I'd put one here.)
Geoff "flauntist" Miller
Ciccio
> Boycott: "A refusal to do business with a given party until certain
> demands are met."
Thank you for supporting my position that I am not boycotting. I am
not making demands upon Berkeley or to Berkeley Farms to do X or else
I'll do/not do Y. In fact, I am not even requesting that others cease
doing business in Berkeley or with Berkeley Farms. Even when they do,
I might disagree, but I don't disapprove.
> You won't buy Berkeley Farms milk because of the label, as you stated
> publicly, which obviously means that if they changed the name and the
> label you would buy it.
Yeah, and if VW made a car I liked I might buy a car from them. I
hope you're not saying that until VW makes such a car, that I'm
boycotting VW.
> I guess you could mince words and claim that since no one at Berkeley
> Farms probably reads ba.food that they are unaware of your demand.
Mince words?? You're way over-the-top. Following your reasoning,
anybody who posts they dislike a restaurant and won't be returning
unless it becomes more appealing, is boycotting. If you want to expand
the common notion of boycotting to such an extreme, then have at it.
> Of course your refusing to do business in Berkeley is a boycott,
"Of course" aren't magic words that make it so.
> as you stated "Refusing to do business with people who support denouncing
> me and mine, is to be expected. Indeed, it is not only my right, but
> my duty." You've made the demands for reversing your decision pretty clear.
There is no demand in that statement. I am quite simply stating a fact
of life. That is, it is to be expected that when X insults Y or
supports an insult to Y, Y will feel duty bound to keep his money
from X..
Apparently, even the minimal boycotts that have occurred have caused
some positive movement in the Politburo and Central Committee.
Further, they have fueled a local revolt against those oppressors.
Given the effectiveness of these minimal boycotts and that they
definitely have legs, I must seriously consider participating in
them.
I generally don't participate in boycotts as they typically fail to
effect the changes sought. I am, however, not obstinate, and in the
face of good evidence I'll modify my position. So, as they say..."Be
careful what you wish for, because you might just get it." In this
instance you just might when I do join in the boycotts against
Berkeley.
Ciccio
It's God's responsibility to judge Osama bin Laden
It is our job to arrange the meeting." --U.S. Marines
...And McCain will make that meeting happen.
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>The funniest example I've seen yet was the militant blind people
>bitching that Priuses were dangerous to them because they couldn't
>hear them coming when they were preparing to cross the street.
Speaking as a non-blind person, I also find this to be a concern.
However, I'm learning to recognize what a Prius or such sounds like,
even if it's a lot quieter.
Dan Abel
geo...@lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> Mark Lipton <not...@eudrup.ude> writes:
>
> > Just so you know, this is a law honored mostly in the breach.
> > I've seen foie gras on several menus since that law went into
> > effect, and I know that several high profile chefs are openly
> > flauting it [...]
>
>
> Years ago there was a flamewar in alt.peeves about the meaning
> of "flaunt" versus "flout." I see you've hedged your bets.
>
> (If I used smileys, I'd put one here.)
>
>
> Geoff "flauntist" Miller
Dan "not a flautist" Abel
ObCiccio: My sister is a flautist. According to my dictionary, "from
Italian flautista, from flauto Śflute.ą".
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
evergene
>Also, if you and ten of your friends were to play a football game
>against a miniature Ditka, he would still beat you...by about 500 to
>zero.
I don't have ten friends any more. Tim May exterminated them. That's
why I'm boycotting Watsonville. Also John Watson, and also the month
of May.
spamtr...@gmail.com
> "If you are reading this thank a teacher.
> If you are reading this in English
> thank a veteran."
If you are reading this, thank a teacher.
If you are free to bitch that banners on your Vietnamese shopping
street lack the word "Little," thank a veteran.
Ciccio
> If you are reading this, thank a teacher.
> If you are free to bitch that banners on your Vietnamese shopping
> street lack the word "Little," thank aveteran.
Oorah!...Out-Fucking-Standing.
Ciccio
Al Eisner
> I've been boycotting Hoover vacuum cleaners for decades because I didn't like
> Hoover's harassment of Jack Anderson. I don't care that there is no
> relationship between the company that makes the vacuum cleaners and the
> former FBI director. If Ciccio can boycott Berkeley Farms milk then my
> boycott makes just as much sense.
You and your ilk should be thrown from the top of Stanford's Hoover Tower.
In fact, all ilk should be boycotted, except female ilk should be
girlcotted.
Is this thread getting just slightly silly?
ObWineSilliness: a BevMo wine-sale ad I've heard on the radio recently
is really quite funny, at least the first time or two. It seems to be
inspired by Monty Python's BBC-announcer parodies.
--
Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA
Peter Lawrence
Of course the more elementary solution for the non-blind would be to
just look both ways before crossing the street. How hard can that be if
your vision is o.k..?
- Peter
Todd Michel McComb
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Of course the more elementary solution for the non-blind would be
>to just look both ways before crossing the street. How hard can
>that be if your vision is o.k..?
It's hearing vehicles coming up from behind you that's more of an
issue for the non-blind. You can't be too aware of what's going
on out there, especially with Bay Area drivers -- the kind who
accelerate on red lights to do a "right on red" for instance.
Steve Pope
>Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Of course the more elementary solution for the non-blind would be
>>to just look both ways before crossing the street. How hard can
>>that be if your vision is o.k..?
>It's hearing vehicles coming up from behind you that's more of an
>issue for the non-blind. You can't be too aware of what's going
>on out there, especially with Bay Area drivers -- the kind who
>accelerate on red lights to do a "right on red" for instance.
The silent vehicles are also a problem for cats, who have
poor distance vision.
I suggest adding noisemaking devices to Prii within city limits.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>I suggest adding noisemaking devices to Prii within city limits.
I'm very hesitant to say something like this, because I really
dislike noise. But it's an issue.
rone
How Harrison Bergeron of you.
rone
--
"If any man is not free, then I, too, am a small pie made of chicken."
-- Bouffant, /Thoughts/ (Terry Pratchett)
Veronique
> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
> >>Of course the more elementary solution for the non-blind would be
> >>to just look both ways before crossing the street. How hard can
> >>that be if your vision is o.k..?
> >It's hearing vehicles coming up from behind you that's more of an
> >issue for the non-blind. You can't be too aware of what's going
> >on out there, especially with Bay Area drivers -- the kind who
> >accelerate on red lights to do a "right on red" for instance.
>
> The silent vehicles are also a problem for cats, who have
> poor distance vision.
Or keep the cats inside.
Steve Pope
What about the colony cats and the total strays? They should
be safe from prions.
Steve
Geoff Miller
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> writes:
> Of course the more elementary solution for the non-blind
> would be to just look both ways before crossing the street.
Heh...that was my take on Todd's comment, too.
Cars are going to evolve a more upright look thanks to new
European pedestrian-safety standards. My immediate reaction
upon reading about this in one of the car mags was, "Wouldn't
it be easier and more cost-effective just to teach people to
look both ways before crossing the goddam street, like they
should've learned to do as small children?"
This is another example of lefty causes colliding, not to
mention the law of unintended consequences. The more upright
body shapes will be less aerodynamic, leading to higher fuel
consumption and greater <ghasp!> carbon emissions.
(How did carbon get to be the environmental bogeyman seemingly
overnight? All of a sudden everybody was nattering pseudo-
knowledgeably "carbon footprints.")
Geoff Miller
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> writes:
> It's hearing vehicles coming up from behind you that's more of an
> issue for the non-blind. You can't be too aware of what's going
> on out there, especially with Bay Area drivers -- the kind who
> accelerate on red lights to do a "right on red" for instance.
Keep your head on a swivel, just like a fighter pilot. Think Linda
Blair.
When riding a bicycle, I learned early on to anticipate what drivers
might do in various situations. I was on a heightened state of
alertness, for example, when I approached a cross-street or a freeway
entrance ramp, and would instinctively turn around and look behind me.
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>When riding a bicycle, I learned early on to anticipate what drivers
>might do in various situations. I was on a heightened state of
>alertness, for example, when I approached a cross-street or a freeway
>entrance ramp, and would instinctively turn around and look behind me.
Sure, I do all that. I mean, I'm out there on the roads pretty
much every day, and have been for many years. Still, the sounds
of vehicles is one more tool at your disposal to figure out what
is going on, especially if e.g. something unusual going on in front
of you requires a great deal of attention. There's also situations
where the view is obscured by a bus or a truck.
