Well founded? The author can't even formulate an internally consistent argument. First he says:
"However, from this point forward, if you are on a bicycle and get in front of me, I am going to run you over. " And then he orders cyclists, saying: "You will ride your bike in the MIDDLE of the LANE ..." What's it going to be? Would it be "well founded" for me to say that anytime I see an auto break a traffic law, I now have the right to shoot the driver? Because yesterday on my 135-mile bike ride I saw maybe a hundred "scofflaw" traffic-law violators. That's one large amount of ammo to have to carry. It also seems like a somewhat extreme penalty. The fact that some bicycles break the law (endangering primarily themselves, as he acknowledges) does not give him the right to threaten all cyclists with death. There's nothing well-founded whatsoever in that threat. On Oct 14, 6:53 pm, "Bob Sutterfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see anything about commuting there, just the usual (and well > founded) rant against scofflaw cyclists. > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Keith (ne' trekman1420) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ran across a heated discussion of bike commuting here > >http://www.theangriestpharmacist.com/2008/10/13/share-the-road-piss-off/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
