Posted On: Monday - August 19th 2024 8:31AM MST
In Topics: General Stupidity Lefty MegaStupidity Student and other Snowflakes Economics ctrl-left
Sounds like a story from Old Shanghai, doesn't it?
(Thanks to Adam Smith for the meme.)
It may or may not have been a boring post to the average Peak Stupidity reader- no comments appear underneath - but I will still update our post Delivering the 6 million dollar flower pots of ~ 2 months back due to an interesting conversation with 2 guys that must be involved.
From Unz Reveiw comments, readers may know I ride a bicycle. It's not a sport for me, and I wouldn't even say it's a "recreational" thing. I've always liked to ride, and there are places easier to get to and park by on a bike, so I'll ride. I don't see myself as a fanatic, but I'll state for the record 2 things:
1) I'll break any damn laws on the books when it comes down to safety over the law.*
2) I try my best to get along with drivers, but yes, I did have a hockey-style air horn on my front fork for a few years. The propellant ran out eventually.
Anyway, 2 younger guys at the coffee shop recently admired my classic old bike as I tied it down to a tree. I had to tell them about buying it used long ago and "they made things to last."**, etc. It's like older guys talking about classic cars - beats trying to argue about the weather and whose fault that is ...
While with my friends, I heard these 2 guys chatting about that particular street being narrowed from 4 lanes to 2. I wonder (still, as I never found out) who the guys are, as they know some numbers about traffic flows. "ABC Street [the one in question] has 26,000 cars per day, and they're making it 2 lanes, while DEF Road has fewer, and they're widening that one to 4 [maybe they said 6]." Interesting.
An hour or so later, when leaving, I went to talk to these guys. I brought up, with no regard for possible tact required, the dumb $6 Million project they'd mentioned. "That's about 'delivering' State taxpayers' money here for what, paying Mexicans for 6 months?***". Surprisingly, the guys didn't get into the foreigner, OMG!, racial angle. Instead the one told me how very pleased I will be when this project is done.
"You'll be much safer riding. With only 2 lanes, the traffic will all slow down from 40 mph to 25, and there will be fewer cars. It'll be so nice for you!" Really? Will it be better on a jammed up street full of drivers frustrated due to having a tough time even getting on the road? What about the fact that I might be going somewhere, myself sometime, in a CAR, or maybe my wife, or other people?! This one is an important route for that direction, so traffic will have to divert to neighborhood streets with the stop signs nearly every block.
The guys were so happy for me, while I had absolutely no reason to be happy or to change my mind about what a total screw up this whole thing is. Who were they? I wondered if they work for that legislator that pushed this thing. I only remembered after getting home that they themselves had wondered about the narrowing of this road vs. the other one. The whole thing is really intriguing, and I hope I'll run into them again... if they don't get stuck in traffic and divert to another coffee shop...
* Hah, one of the dozen or so times I've gotten pulled over by Johnny Law on a bicycle involved the cop telling me about one law I'd broken. No. When I think back on that 1/2 mile I'd ridden till he blared out on his P/A, I'd broken 6 laws! What did I learn from this? What I learned was that these same 6 violations on that route are important for my safety, so, the main thing is, look for that cop car in that spot next time. That's all.
** Yep, American made, and I think I recall changing the "bottom bracket" once though. BTW, "bottom bracket" is one of the stupidest terms around. It's a bearing set for the crank, and it is in NO WAY a bracket of any sort. Pre-peak stupidity...
*** It's STILL not done.
Comments:
Moderator
Tuesday - August 20th 2024 3:08PM MST
PS: Here's that story for comparison to yours, Mr. Hail.
In Seattle, at least 20 something years back, I'd say things were pretty genteel on the streets. Drivers would hardly EVER honk in anger. (Use of the horn as a warning, is, of course, the purpose.) Another thing is that pedestrians were very law-abiding. I mean, with no cars in sight, they'd still wait for that "Walk" sign or symbol at the traffic lights.
I didn't feel the need to wait one time, as I was crossing one of the SE-NW streets that go down or up hill. The light was red and the signal showed "don't walk" with one of those red/orange palms. I could see up the whole next block of this one-way street - nobody was coming.