Steve Pope
>Sure, I do all that. I mean, I'm out there on the roads pretty
>much every day, and have been for many years. Still, the sounds
>of vehicles is one more tool at your disposal to figure out what
>is going on, especially if e.g. something unusual going on in front
>of you requires a great deal of attention. There's also situations
>where the view is obscured by a bus or a truck.
Yes, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that the
silent vehicles don't pose an added safety problem.
In my neighborhood, sightlines are often obstructed
by people parked across the sidewalk or parked in their
own driveway between the sidewalk and the street (i.e.
collinear to the so-called "parking strip"). Either of
these is illegal and they have started ticketing people
more than in the past.
Steve
jswa...@yahoo.com
OTOH, I've noticed lately a lot of bicyclists peddling
along while yaking on their cell-phone, completely oblivious
to the what is going on around them.
(Plenty of pedistrians and drivers doing the same ...).
I'm always amazed when I see a pedistrian or bicyclist
on a cell-phone walk or ride through in intersection
without even looking up to see if their are any cars, trucks
or trains (in the case of when they are walking across
RR tracks) coming.
There are plenty of drivers doing this also, but in the case
of drivers, the only thing that is going to hurt them is the train.
I wonder how many cell-phone conversation end abruptly
with the sound of a thud? There's probably a website
somewhere that collects those recordings.
Todd Michel McComb
<jswa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm always amazed when I see a pedistrian or bicyclist on a
>cell-phone walk or ride through in intersection without even looking
Cellphones or no, bicyclists have become even more unsafe and
irresponsible in my area over the past few years. I now routinely
see them running red lights without even slowing. I generally hedge
on how confrontational to be with these people, because I imagine
they already feel a great sense of defiance against the car-culture,
but I also think it is important for them to know that other
bicyclists are very unhappy with their behavior.
Geoff Miller
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> writes:
> I suggest adding noisemaking devices to Prii within city limits.
Yeah, that's what we need: more noise! Cities and towns are just
too damned quiet.
(Despite environmentalism having become a secular religion in the
industrial West, *noise* is one form of pollution that gets short
shrift.)
In light of this and the be European pedestrian-safety standards
mentioned earlier, what is it with lefty/socialist types and this
urge to modify, regulate, or otherwise mess with automobiles when
an easier, cheaper, and more fundamental solution to a given problem
would be to simply remind people to pay attention to what they're
doing? Of course, that would involve people taking responsibility
for themselves as opposed to the Mommy State stepping in like an
elementary school playground supervisor, and we can't have that...
What I think it is is a matter of control. Socialism is all about
control of the populace, of constraining people's options and com-
pelling them to do the "right" thing -- for example, Hillary's
proposal to fine people for not purchasing health care(!).
But the automobile represents the single most potent symbol of
freedom and individual discretion in the history of civilization.
The commies understood this, and being Xtreme Socialists(tm), took
measures to counter it. In East Germany, for instance, it was
forbidden to modify one's car in any way that made its appear-
ance different from that of any other car of the same make and
model. So don't even think of painting dragster flames on your
Trabant, Fritz...
Given this, it really comes as no surprise that when there's any
sort of conflict between people on foot or on bicycles and people
in cars, it's axiomatic among the socialists that it's the cars
and the drivers of them who are at fault and must give way. Even
if the cars aren't really at the root of the problem, and it would
be easier and more cost effective to have a public campaign to get
people to develop a sense of situational awareness.
Julian Macassey
>
>
> Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> writes:
>
>> I suggest adding noisemaking devices to Prii within city limits.
>
>
> Yeah, that's what we need: more noise! Cities and towns are just
> too damned quiet.
>
> (Despite environmentalism having become a secular religion in the
> industrial West, *noise* is one form of pollution that gets short
> shrift.)
>
> In light of this and the be European pedestrian-safety standards
> mentioned earlier, what is it with lefty/socialist types and this
> urge to modify, regulate, or otherwise mess with automobiles when
> an easier, cheaper, and more fundamental solution to a given problem
> would be to simply remind people to pay attention to what they're
> doing? Of course, that would involve people taking responsibility
> for themselves as opposed to the Mommy State stepping in like an
> elementary school playground supervisor, and we can't have that...
You know, if cars are too quiet, what about bicycles? The
left love bikes, so environmentally friendly, but they are silent.
May I suggest that any bike on the public highway be
fitted with playing cards between the spokes so the "sight
impaired" will know there is a spokehead about to run them over.
--
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq
to the war on terror." -George W. Bush Sept. 6, 2006
Ernie Klein
wrote:
> In article <fq02qt$vjt$1...@blue.rahul.net>,
> Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
> >I suggest adding noisemaking devices to Prii within city limits.
>
> How Harrison Bergeron of you.
Some of the walkers/joggers/runners I have seen around here wearing
headsets and listening to ipods at full volume couldn't hear a Mac Truck
if it was a foot behind them.
--
-Ernie-
jswa...@yahoo.com
>
> Cellphones or no, bicyclists have become even more unsafe and
> irresponsible in my area over the past few years. I now routinely
> see them running red lights without even slowing. I generally hedge
> on how confrontational to be with these people, because I imagine
> they already feel a great sense of defiance against the car-culture,
> but I also think it is important for them to know that other
> bicyclists are very unhappy with their behavior.
Yep, I've seen bicyclists running red lights, on the wrong
side of the road, while on the cell-phone, at night, wearing
very dark clothing, smoking a cigarette.
I guess they aren't to worried of dying from lung cancer.
One of my pet peevies tho, involves pedestrians near
there I live.
I'm alway seeing people jay-walk on Bernardo in Sunnyvale,
about 100 feet away from El Camino.
These people are usually walking toward El Camino,
and could easily cross when they get there at the light,
in the cross walk, with a walk signal.
But instead they decide to walk where there isn't a crosswalk,
or light, out into a busy street. Sometimes they only
make it half-way and then have to stand in the median
with cars going by only inches away on each side.
Sometimes I see women with baby strollers doing it.
There is some magical thing about that spot, that gives people
in urge just want to cross to the opposite side.
Peter Lawrence
>
> (How did carbon get to be the environmental bogeyman seemingly
> overnight? All of a sudden everybody was nattering pseudo-
> knowledgeably "carbon footprints.")
You can thank Al Gore and his movie for that.
- Peter
Al Eisner
Geoff of course already knows this. He's simply trolling you (or else
has an irresistable urge to see his words appear on his Usenet server).
Even more bizarre is the notion that only "lefties" want to take advantage
of such extra clues to protect themselves and their children from being hit
by cars. But if this is really a political issue, then the "righties" are
quite free to wear ear-muffs. Then maybe we'll see a good demonstration
of natural selection at work.
Veronique
> But instead they decide to walk where there isn't a crosswalk,
> or light, out into a busy street. Sometimes they only
> make it half-way and then have to stand in the median
> with cars going by only inches away on each side.
I gave a set of young peds a slight scare today; a gang of 'em crossed
against the light just as it turned green. I put my car in gear and
eased the clutch ever so slightly. One of them did jump; I'm hoping
next time it will enter one of their heads that the crosswalk light is
there for a purpose.
Veronique
> In article <rone.fq03fh$31k...@ennui.org>, "rone" <^*...@ennui.org>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <fq02qt$vj...@blue.rahul.net>,
> > Steve Pope <spop...@speedymail.org> wrote:
> > >I suggest adding noisemaking devices to Prii within city limits.
>
> > How Harrison Bergeron of you.
>
> Some of the walkers/joggers/runners I have seen around here wearing
> headsets and listening to ipods at full volume couldn't hear a Mac Truck
> if it was a foot behind them.
We call that Darwin in action 'round my house.
Tim May
<694c8335-c76e-4569...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been seeing this a lot more in the past several years than in long
ago years. I see kids crossing against the light, I see them
jaywalking, I see them ignoring the pedestrian-OK lights.
Yeah, I've almost hit a bunch of them.
What I _don't_ see is any kind of police enforcement of traffic laws.
