| Re: Buses with racks go a long way
Rod Speed wrote:
> Fred G. Mackey <nospam@dont.spam> wrote:
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>The Real Bev <bashley101+xp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>josh@phred.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <52n0hjF1p159oU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on
>>>>>>Interstates less than sensible, even though the accident rate is
>>>>>>neglible?
>>>>>
>>>>>Interstates aint freeways.
>>>>
>>>>They are in the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What is the distinction you are trying to make?
>
>
> That all freeways ban bikes and that not all interstates are freeways even in the USA.
>
Are you thick?
What is the distinction between an interstate and a freeway?
>
>>For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a
>>freeway as well - it's even known as the Katy Freeway in one town that it passes through. What
>>makes it an exception?
>
>
> I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.
And I'm asking you to explain why you think an interstate is NOT a freeway.
What is different about I-10 that makes it a freeway?
>
>
>>Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town?
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
>>At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate?
>
>
> Irrelevant to what was being discussed, where bikes are banned.
>
>
The discussion has turned to trying to understand why you claim that
interstates are not freeways.
|