When I got most of the way across, this cop - no roided-out bullet-proof-vest wearing loud asshole at all - came up to me. "Hey, did you see the don't walk symbol." "Yeah, but nobody's coming, you know, and I didn't feel the need..." "Yeah, but the fact is that sign means don't walk, so, can I walk you back across and we'll wait until you're supposed to go?" It was 30 ft, and I was already on the other side. I said something like "I'm good. I mean, I'm already over here." "Yeah, well if you don't want a jaywalking ticket, you'll go back across with me." Ha! What could I do? If nothing else, he was so nice about it.
In Seattle, at least 20 something years back, I'd say things were pretty genteel on the streets. Drivers would hardly EVER honk in anger. (Use of the horn as a warning, is, of course, the purpose.) Another thing is that pedestrians were very law-abiding. I mean, with no cars in sight, they'd still wait for that "Walk" sign or symbol at the traffic lights.
I didn't feel the need to wait one time, as I was crossing one of the SE-NW streets that go down or up hill. The light was red and the signal showed "don't walk" with one of those red/orange palms. I could see up the whole next block of this one-way street - nobody was coming.
When I got most of the way across, this cop - no roided-out bullet-proof-vest wearing loud asshole at all - came up to me. "Hey, did you see the don't walk symbol." "Yeah, but nobody's coming, you know, and I didn't feel the need..." "Yeah, but the fact is that sign means don't walk, so, can I walk you back across and we'll wait until you're supposed to go?" It was 30 ft, and I was already on the other side. I said something like "I'm good. I mean, I'm already over here." "Yeah, well if you don't want a jaywalking ticket, you'll go back across with me." Ha! What could I do? If nothing else, he was so nice about it.
Hail
Tuesday - August 20th 2024 12:46PM MST
PS
(sentence got cut off below -- "if the automobile-age had not been dawning and pro-automobile..." should read "...given that pro-automobile forces were by then ready to take on any sleek-sounding new term to help claim moral-right to all roads, all the time).
(sentence got cut off below -- "if the automobile-age had not been dawning and pro-automobile..." should read "...given that pro-automobile forces were by then ready to take on any sleek-sounding new term to help claim moral-right to all roads, all the time).
Hail
Tuesday - August 20th 2024 12:44PM MST
PS
From Adam Smith in the other thread:
_____________
https://i.ibb.co/RpJ0FP6/Dont-Jaywalk.jpg
(Just Kidding)
_____________
.
My comment:
"Jaywalking" as a term is said to have risen from obscure origins in the 1910s and entered American-English in the 1920s. Possibly first coined in the early-1910s, as a mild derogatory-jest term similar to today's "Florida Man." In its first decade or so of life, the term may evolved to vaguely mean "some bozo wandering cluelessly through traffic on a busy road."
The term first popped up in unclear context in Kansas, the term 'Jayhawker' being long associated with the state. The evolution to 'Jay-walker' was a natural one, as long as men are alive to breathe and pun. It may have faded into the ether never heard again, if the automobile-age had not been dawning and pro-automobile
In the 1920s, as the automobile age begins in earnest at a large scale in the USA, 'Jaywalking' acquires the meaning Americans would later associate with it: people generally understand it to mean any "illegal" street-crossing outside designated areas, any renegade pedestrian crossing streets ignoring the benevolent-regulation of the Traffic Light.
In practice, these rules are ignored by most people most of the time, and few jurisdictions have actively enforced anti-"jaywalking" rules in recent memory. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than in Manhattan. It's hard to imagine someone like "Governor Kathy Hochul" (who had a prime speaking-slot at the DNC this week) demanding police crackdown on all "jaywalkers" in the name of Safetyism. It would be even stupider, in the case of Manhattan case, than the mask-mandates, social-distancing bubbles to stand on, and vaccine-passports of yore.
From Adam Smith in the other thread:
_____________
https://i.ibb.co/RpJ0FP6/Dont-Jaywalk.jpg
(Just Kidding)
_____________
.
My comment:
"Jaywalking" as a term is said to have risen from obscure origins in the 1910s and entered American-English in the 1920s. Possibly first coined in the early-1910s, as a mild derogatory-jest term similar to today's "Florida Man." In its first decade or so of life, the term may evolved to vaguely mean "some bozo wandering cluelessly through traffic on a busy road."