One of the most striking, and ironic, and egregious examples is the
stretch of Soquel Avenue between Ocean and River Street, right between
the County Building and the Jail. This is clearly a "no jaywalking"
zone, as it is bookended with stop lights. (My brother the traffic
engineer in LA explained the legalities: jaywalking is not just walking
across a road, it is walking across a road where there are TRAFFIC
LIGHTS at both ends. Most casual crossings of Pacific Avenue in Santa
Cruz are NOT jaywalkings, as actual stoplights are scarce to
nonexistent. But most casual crossings of University Ave. in Palo Alto
ARE jaywalkings, as stoplights are on most cross-streets.)
And yet between the County Building and the Jail, with no crosswalks,
not even a place to stand, I see people trying to cross against the
accelerating traffic. I expect many of them are County workers,
shuttling between the facilities. Some may be perps, or relatives of
perps, visiting their other perps in jail.
And no cops ever writing tickets.
I don't slow down when I see one teetering on the one-food wide curb,
debating whether to make a dash for it in front of me.
Not my fucking problem. They're probably dirt people anyway.
I almost hit a skateboarder zooming down a side street onto Soquel
Drive in Aptos, doing a 90 degree turn on a dime at the bottom of the
hill. Had he missed this turn, slipped, fallen off his board, he'd
likely have been under my wheels. And a few days later I saw two dirt
bike riders approach Freedom Boulevard from a side street, then turn
toward me on the shoulder, going against traffic. Had either of them
slightly misjudged the turn, or not made it, they'd've been under my
wheels.
Not my fucking problem. I didn't change my speed in either case. Some
people have a death wish, or they have bought the whole "Live fast, die
young" cliche.
And not surprisingly, a big news story here in Santa Cruz has been the
deaths of several skaters and bikers in accidents very similar to what
I've just described. One guy T-boned a car when he was approaching an
intersection at 90 degrees in a brakeless bike. Another biker was
killed when he tried to zoom past a bus on the right. Yet another biker
died from "unknown" causes, though it is thought he encountered a FedEx
truck (but the truck was not found, as no signs of an impact were
evident on the trucks). This rider was also riding without brakes.
(This is the new Santa Cruz Cool: high speed biking on bicycles lacking
any means to break. Darwinism in action.)
Though the death of the stupid son was good news, of course, now the
cunt parents are on the news and in the newspapers "demanding action."
Their son is dead. Somebody ought to take them out to Lighthouse Field
and finish off their family line. Fucking cunt morons.
--Tim May
Geoff Miller
Tim May <tim...@removethis.got.net> writes:
> I've been seeing this a lot more in the past several years
> than in long ago years. I see kids crossing against the
> light, I see them jaywalking, I see them ignoring the
> pedestrian-OK lights.
Same here. I've gotten into the habit, when I'm stopped at a
traffic signal and in the #1 position in my lane, to make the
occasional sidelong glance at the light for cross traffic. If
it turns yellow and a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk, I'll
wait until he's a step or two from my car and roll forward across
the crosswalk to block him. This is an example of what's known
as "social sanction."
One time in downtown Los Altos, of all places, a middle-aged man
walking a dog disregarded the "Don't Walk" signal right in front
me me just as my light turned green. I waited until he was right
in front of me, then gave him the horn. Ever heard a Mercedes
horn? They're dual-tone units that are loud enough to wake the
dead. I don't know which one jumped higher, Mr. Entitlement or
his dog. It was hilarious.
> What I _don't_ see is any kind of police enforcement of traffic
> laws.
Except for speeding, of course. The cops are obsessed with appre-
hending drivers who exceed arbitrary (and often unrealistically low)
speed limits, because it's an easy way to keep their numbers up.
I maintain that if the CHP would shift its focus from pulling over
speeders to citing drivers who block the fast lane and otherwise
fail to keep right except to pass, we'd see an improvement in Bay
Area freeway traffic flow that'd be nothing short of miraculous.
> And no cops ever writing tickets.
Is the area in front of a cop shop *ever* a heavy traffic-law
enforcement zone, at least outside of shift change periods?
Maybe not even then.
> I don't slow down when I see one teetering on the one-food wide
> curb, debating whether to make a dash for it in front of me.
I had some college-aged girl jaywalk in front of me on 41st Ave.
in Capitola one time. She started across my side of the divided
road while I was still some distance away, but from her frequent
glances in my direction, clearly knowing that she'd have to step
lively in order to make it all the way across without causing me
to have to slow down.
Which she made no effort to do, arrogantly and pointedly sauntering
across at her leisure...until she realized that I was drawing near
and hadn't even begun to slow down. She made it to the other side
with a few feet to spare, her clothes rustling from my car's slip-
stream. She gave me the finger. What for, exactly, I don't know;
she was in the wrong and had to have known it.
> And not surprisingly, a big news story here in Santa Cruz has
> been the deaths of several skaters and bikers in accidents very
> similar to what I've just described. One guy T-boned a car when
> he was approaching an intersection at 90 degrees in a brakeless
> bike.
Several hundred yards from my house (and just down the hill from
Jeannie's), if it's the incident I think it is. If so, add to
that heady mixture the fact that the rider was going down a steep
hill on a brakeless bike. How he intyended to stop when he got
to the bottom, even if he'd failed to hit a car, is an open ques-
tion. But there's [plenty of "dumb" in this 'ere county to go
around, so it's entirely possible that this was a different
incident.
> (This is the new Santa Cruz Cool: high speed biking on bicycles
> lacking any means to break. Darwinism in action.)
Lately I've wondered whatever happened to the concept of lights for
bicycles. I regularly see bicyclists _sans_ any form of lighting
in the Santa Clara area during my ultra-early morning commute.
When I was a kid, my bike always had a dynamo-driven headlight
mounted on the front fork. Those are probably eschewed by the
spokeheads nowadays because of the (imperceptible in my exper-
ience) drag they produce (B-but...isn't exercise the whole
point of bicycling when adults do it?). But there are lots of
battery-powered lights on the market. Too much weight, I suppose.
Geoff
--
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>I've wondered whatever happened to the concept of lights for
>bicycles.
They don't seem to be any less common to me. Front headlights are
required by law (but then so is driving on the right, stopping at
red lights, etc.). Batteries are my biggest bike expense, so that
kind of bugs me.
Golden California Girls
> In article
> <694c8335-c76e-4569...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 3:26 pm, jswat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But instead they decide to walk where there isn't a crosswalk,
>>> or light, out into a busy street. Sometimes they only
>>> make it half-way and then have to stand in the median
>>> with cars going by only inches away on each side.
>>
>> I gave a set of young peds a slight scare today; a gang of 'em crossed
>> against the light just as it turned green. I put my car in gear and
>> eased the clutch ever so slightly. One of them did jump; I'm hoping
>> next time it will enter one of their heads that the crosswalk light is
>> there for a purpose.
Like the darwin bikers I damn near killed a few years back. They thought
someone had closed the road for their little organized bike ride. Road was a
four lane state highway with a 55 limit where a freeway crossed. Me coming the
other way has a green arrow signal to go up the on ramp. Darwin's are coming
the other way and don't stop for the red. I'm not even sure the group of half a
dozen even realized the screeching tires was the sound of their life being
saved. The next bunch suddenly realized they had better stop though.
> I've been seeing this a lot more in the past several years than in long
> ago years. I see kids crossing against the light, I see them
> jaywalking, I see them ignoring the pedestrian-OK lights.
>
> Yeah, I've almost hit a bunch of them.
>
> What I _don't_ see is any kind of police enforcement of traffic laws.
Snort. They are busy chasing felons. Felon is another word for drug user.
Drug user is another word for a person in need of involuntary mental health
treatment.
To get enough cops to get back to traffic you would need an order of magnitude
increase in police officers.
Eventually the idiots will realize that retards need to be eliminated or we
won't have a civilization anymore.
> One of the most striking, and ironic, and egregious examples is the
> stretch of Soquel Avenue between Ocean and River Street, right between
> the County Building and the Jail. This is clearly a "no jaywalking"
> zone, as it is bookended with stop lights. (My brother the traffic
> engineer in LA explained the legalities: jaywalking is not just walking
> across a road, it is walking across a road where there are TRAFFIC
> LIGHTS at both ends. Most casual crossings of Pacific Avenue in Santa
> Cruz are NOT jaywalkings, as actual stoplights are scarce to
> nonexistent. But most casual crossings of University Ave. in Palo Alto
> ARE jaywalkings, as stoplights are on most cross-streets.)
