02-04-2007, 08:31 PM
|
#182 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Buses with racks go a long way
Fred G. Mackey <nospam@dont.spam> wrote
> 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
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> 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?
No need to ask you, you can't even manage the most basic logic.
> What is the distinction between an interstate and a freeway?
I never said a word about that.
>>> 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.
I didnt say I did.
> What is different about I-10 that makes it a freeway?
I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is 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.
Because quite a few interestates aint freeways, stupid.
|
|
|  |