The term first popped up in unclear context in Kansas, the term 'Jayhawker' being long associated with the state. The evolution to 'Jay-walker' was a natural one, as long as men are alive to breathe and pun. It may have faded into the ether never heard again, if the automobile-age had not been dawning and pro-automobile
In the 1920s, as the automobile age begins in earnest at a large scale in the USA, 'Jaywalking' acquires the meaning Americans would later associate with it: people generally understand it to mean any "illegal" street-crossing outside designated areas, any renegade pedestrian crossing streets ignoring the benevolent-regulation of the Traffic Light.
In practice, these rules are ignored by most people most of the time, and few jurisdictions have actively enforced anti-"jaywalking" rules in recent memory. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than in Manhattan. It's hard to imagine someone like "Governor Kathy Hochul" (who had a prime speaking-slot at the DNC this week) demanding police crackdown on all "jaywalkers" in the name of Safetyism. It would be even stupider, in the case of Manhattan case, than the mask-mandates, social-distancing bubbles to stand on, and vaccine-passports of yore.
Hail
Tuesday - August 20th 2024 10:07AM MST
PS
The indomitable Adam Smith has made some interesting discoveries in the "Conservative Case for Trump" book (published early September 2016, nearly exactly eight years ago):
https://peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=3108
The indomitable Adam Smith has made some interesting discoveries in the "Conservative Case for Trump" book (published early September 2016, nearly exactly eight years ago):
https://peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=3108
Moderator
Tuesday - August 20th 2024 8:05AM MST
PS: Thank you, Mr. Hail, for getting on that soapbox for me! I've told people that there are plenty of roads or streets for which it's safer to cross far away from the intersections. Yes, you've got rights on red, lefts on green, all involving drivers who may or may not be distracted and not see you.
Your head must be on a swivel at a busy intersection. Far from the intersections, you only have to look both ways as far as is safe, i.e., to a distance at which no car could get you.
I'll relate a similar but much more pleasant experience with a cop that had a problem with my jaywalking later on... gotta go now...
Your head must be on a swivel at a busy intersection. Far from the intersections, you only have to look both ways as far as is safe, i.e., to a distance at which no car could get you.
I'll relate a similar but much more pleasant experience with a cop that had a problem with my jaywalking later on... gotta go now...
Hail
Monday - August 19th 2024 10:46PM MST
PS
-- Laws vs. safety, crosswalk and angry police edition --
A police officer recently yelled these words to me:
.... "THAT'S -NOT- A CROSSWALK!"
It was loud enough, the voice angrily 'authoritative' enough, to make anyone worried. We were separated by a fairly long distance but the voice carried because there was no other sounds (no cars, on which more shortly). The tone, even over the distance, is exactly the one you dread in a U.S. police-officer: the angry indignant "obey my commands or I'll use force" tone. If he's that "worked up," armed with both ego and firearm, is shouting at you in the loudest "parade ground" voice he can muster, and misinterprets my movements, who knows? Bad situation to be in. (There are a lot of idiots out there, and idiocy does not go into full-hibernation when the badge is on.)
Soon enough I realized the police officer was yelling at me. But I was already two-thirds or more of the way across. I didn't think it made sense to "go back." The only thing that came to mind in the moment was to do a motion like putting my hands in the air, as sports players to do signify "no foul, it wasn't me, I didn't do anything wrong (or didn't intend to do 'anything wrong'..."), and maybe by instinct to show I was unarmed, just in case...
I kept crossing and proceeded at a trot but not too fast as to draw any more suspicion or unwanted shouting from off yonder. Despite his loud rebuke, neither he nor his partner made any further contact, issued no 'orders'. I made a swift exit from the 'scene'; I had done nothing wrong, as I saw it, but felt like I was escaping from a crime. Maybe in instinctual defiance of the illogic of the thing, moments after arriving on the safe-side of the street I crossed over to another and flagrantly "jaywalked" again on the next street (a quieter street).
The brief encounter made me think: who was morally right in this case? It's a good test-case of nominal laws versus reality and "making stuff work."
At the place in question, there were no cars coming in any direction. There were three possible directions; all clear as far as the eye could see. I know the area and have done this kind of crossing many times, and seen many others do similar. I know the area well enough to know that at the crosswalk down the way, there are car-drivers who are doing hard turns and things that may not see people who are obediently trying to "obey the law". It's quite possible I knew the 'ropes' here better than the angry policeman over there who yelled so loud. It was past dusk, dark.