>
> And yet between the County Building and the Jail, with no crosswalks,
> not even a place to stand, I see people trying to cross against the
> accelerating traffic. I expect many of them are County workers,
> shuttling between the facilities. Some may be perps, or relatives of
> perps, visiting their other perps in jail.
>
> And no cops ever writing tickets.
More like no cops available.
> I don't slow down when I see one teetering on the one-food wide curb,
> debating whether to make a dash for it in front of me.
>
> Not my fucking problem. They're probably dirt people anyway.
>
> I almost hit a skateboarder zooming down a side street onto Soquel
> Drive in Aptos, doing a 90 degree turn on a dime at the bottom of the
> hill. Had he missed this turn, slipped, fallen off his board, he'd
> likely have been under my wheels. And a few days later I saw two dirt
> bike riders approach Freedom Boulevard from a side street, then turn
> toward me on the shoulder, going against traffic. Had either of them
> slightly misjudged the turn, or not made it, they'd've been under my
> wheels.
>
> Not my fucking problem. I didn't change my speed in either case. Some
> people have a death wish, or they have bought the whole "Live fast, die
> young" cliche.
Once you have killed one then you will change your mind.
spamtr...@gmail.com
> And not surprisingly, a big news story here in Santa Cruz has been the
> deaths of several skaters and bikers in accidents very similar to what
> I've just described. One guy T-boned a car when he was approaching an
> intersection at 90 degrees in a brakeless bike. Another biker was
> killed when he tried to zoom past a bus on the right. Yet another biker
> died from "unknown" causes, though it is thought he encountered a FedEx
> truck (but the truck was not found, as no signs of an impact were
> evident on the trucks). This rider was also riding without brakes.
> (This is the new Santa Cruz Cool: high speed biking on bicycles lacking
> any means to break. Darwinism in action.)
Recently a 29 year old cyclist was killed in a collision with an SUV
in Chicago. First it turned out he ran a red light. Then it was
revealed he was part of an informal road race called the Tour Da
Chicago. This year, the tour also includes a stage up and down various
stairways. He had been the leader after a number of stages, and was no
doubt trying to maintain his lead. He leaves a wife but no children.
The race was started some years ago by bike messengers, who have been
joined by bike messenger wanna-bes.
Tim May
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
Like so many things, lights on bikes give a bimodal distribution.
At one end, there are riders who have flashing rear view LEDs, front
lights that are either Luxeon LEDs or halogens, and even lights on
their fanny packs and back packs and even their caps. Many have
additional retro-reflectors on ther clothes and bikes. (Hint:
retro-reflectors are not those red reflectors from 1959.)
At the other end, there are the guys on cheap 10-speeds or even
3-speeds riding down Freedom Boulevard under pitch black conditions
with no lights, dark clothes, and only whatever cheap red refector was
installed by Hinshai Big Bike Company in 1998. Most Mexicans I see
going home from work are riding cheap-ass bikes with no reflectors, no
lights, dark clothing, etc. They are just waiting to be hit. "We need
more pagan shrines along that highway!"
We had more of the latter, the unlit, in 1975. True dat.
And, as in 1975, cops have zero, less than zero, interest in patrolling
the streets at night for nitwits riding down country lanes with no
lights.
As I said, Santa Cruz has had a pretty big spate of nitwits riding
dangerously and killing or injuring themselves severely. A onetime
frequent contributor to one of our newsgroups was injured severely
thusly. (He survived, but as Forest Gump. My tax dollars at work.)
--Tim May
Todd Michel McComb
Tim May <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote:
>And, as in 1975, cops have zero, less than zero, interest in
>patrolling the streets at night for nitwits riding down country
>lanes with no lights.
Well, actually, here in Mountain View, I was pulled over for not
having a headlight. This was several years ago, and before I knew
they were required. Perhaps the police don't stop people now; they
sure seem indifferent to the many bike traffic infractions that go
on in recent years. We actually have a pretty visible police force
here, and not a lot of "real" crime.
do...@cruzio.com
> A onetime
> frequent contributor to one of our newsgroups was injured severely
> thusly. (He survived, but as Forest Gump. My tax dollars at work.)
See a therapist.
Geoff Miller
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> writes:
: I've wondered whatever happened to the concept of lights for
: bicycles.
> They don't seem to be any less common to me. Front headlights
> are required by law [...]
They are? Is that new? The last time I had reason to pay any
attention, *reflectors* were required by law, but not lights.
And even then, only if you were riding after dark.
Safety requirements get ever tighter thanks to the Mommy State,
though, so it wouldn't surprise me if actual lights were required
by now. Dogs have to be cross-tied when they're being carried
in the backs of pickup trucks now, and a generation has come to
its majority not knowing the pleasure of riding in the back of a
pickup or in the top of a camper.
For that matter, I'm surprised that those silly Day-Glo orange
pennants on fiberglass poles that people had on their bikes
for a time back in the '70s aren't mandated.
You don't wear one of those silly little helmets, do you? Those
are so gay.
> Batteries are my biggest bike expense, so that kind of bugs me.
So why not get one of those generator-powered lights that I men-
tioned earlier? Yes, they go out when you stop, but you presumably
only come to a complete stop at controlled intersections, and
controlled intersections tend to be well-lit.
Strange but true: On my way to work this morning, I saw some guy
riding a lightless bike along Hwy. 9 a mile or so north of downtown
Boulder Creek. At 3:45 AM. Naturally, he was wearing dark clothing.
As I said, there's a lot of "dumb" in them thar hills...
Geoff
--
"What liberals mean by 'goose-stepping' and 'ethnic cleansing'
is generally along the lines of 'eliminating taxpayer funding
for the National Endowment For the Arts.' But they can't say
that, or people would realize they're crazy." -- Ann Coulter
Pete Fraser
"Todd Michel McComb" <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote in message
news:fq33vr$2j2o$1...@agricola.medieval.org...
> In article <260220082325020757%tim...@removethis.got.net>,
> Tim May <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote:
>>And, as in 1975, cops have zero, less than zero, interest in
>>patrolling the streets at night for nitwits riding down country
>>lanes with no lights.
>
> Well, actually, here in Mountain View, I was pulled over for not
> having a headlight. This was several years ago, and before I knew
> they were required.
I saw several folks pulled over for no light in Redwood City in the
early 80s.
Pete
axlq
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>Batteries are my biggest bike expense, so that kind of bugs me.
Back when I had lights on my bike (not since the 1980s), I *never*
needed batteries. I had a little generator driven by the rear tire,
and that powered both the headlight and taillight. The generator
had had a lever mechanism to engage it with the tire when you needed
it.
Aren't those made anymore? I thought it was quite convenient, and
fairly lightweight too.
In these days of efficient white LED lights, metal hydride
batteries, and high-capacity low-volume capacitors, a generator
should work even better, because the light wouldn't go out the
moment you stop.
-A
Steve Pope
>Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>>Batteries are my biggest bike expense, so that kind of bugs me.
You've tried recharging batteries I take it?
>Back when I had lights on my bike (not since the 1980s), I *never*
>needed batteries. I had a little generator driven by the rear tire,
>and that powered both the headlight and taillight. The generator
>had had a lever mechanism to engage it with the tire when you needed
>it.
>Aren't those made anymore?
I believe these are not usually bright enough to meet the
legal requirements.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>They are? Is that new? The last time I had reason to pay any
>attention, *reflectors* were required by law, but not lights.
>And even then, only if you were riding after dark.
Rear reflectors are also required. And, yes, in both cases, it's
only if you're riding after dark. I can't tell you how long the
front headlights have been the law. I got pulled over for not
having one about 8 years ago; the first several years I lived here,
the kids were young, and I was rarely out at night, so I never
learned of this law.
>You don't wear one of those silly little helmets, do you?
No, I don't. I sometimes get called on being a bad example, but
as I tell them, when I was growing up, no one wore bike helmets,
and I'm not used to it. Kids today have to wear them.
>So why not get one of those generator-powered lights that I mentioned
>earlier? Yes, they go out when you stop, but ....
I don't want to taunt the cops. When I first got the light, the
glare from which annoyed me, besides the battery issues, I turned
it on only when it seemed to serve some logical purpose. So I got
stopped again.
Veronique
> In article <13s9rr7ohsub...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> >I've wondered whatever happened to the concept of lights for
> >bicycles.
>
> They don't seem to be any less common to me.
Heh, you haven't been biking in Santa Cruz, I guess. There's a
significant portion of bicyclists not only without lights but with
minimal to no reflectors, and riders who delight in wearing dark
clothing at night. I'm actually surprised there aren't more car-bike
accidents, although I suppose it's only the fatal ones that get
written up.
Todd Michel McComb
My experience with them hasn't been good, but as with the other
technology note, perhaps they're better now. I use boxes of AA
batteries from Costco. It's not like it costs a fortune, but it
is the only real expense.
Todd Michel McComb
>In these days of efficient white LED lights, metal hydride
>batteries, and high-capacity low-volume capacitors, a generator
>should work even better, because the light wouldn't go out the
>moment you stop.
It makes sense that something like this would be available. Perhaps
I'll take a look. One issue is if I can't easily take it with me,
it'll get stolen.
Todd Michel McComb
Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Heh, you haven't been biking in Santa Cruz, I guess. There's a
>significant portion of bicyclists not only without lights but with
No, I have never biked to Santa Cruz. There are a lot of people
around here without lights also, but the lights don't seem any less
common. It seems to have always been around 50/50 at night, at
least since I've been here.
Julian Macassey
Back in the days when people used bikes as a means of
transport and not as a means to pose while dressed up to look
like a novelty condom, bycycle generators were common.
In fact besides the generator that ran against the side
of the tyre, Sturmey Archer made one in the hub of the bike
called a "Dynbohub". Hard to steal those and very convenient.
Ciccio
> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> writes:
> : I've wondered whatever happened to the concept of lights for
> : bicycles.
>
> > They don't seem to be any less common to me. Front headlights
> > are required by law [...]
Well sorta, only if operated at night.
> They are? Is that new? The last time I had reason to pay any
> attention, *reflectors* were required by law, but not lights.
> And even then, only if you were riding after dark.
I believe the headlight at night requirement has been around since
Christ was a corporal. I say this because when I was a kid I had such
a bizarre experience, that it is still well fixed in my mind. I was
popping a wheelie, when some Dudley Do-Right asshole cop snuck up to
stop me and threatened to give me a ticket.
He started spewing vehicle code sections that I supposedly had
violated by my wheelie. He then went down, what must have been his own
anal mental checklist, starting with making me sit up in my seat. That
was to see if my butterfly handlebars were above my shoulders.
He then issued me a stern warning about my not having a headlight.
Thus, he pontificated, I could not legally drive at night. When I told
him I had never heard about that crap, he droned on about ignorance of
the law, blah, blah... He then told me that it had been the law long
before he became a cop, which I remember him saying was sometime like
'65 or so.
I believe, however, those geeky lights that are worn on the head, or
strapped around the leg, became a legal option, if bright enough, in
the 70's.
Ciccio
Mark Lipton
> Mark Lipton <not...@eudrup.ude> writes:
>
>> Just so you know, this is a law honored mostly in the breach.
>> I've seen foie gras on several menus since that law went into
>> effect, and I know that several high profile chefs are openly
>> flauting it [...]
>
>
> Years ago there was a flamewar in alt.peeves about the meaning
> of "flaunt" versus "flout." I see you've hedged your bets.
>
> (If I used smileys, I'd put one here.)
Ack! I meant flout, but don't use it in print often enough to have
caught that typo. In speech, however, there is no doubt.
Mark Lipton
p.s. At least it wasn't an inappropriate use of "their/they're" (egad!)
Geoff Miller
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> writes:
> He started spewing vehicle code sections that I supposedly had
> violated by my wheelie. He then went down, what must have been
> his own anal mental checklist, starting with making me sit up
> in my seat. That was to see if my butterfly handlebars were
> above my shoulders.
What an asshole. I bet hassling a kid made him feel like a big
man. It's thanks to pricks like him that people develop a life-
long dislike of cops. Maybe later, during a routine traffic stop,
somebody pulled out a hogleg and blasted him out of his jackboots.
I thought the prohibition against handlebars being above the
shoulders applied only to motorcycles, not to bicycles. I
see that those "ape hanger" handlebars have made a sudden
comeback. The San Lorenzo Valley is thick with Harleys on
weekends, and more and more of them seem to be equipped with
those.
Geoff
--
"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history
yelling 'Stop!'" -- William F. Buckley, Jr. 1925-2008
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>I bet hassling a kid made him feel like a big man. It's thanks
>to pricks like him that people develop a life-long dislike of cops.
My first traffic stop on this light issue was somewhat analogous
in some ways. It was a pair of cops, who had just finished citing
someone else for something it seemed, stopped along the side of the
road. I rode by, and one asked "Hey, where's your light?" Thinking
nothing of it, I shouted back "Don't have one." By then I was past
them. "Hey, get back here!" screams the cop. So as soon as this
registers, I brake hard, and start to turn around. The guy screams
again, "Hey, get back here!" "Just a minute," I say, "I'm coming."
So I walk the bike back, this being now the wrong side of the street
and all, and ask "What's up?" "You have to have a headlight." "Oh,
I didn't know that." "Ignorance of the law blah blah blah...."
"Well, I *know* THAT." So then I asked him, quite sincerely, if
there were any other bike-related laws I should know. As I tried
to explain, I didn't want to be breaking the laws, and if he were
to inform me, I would find that to be helpful. He just stuck with
this "Ignorance of the law" thing. Finally, the other cop, who had
been watching this whole conversation, walked over with his handy-dandy
vehicle code, and we flipped to the bike section and read through
it. Lesson: The first cop thought I was being a jerk, whereas I
thought I was being perfectly friendly, but had no idea why he had
asked about the light.
Veronique
> In article <9d358687-5e41-4d5c-8203-d59fd4670...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Heh, you haven't been biking in Santa Cruz, I guess. There's a
> >significant portion of bicyclists not only without lights but with
> >minimal to no reflectors, ....
>
> No, I have never biked to Santa Cruz. There are a lot of people
> around here without lights also, but the lights don't seem any less
> common. It seems to have always been around 50/50 at night, at
> least since I've been here.
See, 50/50 seems like a high proportion of bicyclists depending on the
acute vision of drivers to keep them alive to me.
Steve Pope
An unverified statement on a website says that 80% of adult bicycle
fatalities involve (among other possible factors) being in darkness
with no light.
I can googitup if you like.
Steve
Geoff Miller
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> writes:
> In fact besides the generator that ran against the side
> of the tyre, Sturmey Archer made one in the hub of the bike
> called a "Dynbohub". Hard to steal those and very convenient.
I think I might've seen one or two of those at some point.
The bike had what looked like the drum front brake of an
older motorcycle, but had conventional hand brakes which
clamped the wheel rims.
I had three-speed bike as a kid that had a Sturmey Archer
shifter, or gear set, or whatever those things are called.
The bike was a Austrian Steyr, which was a real oddball in
an America of Schwinns and Huffys. It was the only three-
speed I've ever seen, to this day, that had center-pull
brakes. Which used to be the hot ticket, but I noted in
my last visit to a bike shop that they seem to have fallen
out of favor in lieu of side-pulls on high-end touring bikes.
Todd Michel McComb
Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>See, 50/50 seems like a high proportion of bicyclists depending
>on the acute vision of drivers to keep them alive to me.
Well, I was only addressing the trend. Obviously the state of
California, if not its actual enforcement people, agrees with you.
Personally, I put the responsibility on myself to not get hit by a
car. I don't trust drivers enough to think they wouldn't intentionally
hit me, or be just too intoxicated or incompetent to do otherwise,
even if they see me perfectly.
Al Eisner
> Safety requirements get ever tighter thanks to the Mommy State,
> though, so it wouldn't surprise me if actual lights were required
> by now.
I don't see it at all as a matter of a "Mommy State" (except in the case
of children, which the State tends to protect even if their parents won't).
If there is no headlight requirement, and you as a driver hit a bicyclist,
however much in the wrong he or she is, you can get sued, or your insurance
company can decide it's your fault, which can have serious consequences for
you and/or your wallet. Such requirements protect all of us, even those
who don't give a damn whether an idiot bicyclist gets wiped out.
--
Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA
Todd Michel McComb
Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>If ... you as a driver hit a bicyclist, however much in the wrong
>he or she is, you can get sued, or ....
Well, just to be clear, bicyclists, like any other drivers of
street-legal vehicles, can be assessed fault according to the traffic
code. It's not like the motorist is automatically at fault, legally.
Now, pedestrians... good luck getting out from under that, regardless
of what they do.