I could go on, but suffice it to say: I was safer crossing in mid-street, after having confirmed that no one was coming in any direction. Following the letter of the law, I would've be less safe and thus others too may have been less safe.
I concluded that in the real world, you do what needs to be done and you get things done. There are lots of "crosswalks" that are not necessarily SAFER than crossing an open, empty street. It's much the same with bicycles, and the various traffic-rules that in theory are applicable but that actually need to be adapted or amended to fit local conditions.
On the police officer's side, there is technically (I guess) an anti-"jaywalking" ordinance out there on some law-book. I later remembered that one reason the police at that particular corner might be 'snappy' is because sometime about one or two or three years ago, a mentally unbalanced Black male approached a police-post there and ended up killing one of them, so they may be on edge. But still, in the general vicinity you must have up to hundreds of people doing blatant "non-crosswalk crossing" within eyeshot of that place.
All over any place wherever walkers are found, there are people doing lesser or greater versions of the same. Not because they are bad people or anarchistic types who deliberately break laws for the fun of it etc., but because it works and the norms are to cross when it is safe, not stupidly obey a cross-signal (if any) which may not even guarantee safety (given fast-turning cars and similar possible situations).
Conclusion: A great deal of 'policing' as it exists, at least among White-Western people, is unnecessary. We already knew that, I'd say. But a portion of it is even counter-productive. There can be an arbitrariness to it. Enforcing some laws strictly can even be counter-productive if the overall goal is general well-being.
-- Laws vs. safety, crosswalk and angry police edition --
A police officer recently yelled these words to me:
.... "THAT'S -NOT- A CROSSWALK!"
It was loud enough, the voice angrily 'authoritative' enough, to make anyone worried. We were separated by a fairly long distance but the voice carried because there was no other sounds (no cars, on which more shortly). The tone, even over the distance, is exactly the one you dread in a U.S. police-officer: the angry indignant "obey my commands or I'll use force" tone. If he's that "worked up," armed with both ego and firearm, is shouting at you in the loudest "parade ground" voice he can muster, and misinterprets my movements, who knows? Bad situation to be in. (There are a lot of idiots out there, and idiocy does not go into full-hibernation when the badge is on.)
Soon enough I realized the police officer was yelling at me. But I was already two-thirds or more of the way across. I didn't think it made sense to "go back." The only thing that came to mind in the moment was to do a motion like putting my hands in the air, as sports players to do signify "no foul, it wasn't me, I didn't do anything wrong (or didn't intend to do 'anything wrong'..."), and maybe by instinct to show I was unarmed, just in case...
I kept crossing and proceeded at a trot but not too fast as to draw any more suspicion or unwanted shouting from off yonder. Despite his loud rebuke, neither he nor his partner made any further contact, issued no 'orders'. I made a swift exit from the 'scene'; I had done nothing wrong, as I saw it, but felt like I was escaping from a crime. Maybe in instinctual defiance of the illogic of the thing, moments after arriving on the safe-side of the street I crossed over to another and flagrantly "jaywalked" again on the next street (a quieter street).
The brief encounter made me think: who was morally right in this case? It's a good test-case of nominal laws versus reality and "making stuff work."
At the place in question, there were no cars coming in any direction. There were three possible directions; all clear as far as the eye could see. I know the area and have done this kind of crossing many times, and seen many others do similar. I know the area well enough to know that at the crosswalk down the way, there are car-drivers who are doing hard turns and things that may not see people who are obediently trying to "obey the law". It's quite possible I knew the 'ropes' here better than the angry policeman over there who yelled so loud. It was past dusk, dark.
I could go on, but suffice it to say: I was safer crossing in mid-street, after having confirmed that no one was coming in any direction. Following the letter of the law, I would've be less safe and thus others too may have been less safe.
I concluded that in the real world, you do what needs to be done and you get things done. There are lots of "crosswalks" that are not necessarily SAFER than crossing an open, empty street. It's much the same with bicycles, and the various traffic-rules that in theory are applicable but that actually need to be adapted or amended to fit local conditions.
On the police officer's side, there is technically (I guess) an anti-"jaywalking" ordinance out there on some law-book. I later remembered that one reason the police at that particular corner might be 'snappy' is because sometime about one or two or three years ago, a mentally unbalanced Black male approached a police-post there and ended up killing one of them, so they may be on edge. But still, in the general vicinity you must have up to hundreds of people doing blatant "non-crosswalk crossing" within eyeshot of that place.
All over any place wherever walkers are found, there are people doing lesser or greater versions of the same. Not because they are bad people or anarchistic types who deliberately break laws for the fun of it etc., but because it works and the norms are to cross when it is safe, not stupidly obey a cross-signal (if any) which may not even guarantee safety (given fast-turning cars and similar possible situations).
Conclusion: A great deal of 'policing' as it exists, at least among White-Western people, is unnecessary. We already knew that, I'd say. But a portion of it is even counter-productive. There can be an arbitrariness to it. Enforcing some laws strictly can even be counter-productive if the overall goal is general well-being.
Adam Smith
Monday - August 19th 2024 6:41PM MST
PS: Good evening, Achmed!
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ "๐๐๐๐" ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ค๐๐๐, ๐๐. ๐๐๐๐กโ. ๐ผ'๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข - ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ.
Thanks. It's kinda like a little hobby of mine. A puzzle if you will. And I thought a little more about why The Alarmist didn't get the signin wall. It could be that he hasn't reached the limit on free articles yet, or, it could be that he has javascript disabled on his browser.
When I open up developer tools in my broswer for the page in question and disable javascript it does the same thing. No more popup. It also works if I disable javascript "globally" in my browser. No more signin wall. (Disabling java is a pretty well known way to get around many soft paywalls.)
(Anyway...)
I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening! โฎ๏ธ
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ "๐๐๐๐" ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ค๐๐๐, ๐๐. ๐๐๐๐กโ. ๐ผ'๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข - ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ.
Thanks. It's kinda like a little hobby of mine. A puzzle if you will. And I thought a little more about why The Alarmist didn't get the signin wall. It could be that he hasn't reached the limit on free articles yet, or, it could be that he has javascript disabled on his browser.
When I open up developer tools in my broswer for the page in question and disable javascript it does the same thing. No more popup. It also works if I disable javascript "globally" in my browser. No more signin wall. (Disabling java is a pretty well known way to get around many soft paywalls.)
(Anyway...)
I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening! โฎ๏ธ
Moderator
Monday - August 19th 2024 5:47PM MST
PS: Hello Possumman. I am just guessing, but do you like the ''bent bike because it's easier on your lower back? I used to feel it on the regular bikes but not lately. (i think it's how I sleep.) When working hard out - speaking of cardiology - in the gym, I always choose the recumbent bike for that reason. Torquing out for a good while on a normal bike is something I'll feel in my back.
Those things though are pretty dangerous due to the lack of visibility, IMO. You've got lights, but how about a pennant or 2 raised up? My friend, who seems to have to have ALL types of vehicles (includes an ice cream buggy) - he can fix them all - bought this stupid (IMNHO) China-made "Ice Bear" thing. You sit pretty low on it. I'm surprised he's not been hit yet.]
I'm glad to hear from another cyclist.
Tangentially on topic, since you mentioned that rolling action vs. stopping and putting a foot down, there are occasions where that's safer in a car too, so I do it. (Cops are not around as much now.) An example was in a big city where at this one T-intersection the parked cars COMPLETELY obstruct the view for a turn either way. One can poke his hood out, but what's the point? Then, you're flat-out in the road. Nobody could possibly miss you. It'd be low speed, but there'd be no view for either of you.
However, about 20 ft shy of the intersection, there's a place with a view of the other street. So that's where I'd make a decision to go or stop there. One time, as I rolled on around some dude in his car yelled out "Nice stop!" sarcastically. There wasn't time to explain to him, but I wonder if I got pulled and went to court how it'd go. I'd love to have had diagrams and glossy pictures with circles and arrows...
Have fun riding and keep away from the evil cars.
Those things though are pretty dangerous due to the lack of visibility, IMO. You've got lights, but how about a pennant or 2 raised up? My friend, who seems to have to have ALL types of vehicles (includes an ice cream buggy) - he can fix them all - bought this stupid (IMNHO) China-made "Ice Bear" thing. You sit pretty low on it. I'm surprised he's not been hit yet.]
I'm glad to hear from another cyclist.