Steve Pope
>Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>If ... you as a driver hit a bicyclist, however much in the wrong
>>he or she is, you can get sued, or ....
>Well, just to be clear, bicyclists, like any other drivers of
>street-legal vehicles, can be assessed fault according to the traffic
>code. It's not like the motorist is automatically at fault, legally.
>Now, pedestrians... good luck getting out from under that, regardless
>of what they do.
That's an unfair comparison. Pedestrians have the legal right of
way under nearly any circumstances, whether they are breaking
the law or not. The same is not true of bicycles. Drivers
of motor vehicles (and bicyclists, for that matter) are responsible
for being aware of this distinction.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>That's an unfair comparison. Pedestrians have the legal right of
>way under nearly any circumstances, whether they are breaking
>the law or not. The same is not true of bicycles. Drivers
>of motor vehicles (and bicyclists, for that matter) are responsible
>for being aware of this distinction.
I don't understand with what you might be disagreeing, although
your first sentence seems to indicate disagreement.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
Maybe I have no contrary point to make. So I'll retract my first
sentence.
Steve
Al Eisner
> In article <Pine.SOC.4.64.08...@flora02.slac.stanford.edu>,
> Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> If ... you as a driver hit a bicyclist, however much in the wrong
>> he or she is, you can get sued, or ....
>
> Well, just to be clear, bicyclists, like any other drivers of
> street-legal vehicles, can be assessed fault according to the traffic
> code. It's not like the motorist is automatically at fault, legally.
No, but if there is a mandated headlight requirement for bicyclists (which
is what I was addressing -- see the full text including Geoff's quoted
remark) -- that considerably strengthens the legal case for motorists.
And if it is enforced, it makes the likelihood of motorists getting
entangled in legal or insurance proceedings less likely.
> Now, pedestrians... good luck getting out from under that, regardless
> of what they do.
Which reminds me I forgot to mention pedestrians in terms of bibycles
without lights. Bicycle lights surely decrease the likelihood of a
pedestrian (even when taking care and obeying the law) being hit by
a bicyclist. And that too is a valid interest of the State.
Michael Sierchio
> That's an unfair comparison. Pedestrians have the legal right of
> way under nearly any circumstances, whether they are breaking
> the law or not. The same is not true of bicycles. Drivers
> of motor vehicles (and bicyclists, for that matter) are responsible
> for being aware of this distinction.
That's quite remote from the truth. A motorist will always bear
a liability burden for the inherent capacity to harm, but the law
does not grant the right of way to any party -- it specifies when
it is to be yielded. And read on...
Vehicle Code Section 21950
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the
duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian
may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk
or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to
constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily
stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
--
Do not send me email replies -- this is a honeypot
address for spam.
Steve Fenwick
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
Here's an interesting site about dynamos for bike lights. The new style
seems to be built into the hub of the bike, with car-sized rear lights,
not those silly little things that have four LEDs and can't be seen more
than a few yards off.
<http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/dynamos.html>
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> In article <fq2rh2$2io...@agricola.medieval.org>, Todd Michel McComb
>
> <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> > In article <13s9rr7ohsub...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
> > >I've wondered whatever happened to the concept of lights for
> > >bicycles.
>
> > They don't seem to be any less common to me. Front headlights are
> > red lights, etc.). Batteries are my biggest bike expense, so that
> > kind of bugs me.
>
> Like so many things, lights on bikes give a bimodal distribution.
>
> At one end, there are riders who have flashing rear view LEDs, front
> lights that are either Luxeon LEDs or halogens, and even lights on
> their fanny packs and back packs and even their caps. Many have
> additional retro-reflectors on ther clothes and bikes. (Hint:
> retro-reflectors are not those red reflectors from 1959.)
>
> At the other end, there are the guys on cheap 10-speeds or even
> 3-speeds riding down Freedom Boulevard under pitch black conditions
> with no lights, dark clothes, and only whatever cheap red refector was
> installed by Hinshai Big Bike Company in 1998. Most Mexicans I see
> going home from work are riding cheap-ass bikes with no reflectors, no
> lights, dark clothing, etc. They are just waiting to be hit. "We need
> more pagan shrines along that highway!"
>
> We had more of the latter, the unlit, in 1975. True dat.
>
> And, as in 1975, cops have zero, less than zero, interest in patrolling
> the streets at night for nitwits riding down country lanes with no
> lights.
>
> dangerously and killing or injuring themselves severely. A onetime
> frequent contributor to one of our newsgroups was injured severely
> thusly. (He survived, but as Forest Gump. My tax dollars at work.)
>
> --Tim May
For a front bicycle light I use a white LED flasher. I use a rear red
flasher and a rear red reflector. I have yellow reflectors on the
pedals and white reflectors in the spokes. This is all required under
the vehicle code except the rear flasher is optional. I wear a
reflective band around my left wrist so cars are better able to see my
hand signals at night.
I prefer a front flashing light that allows me to be easily recognized
by cars and pedestrians but which doesn't impair my night vision by
being to bright on the road ahead. If something ahead has to be lit
up I prefer a supplementary halogen light, but which otherwise remains
in the "off" position.
At Stanford there is reported law enforcement corruption involving
bicycles.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/16/policeNabCyclistsTicketingExpected
http://www.vocaboly.com/forums/ftopic8952-0-asc-15.html
With my luck, after all the times I'm careful about bicycle safety,
someone will steal my bike light and that same day I will be stopped
by the cops. A couple months ago I was stopped on my bike by Palo
Alto cops for a violation that doesn't exist - both were pretext stops
because of the litigation I've been in.
If Tim is asking for more police involvement with bicycles, he should
be careful what he wishes for.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Pedestrians have the legal right of
>> way under nearly any circumstances, whether they are breaking
>> the law or not. The same is not true of bicycles. Drivers
>> of motor vehicles (and bicyclists, for that matter) are responsible
>> for being aware of this distinction.
>That's quite remote from the truth. A motorist will always bear
>a liability burden for the inherent capacity to harm, but the law
>does not grant the right of way to any party -- it specifies when
>it is to be yielded. And read on...
>Vehicle Code Section 21950
>(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the
>duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian
>may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk
>or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to
>constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily
>stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
You're not discussing the same fact as I am. While a pedestrian is
committing a violation by (say) jaywalking, this does not mean a
vehicle has the right of way over a jaywalking pedestrian.
Steve
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> by the cops. A couple months ago I was stopped on my bike by Palo
> Alto cops for a violation that doesn't exist - both were pretext stops
> because of the litigation I've been in.
>
oops, I meant to say I was stopped a couple times, once on bicycle,
once while walking. Both were pretext stops. No violations involved.
Todd Michel McComb
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I was stopped a couple times, once on bicycle, once while walking.
>Both were pretext stops. No violations involved.
I was stopped once in Palo Alto, on the Bryant bike boulevard toward
the Mountain View end. There's a school there, but I don't recall
the name. Anyway, a cop stopped me regarding vandalism at the
school. I stopped to be polite (he was on foot), but if I had
known, I'd've simply continued. I thought it would be quite a brief
thing, but he continued asking me questions for quite a while. I
guess I set him off by saying I was on my way to Redwood City (which
I was); he didn't seem to believe it. What 40+ year-old man
vandalizes an elementary school? None of this made sense to me.
Karen
> I was stopped once in Palo Alto, on the Bryant bike boulevard toward
> the Mountain View end. There's a school there, but I don't recall
> the name. Anyway, a cop stopped me regarding vandalism at the
> school. I stopped to be polite (he was on foot), but if I had
> known, I'd've simply continued. I thought it would be quite a brief
> thing, but he continued asking me questions for quite a while. I
> guess I set him off by saying I was on my way to Redwood City (which
> I was); he didn't seem to believe it. What 40+ year-old man
> vandalizes an elementary school? None of this made sense to me.
How could you have simply continued if you knew what the police
officer wanted to talk about if you were being stopped? Because he was
on foot, he couldn't catch you?
I guess young person are the usual vandals, but the school next door
to me has had homeless people problems at times in the past. I don't
know what you look like but just the high end way you dine about town,
you can't possibly look like a homeless person.
Karen
Michael Sierchio
> You're not discussing the same fact as I am. While a pedestrian is
> committing a violation by (say) jaywalking, this does not mean a
> vehicle has the right of way over a jaywalking pedestrian.
You don't understand the concept of right of way. No one "has" it.
And a motorist is not required to yield it to a pedestrian in
all circumstances. There is an incumbent necessity to avoid
accidents whenever possible, independent of right of way, that
applies to all parties.
If you run over a jaywalking pedestrian, expect to be sued, but
not cited. ;-)
Geoff Miller
Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> writes:
: Safety requirements get ever tighter thanks to the Mommy State,
: though, so it wouldn't surprise me if actual lights were required
: by now.
> I don't see it at all as a matter of a "Mommy State" (except in
> the case of children, which the State tends to protect even if
> their parents won't).
"Protect the CHIIIIIILLLDRUN!"
> If there is no headlight requirement, and you as a driver hit
> a bicyclist, however much in the wrong he or she is, you can
> get sued, or your insurance company can decide it's your fault,
> which can have serious consequences for you and/or your wallet.
> Such requirements protect all of us, even those who don't give
> a damn whether an idiot bicyclist gets wiped out.
Yeah, yeah; bad things can happen as a result of accidents. 'Twas
ever thus.
Certain decisions -- seatbelt and helmet use, whether to allow pas-
sengers to ride in a camper or in the bed of a pickup truck, whether
to install a headlight on one's bicycle -- that were once left up
to individual discretion are now explicitly compulsory or prohibited.
Similarly, things that used to be commonplace and generally accepted
are now _verboten_.
The increasing intrusion of the goverment into such things, its
determination to regulate people's behavior in more and more detail
in order to prevent them from doing things that are arbitrarily
decreed to be dangerous, and the relentless expansion of *what* is
defined as "dangerous" (riding in the back of a pickup?!), is a
phenomenon that, with good reason, is likened to a mommy super-
vising small children. Many of us resent that sort of thing.
But you, being a liberal and a statist, have obviously drunk the
Kool-Aid.
Geoff
--
"What liberals mean by 'goose-stepping' and 'ethnic cleansing'
is generally along the lines of 'eliminating taxpayer funding
for the National Endowment For the Arts.' But they can't say
that, or people would realize they're crazy." -- Ann Coulter
Geoff Miller
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> writes:
> What 40+ year-old man vandalizes an elementary school?
> None of this made sense to me.
There's a lot of truth to that saying about how if a lot
of cops were as smart as they think they are, they wouldn't
be cops. It's a blue-collar job, after all.
Also, despite education requirements that have increased
over the years, and despite the way a lot of cops insist
that they "just want to make a difference in the community,"
a lot of them have authority complexes.
Owen Gilmore
> : bicycles.
>
> > They don't seem to be any less common to me. Front headlights
>
> They are? Is that new? The last time I had reason to pay any
> attention, *reflectors* were required by law, but not lights.
> And even then, only if you were riding after dark.
>
They are definitely required. In SF there are even signs posted.
Helmets are not, though, and I agree they're kind of gay
Not really, I just don't want to bother
>
> > Batteries are my biggest bike expense, so that kind of bugs me.
>
> So why not get one of those generator-powered lights that I men-
> tioned earlier? Yes, they go out when you stop, but you presumably
> only come to a complete stop at controlled intersections, and
> controlled intersections tend to be well-lit.
Those things suck. I had them for a while;
- too prone to being bumped out of place
- noisy, and increase tire friction
- hard to set up
You can get a pretty decent headlight that runs off 4 AA batteries. I
can see where if you did a lot of night riding batteries could get to
be expensive, but IIRC they last at least 12 hours or so?
-OG
Al Eisner
I hate Kool-Aid.
I make a distinction between behavior which mostly affects the individual
indulging in that behavior, and behavior which has a high probability of
adversely and seriously affecting others. (In this case, bicycle lighting,
both motorists as explained above and pedestrians.) Why you think this has
to do with liberal vs. conservative is beyond me, except that you think
that about everything.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> You're not discussing the same fact as I am. While a pedestrian is
>> committing a violation by (say) jaywalking, this does not mean a
>> vehicle has the right of way over a jaywalking pedestrian.
>You don't understand the concept of right of way. No one "has" it.
>And a motorist is not required to yield it to a pedestrian in
>all circumstances.
Before we continue the discussion, did you take the written part
of the driving test in California, and if so when?
Steve
Geoff Miller
Michael Sierchio <kudzu-...@tenebras.com> writes:
> You don't understand the concept of right of way. No one
> "has" it. And a motorist is not required to yield it to
> a pedestrian in all circumstances.
I was driving up Park Presidio one time, on my way to the
Golden Gate Bridge, when I stopped for a red light at
whatever street that is that forms the northern boundary
of Golden Gate Park (Fulton?). Just as the light turned
green, a pedestrian, a sixtyish man, stepped off the median
across the intersection from me, completely disregarding the
"Don't Walk" signal. It was an example of the typical San
Francisco anti-car "I'm morally superior to you, so I can
do anything I want" mindset that one sees with the Critical
Massholes.
I was having none of it. I simultaneously dropped the clutch
and raised the headlights on high beam (I drove a Supra at the
time), and roared into the intersection, leaning on the horn.
The errant pedestrian drew back, and bellowed at me in rage as
I drove past. But I had the window closed, the air conditioning
on and some jazz playing on the radio courtesy of KCSM, so the
peaceful ambience inside the car wasn't disturbed at all. "Fuck
me? No, fuck *you!*"
Geoff Miller
Owen Gilmore <aogi...@gmail.com> writes:
[generator lights]
> Those things suck. I had them for a while;
> - too prone to being bumped out of place
> - noisy, and increase tire friction
> - hard to set up
I always had those on my bikes when I was a kid, and I
experienced none of those things. The one that was
installed on my Peugeot ten-speed when I was in junior
high was especially nice -- quiet, very bright, and
produced no noticeable friction. What little noise it
did make was actually quite pleasant as I rode through
the neighborhood in the evenings. That was in the early
'70s, so the technology couldn't help but have improved
since then.
Hard to set up? Install the bolts loosely, slide the
thing up and down the fork or frame tube until the
drive wheel aligns with the tire sidewall, and then
tighten the bolts. What could be easier?
Even if they did create significant tire friction, isn't
exercise the whole point of riding a bicycle, at least
for adults? That's why I don't understand the obsession
with lightness among cyclists. On the contrary, you'd
think they'd go to Goodwill or somewhere and seek out the
heaviest old steel Schwinn Varsity or Continental that
they could find -- and save hundreds of dollars in the
process. But then, reverse snob appeal doesn't seem to
be common among cyclists.
> You can get a pretty decent headlight that runs off
> 4 AA batteries. I can see where if you did a lot of
> night riding batteries could get to be expensive, but
> IIRC they last at least 12 hours or so?
At least. I have a late-Eighties-vintage, battery-powered
Cateye on my mountan bike, and back when I rode it most
evenings, I never found that I had to replace its batteries
all that often. If someone rides a bike as an alternative
to driving a car, the expense of batteries is lost in the
noise relative to the expense of owning a car.
The only real disadvantage with generator lights that I can
see is that they go out when you stop, which might be a con-
cern for people who ride on busy streets at night and stop
at controlled intersections. But I always found that that
could be dispensed with by simply paying attention to traffic
and watching for red-light runners as I got moving again,
which I'd have done anyway (and do even now, as a driver).
Todd Michel McComb
Karen <kso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How could you have simply continued if you knew what the police
>officer wanted to talk about if you were being stopped? Because
>he was on foot, he couldn't catch you?
Sure, I wouldn't have had to slow down at all.
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote:
>Even if they did create significant tire friction, isn't exercise
>the whole point of riding a bicycle, at least for adults?
For me, no. The point of riding a bicycle is getting from point A
to point B. It's much faster than walking, and as you observe,
much less expensive than a car. Also, frequently less hassle than
a car, although I do find walking to be more pleasant.
On this point, I was recently asked to complete a rather elaborate
survey on health and exercise. Bicycling was listed in a couple
of sections, but in each case was carefully labeled that you should
mark it only if your "primary purpose" was exercise, or for the
other, recreation. Since mine is transportation, that never appeared
on the survey. Perhaps they'll wonder how this middle-aged man
manages to be so thin, but it's their own fault. They didn't ask
how much time in a typical week I spend having sex either, which
seems a laughable omission as well.
>That's why I don't understand the obsession with lightness among
>cyclists.