Tangentially on topic, since you mentioned that rolling action vs. stopping and putting a foot down, there are occasions where that's safer in a car too, so I do it. (Cops are not around as much now.) An example was in a big city where at this one T-intersection the parked cars COMPLETELY obstruct the view for a turn either way. One can poke his hood out, but what's the point? Then, you're flat-out in the road. Nobody could possibly miss you. It'd be low speed, but there'd be no view for either of you.
However, about 20 ft shy of the intersection, there's a place with a view of the other street. So that's where I'd make a decision to go or stop there. One time, as I rolled on around some dude in his car yelled out "Nice stop!" sarcastically. There wasn't time to explain to him, but I wonder if I got pulled and went to court how it'd go. I'd love to have had diagrams and glossy pictures with circles and arrows...
Have fun riding and keep away from the evil cars.
Moderator
Monday - August 19th 2024 5:36PM MST
PS: Nice job getting into the "code" to get around the paywall, Mr. Smith. I'm proud of you - seriously.
Good to see you here, SafeNow. I am lucky not to have that problem, though I surely need a new seat on that old classic. (I have to go back to the bike store to get the style again - the guy told me a few years ago, but I forgot.). That cardiologist is right, and there are others right up there too. I'm glad, haha, I shouldn't say... that's all you've got.
Good to see you here, SafeNow. I am lucky not to have that problem, though I surely need a new seat on that old classic. (I have to go back to the bike store to get the style again - the guy told me a few years ago, but I forgot.). That cardiologist is right, and there are others right up there too. I'm glad, haha, I shouldn't say... that's all you've got.
Moderator
Monday - August 19th 2024 5:32PM MST
PS: I've never been a big fan of what we call "traffic circles", Alarmist, and I mean for any vehicles. There are some out in the county/country and just one of the things I detest is that, without the GPS boxes (or car equipment) that most people use, it's harder to tell whether you're staying on the same damn road. Signs are not so ubiquitous any more. (Yeah, it should be the one straight ahead, but there IS no turn right at the 180 deg. mark!)
I started thinking about going elevated or underground for the bikes at these rotaries, but that'd be even more expensive. China has a whole lot of complicate pedestrian crossings that are elevated. Then again, they have the bucks right now. (I mean, even in what might be called "villages" - only a million people there or so.)
I started thinking about going elevated or underground for the bikes at these rotaries, but that'd be even more expensive. China has a whole lot of complicate pedestrian crossings that are elevated. Then again, they have the bucks right now. (I mean, even in what might be called "villages" - only a million people there or so.)
Possumman
Monday - August 19th 2024 3:48PM MST
PS. I ride just about everyday and worse still it is often on a recumbent bike or a lowslung recumbent trike. I consider traffic laws optional for me as my safety comes first. It is generally more dangerous for me to stop and put my foot down then just proceed. Also I often take my lane rather than let someone scrape by me at 40 mph I carry pepper spray as some a-holes get very upset from time to time and dogs seem to hate recumbents I also wear a helmet,Have blinky lights and use my mirror and signal for turns. So far so good--just be careful and once you go 'bent you don't come back.
Adam Smith
Monday - August 19th 2024 3:08PM MST
PS: Greetings, Mr. Alarmist!
๐๐๐ฆ๐ค๐๐๐ is kind of the wrong word for it...
https://i.ibb.co/7CMFW6h/Telegraph.png
I thought that it was one of those situations where they give you like five free articles and then ask you to signup but I get the same message in a clean browser. It could be a geographic location thing or even an ip address thing. I don't know. ๏ผs๏ผIt might be in the source code, but I'm not really that interested and I'm too lazy to look.๏ผ/s๏ผ
Ok. So I took a look. And I found this line...
๏ผscript src="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/martech/js/core.min.js" defer=""๏ผ๏ผ/script๏ผ
In other words, this is the file that manages the signup wall...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/martech/js/core.min.js
When I delete the this line...
๏ผscript src="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/martech/js/core.min.js" defer=""๏ผ๏ผ/script๏ผ
from the code it deletes the signup wall and lets me read the page. (Great success!)
----------
๐๐ด๐ปโโ๏ธ = Nice!