I think the recreational cyclists like to challenge themselves to
go fast, like pretending they're in a race. I have a cheap, heavy,
sturdy bicycle which suits me fine.
Owen Gilmore <aogi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>You can get a pretty decent headlight that runs off
>>4 AA batteries. I can see where if you did a lot of
>>night riding batteries could get to be expensive, but
>>IIRC they last at least 12 hours or so?
Yes, that's what I have. In the winter, with the early sunsets, I
go through a 4pack in less than a week. Perhaps it's just me, but
I find that irritating.
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> I was stopped once in Palo Alto, on the Bryant bike boulevard toward
> the Mountain View end. There's a school there, but I don't recall
> the name. Anyway, a cop stopped me regarding vandalism at the
> school. I stopped to be polite (he was on foot), but if I had
> known, I'd've simply continued. I thought it would be quite a brief
> thing, but he continued asking me questions for quite a while. I
> guess I set him off by saying I was on my way to Redwood City (which
> I was); he didn't seem to believe it. What 40+ year-old man
> vandalizes an elementary school? None of this made sense to me.
Cops sometimes put on a "show" after being called. Or else they fear
getting flack for not doing anything. "OMG, look outside your school
office window! The Police have a Suspect! I feel Safe and Comfortable
now! They're stopping the Vandalism!"
Peter Lawrence
>
> Owen Gilmore <aogi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> You can get a pretty decent headlight that runs off
>>> 4 AA batteries. I can see where if you did a lot of
>>> night riding batteries could get to be expensive, but
>>> IIRC they last at least 12 hours or so?
>
> Yes, that's what I have. In the winter, with the early sunsets, I
> go through a 4pack in less than a week. Perhaps it's just me, but
> I find that irritating.
Maybe you should try longer-lasting batteries. You can buy 8-packs of
AA lithium batteries at Target for a relatively economical price. Sure,
they're a lot more expensive than AA alkaline batteries, but I found
that for high-drain usages they actually cost less overall because they
last a lot longer than the alkaline batteries.
One thing that is probably exacerbating your AA alkaline batteries' life
during the winter is that alkaline batteries don't last very long in
cold weather. They drain quicker when the temperature drop. I have
noticed this adverse affect when the ambient temperature drops below
55°F. When the temperature is in the 40's or 30's the effect is a lot
worse. Lithium batteries don't have this problem. Their battery life
isn't shortened by cold weather.
- Peter
Michael Sierchio
> Before we continue the discussion, did you take the written part
> of the driving test in California, and if so when?
Yes, on numerous occasions.
Now, cite the section of the vehicle code where it says that
anyone has the right of way. Take all the time you need.
- M
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Before we continue the discussion, did you take the written part
>> of the driving test in California, and if so when?
>Yes, on numerous occasions.
So my recollection, which is from long ago, that part of the information
one was expected to learn in that context is that a vehicle never has
the right-of-way over a pedestrian even if the ped has illegally
stepped into the roadway.
>Now, cite the section of the vehicle code where it says that
>anyone has the right of way.
Unless you can cite something that contradicts what I've written
I have not reason to expect my memory of this is inaccurate.
Steve
rone
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>Michael Sierchio <kudzu-...@tenebras.com> wrote:
>>Now, cite the section of the vehicle code where it says that
>>anyone has the right of way.
>Unless you can cite something that contradicts what I've written
>I have not reason to expect my memory of this is inaccurate.
Wow, Steve, if i were still giving out Usenet Medals of Honor,
you'd've earned one with that nugget.
rone
--
"If any man is not free, then I, too, am a small pie made of chicken."
-- Bouffant, /Thoughts/ (Terry Pratchett)
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>>Unless you can cite something that contradicts what I've written
>>I have not reason to expect my memory of this is inaccurate.
>Wow, Steve, if i were still giving out Usenet Medals of Honor,
>you'd've earned one with that nugget.
Well, I never claimed anything about the vehicle code. That's
Michael's diversion. (A semi-logical diversion, since some
but not all of the subject matter will be made explicit in the
vehicle code, but only some.)
Steve
Michael Sierchio
> Unless you can cite something that contradicts what I've written
> I have not reason to expect my memory of this is inaccurate.
I am challenging you to back up your assertion, and my claim
is that your assertion is baseless and false. The burden of
proof lies with you. I said that the vehicle code does not
grant the right of way, but specifies who must yield it. That
might be too fine a distinction for you, I don't know.
The challenge to you is:
1. Show me where the VC says a pedestrian "has"
the right of way
2. Show me where the VC says that a motor vehicle must
yield to a pedestrian in all circumstances
It's not a VC offense to end up with a pedestrian under
your wheels. Survivors or heirs might make a claim
against you, and might even win a judgement against you,
even if you are not at fault.
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>In article <rone.fq7g73$jov$1...@ennui.org>, rone <^*&#$@ennui.org> wrote:
>>Wow, Steve, if i were still giving out Usenet Medals of Honor,
>>you'd've earned one with that nugget.
>Well, I never claimed anything about the vehicle code.
My favorite part is this sequence, conveniently ordered by Steve
the other way around:
Michael: "Now, cite the section of the vehicle code where it says
that anyone has the right of way."
Steve: "... a vehicle never has the right-of-way ...."
Owen Gilmore
Maybe you're more mechanically inclined than me, but I found inserting
the wire into the generator, wrapping the wire around the frame and
taping it, and hooking it to the light a lot of trouble. Harder than
clipping on a modern battery light.
I had a generator for a few years in Germany - OK, but I didn't ride a
lot at night. Again, here in CA I tried one and found it less than
optimal. Prone to bumping, jostling, getting misaligned in a way that
the battery lights aren't. Also, the clip-on types are easy to take
off when you park. IIRC the generator types are hard wired onto your
handlebar, but I haven't looked at any lately. They seem to have
become much less common.
Sometimes you hit on a trend without even knowing it, Geoff. In fact,
there IS a kind of "retro" movement towards heavier, "solid" old types
of frames, seats, handlebars, etc. Some of these are quite expensive
($500 or more), and are sold to yupsters, hipsters, etc. Even one
speeders, when Shimano derailleurs and 18 speeds are ubiquitous on the
cheap bikes.
Me, I like my semi-heavy road/mountain 1990 Schwinn - smooth enough to
climb some hills and get in a good ride, cheap enough that I never
worry about it getting stolen. I've had components and tires replaced
(several times) and it's still a champ.
-O
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Unless you can cite something that contradicts what I've written
>> I have not reason to expect my memory of this is inaccurate.
>I am challenging you to back up your assertion, and my claim
>is that your assertion is baseless and false. The burden of
>proof lies with you.
I described to you my basis for opinion. It is not the case that
all such issues are necessarily explicit in the vehicle code,
because case law also applies and may have been the basis
for what is taught as part of driver education.
>I said that the vehicle code does not
>grant the right of way, but specifies who must yield it. That
>might be too fine a distinction for you, I don't know.
Yes, I understand that distinction. Thanks.
Steve
Serene
> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Before we continue the discussion, did you take the written part
>> of the driving test in California, and if so when?
>
> Yes, on numerous occasions.
>
> Now, cite the section of the vehicle code where it says that
> anyone has the right of way. Take all the time you need.
California Vehicle Code Division 11 - Rules of the Road
Chapter 4. Right-of-Way
"Intersections
21800. (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection
shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the
intersection from a different highway.
(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different
highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left
shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate
right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating
highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the
intersecting continuing highway.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “terminating highway” means a
highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the
intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the
intersection.
(c) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways
at the same time and the intersection is controlled from all
directions by stop signs, the driver of the vehicle on the left
shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate
right.
(d) (1) The driver of any vehicle approaching an intersection which
has official traffic control signals that are inoperative shall stop
at the intersection, and may proceed with caution when it is safe to
do so. This subparagraph shall apply to traffic control signals that
become inoperative because of battery failure.
2) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways
at the same time, and the official traffic control signals for the
intersection are inoperative, the driver of the vehicle on the left
shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate
right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating
highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the
intersecting continuing highway.
(e) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Any intersection controlled by an official traffic control
signal or yield right-of-way sign.
(2) Any intersection controlled by stop signs from less than all
directions.
(3) When vehicles are approaching each other from opposite
directions and the driver of one of the vehicles intends to make, or
is making, a left turn."
And so on. More at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c4.htm
Serene