Occasionally I'll see someone riding a bicycle around here. But, for the most part, because of the topography the roads are really not well suited to any but the most advanced bicyclists. Most anyone (who is not a professional cyclist) riding the roads around Lumpkinville is either dangerously stupid or has a death wish. (or both, i guess)
Cheers to a wonderful evening, Mr. Alarmist! โฎ๏ธ
๐๐๐ฆ๐ค๐๐๐ is kind of the wrong word for it...
https://i.ibb.co/7CMFW6h/Telegraph.png
I thought that it was one of those situations where they give you like five free articles and then ask you to signup but I get the same message in a clean browser. It could be a geographic location thing or even an ip address thing. I don't know. ๏ผs๏ผIt might be in the source code, but I'm not really that interested and I'm too lazy to look.๏ผ/s๏ผ
Ok. So I took a look. And I found this line...
๏ผscript src="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/martech/js/core.min.js" defer=""๏ผ๏ผ/script๏ผ
In other words, this is the file that manages the signup wall...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/martech/js/core.min.js
When I delete the this line...
๏ผscript src="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/martech/js/core.min.js" defer=""๏ผ๏ผ/script๏ผ
from the code it deletes the signup wall and lets me read the page. (Great success!)
----------
๐๐ด๐ปโโ๏ธ = Nice!
Occasionally I'll see someone riding a bicycle around here. But, for the most part, because of the topography the roads are really not well suited to any but the most advanced bicyclists. Most anyone (who is not a professional cyclist) riding the roads around Lumpkinville is either dangerously stupid or has a death wish. (or both, i guess)
Cheers to a wonderful evening, Mr. Alarmist! โฎ๏ธ
The Alarmist
Monday - August 19th 2024 1:29PM MST
PS
Evening Mr. Smith. Thanks. It wasnโt paywalled for me. Hmm.
I should have said UK & EU. Thereโs plenty of stupidity on the Continent too.
The UK has a real d***head cyclist in the form of BBC presenter Jeremy Vine, who loves to publicise his GoPro footage of his perilous rides around London. Sure, some footage shows drivers either not paying attention or not caring about cyclists in the road, but in more than a few of his videos he is clearly at fault ... but weโre all supposed to sob for the cyclists. There was a point where a number of cyclists took to riding on the sidewalks in a city where I worked, and that is when I started to carry a rugged golf umbrella to test their jousting skills.
๐๐ด๐ปโโ๏ธ
๐
Evening Mr. Smith. Thanks. It wasnโt paywalled for me. Hmm.
I should have said UK & EU. Thereโs plenty of stupidity on the Continent too.
The UK has a real d***head cyclist in the form of BBC presenter Jeremy Vine, who loves to publicise his GoPro footage of his perilous rides around London. Sure, some footage shows drivers either not paying attention or not caring about cyclists in the road, but in more than a few of his videos he is clearly at fault ... but weโre all supposed to sob for the cyclists. There was a point where a number of cyclists took to riding on the sidewalks in a city where I worked, and that is when I started to carry a rugged golf umbrella to test their jousting skills.
๐๐ด๐ปโโ๏ธ
๐
Adam Smith
Monday - August 19th 2024 12:52PM MST
PS: Good evening, Mr. Alarmist!
Here's a link to a paywall free version of your telegraph article...
https://archive.ph/JiW9m
Cheers! โฎ๏ธ
Here's a link to a paywall free version of your telegraph article...
https://archive.ph/JiW9m
Cheers! โฎ๏ธ
The Alarmist
Monday - August 19th 2024 12:39PM MST
PS
Yeah, theyโre doing this stupidity on steroids in the EU. Iโm pretty sure the bike riders arenโt paying nearly as much in tax as the people being made later to work to give them their precious safe-space.
Stupidity like this....
https://cf.eip.telegraph.co.uk/illustrator-embed/content/27b62bb4302585c569732d3f3ad8f43af4a41485/1700327377458.jpg
from:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/dedicated-cyclists-roundabout-london-most-dangerous/
๐
Yeah, theyโre doing this stupidity on steroids in the EU. Iโm pretty sure the bike riders arenโt paying nearly as much in tax as the people being made later to work to give them their precious safe-space.
Stupidity like this....
https://cf.eip.telegraph.co.uk/illustrator-embed/content/27b62bb4302585c569732d3f3ad8f43af4a41485/1700327377458.jpg
from:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/dedicated-cyclists-roundabout-london-most-dangerous/
๐
SafeNow
Monday - August 19th 2024 11:36AM MST
PS
By coincidence or synchronicity, right now I am having cycling problems involving my own bottom bracket. I have been experimenting with various styles of padded, seamless cycle shorts, and also gel-padded wide saddles that have an indentation to accommodate my painful, chafed-skin bottom bracket.
In โManchester by the Seaโ a cardiologist tells her patient โthis is not a good disease.โ The frustrated patient asks, Well, what IS a good disease. She replies,
Athleteโs Foot. I guess my chafed bottom bracket falls into that category, so I will stop complaining..
By coincidence or synchronicity, right now I am having cycling problems involving my own bottom bracket. I have been experimenting with various styles of padded, seamless cycle shorts, and also gel-padded wide saddles that have an indentation to accommodate my painful, chafed-skin bottom bracket.
In โManchester by the Seaโ a cardiologist tells her patient โthis is not a good disease.โ The frustrated patient asks, Well, what IS a good disease. She replies,
Athleteโs Foot. I guess my chafed bottom bracket falls into that category, so I will stop complaining..
Moderator
Monday - August 19th 2024 11:10AM MST
PS: Haha, that's probably a better meme for this post, Adam. I can't switch it out just now though. Have a good afternoon.
Moderator
Monday - August 19th 2024 11:09AM MST
PS: Llama, I've been doing Idaho Stops before I'd ever heard of Idaho, much less Idaho Stops: ;-} I did have to look that up just now. As for motorcyclists, those laws are (mainly?) about the fact that the induction sensors embedded in the road often don't pick up the small vehicles.
Looking at this particular situation, I can see that 3 of the "violations" are not so much for my safety as for keeping going on a downhill. All of those are safe enough moves, though, with an "out". Then, there's a complicated crossing of an intersection with a light. Red or green, I'm better off taking a left into the oncoming lane. I can see that traffic first (can always cut to the sidewalk), and one uphill road would have drivers that wouldn't see me. Finally, that one has a railroad track at a bad angle for me were I to make the turn "correctly". After looking left, I can look right over my shoulder and decide if it's OK to get in that proper lane.
Then, there's a turn from a left-turn lane (safer place to be while the light is red) caddy-corner across to the sidewalk on the other side. I have to look right over my shoulder and also get moving before the cars in said left-turn lane do. There's the sidewalk itself. That turn though is where the cop had the problem. It's the safest way to do it, though.
Looking at this particular situation, I can see that 3 of the "violations" are not so much for my safety as for keeping going on a downhill. All of those are safe enough moves, though, with an "out". Then, there's a complicated crossing of an intersection with a light. Red or green, I'm better off taking a left into the oncoming lane. I can see that traffic first (can always cut to the sidewalk), and one uphill road would have drivers that wouldn't see me. Finally, that one has a railroad track at a bad angle for me were I to make the turn "correctly". After looking left, I can look right over my shoulder and decide if it's OK to get in that proper lane.
Then, there's a turn from a left-turn lane (safer place to be while the light is red) caddy-corner across to the sidewalk on the other side. I have to look right over my shoulder and also get moving before the cars in said left-turn lane do. There's the sidewalk itself. That turn though is where the cop had the problem. It's the safest way to do it, though.
Adam Smith
Monday - August 19th 2024 10:18AM MST
PS: Good afternoon, Mr. Moderator and Frens!
https://i.ibb.co/hRmGcbT/Without-Government.jpg
Cheers! โฎ๏ธ
https://i.ibb.co/hRmGcbT/Without-Government.jpg
Cheers! โฎ๏ธ
llama
Monday - August 19th 2024 9:27AM MST
PS
By breaking the law do you mean the Idaho Stop?
By breaking the law do you mean the Idaho Stop?
I noticed an old lady in front of me who did not look at all. She had fixated on that signal, and when it said walk, she figured it's the voice of god or something. She stepped off the curb only looking at that sign. All it would have taken is one driver to run the red maybe 3 seconds into the red, and she'd have been wiped out.
What can you say about that kind of mindless mentality?
Mr. Hail, thanks for that history and speculation about the origins of the term "jaywalking". No, I'm sure Governor Hul Chi Minh of New York could not institute jaywalking enforcement for another reason: RACISSS! I know that everyone in New York City does, but when it comes to other places, it's the young black people that do what you mentioned at the beginning, just uncaringly sauntering in the middle of the road, along those lines of "some bozo wandering cluelessly through traffic on a busy road." And, they really are harder to see at night.