 |
 |
| All Forums | Forum List | Register | Members List | Calendar | Bike Rack | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |  |
02-04-2007, 05:44 PM
| #171 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Rod Speed wrote: > The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: > >>Rod Speed wrote: >> >>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>> >>>>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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? 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? Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town? At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate? |
 |
|
02-04-2007, 05:44 PM
| #172 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Rod Speed wrote: > The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: > >>Rod Speed wrote: >> >>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>> >>>>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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? 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? Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town? At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate? |
| |
|
02-04-2007, 06:58 PM
| #173 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: >> >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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. > 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. > 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. |
| |
|
02-04-2007, 06:58 PM
| #174 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: >> >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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. > 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. > 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. |
| |
|
02-04-2007, 07:06 PM
| #175 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Rod Speed wrote: > Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: > >>Rod Speed wrote: >> >>>The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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. |
| |
|
02-04-2007, 07:06 PM
| #176 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Rod Speed wrote: > Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: > >>Rod Speed wrote: >> >>>The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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. |
| |
|
02-04-2007, 07:25 PM
| #177 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Steve Spence wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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. >> > > I-90 is a interstate, and it ain't free. > > Sections of 90 are toll roads but most of it free. Saying is is not free is like saying I-80 is not free because there is a toll on the Bay Bridge. |
| |
|
02-04-2007, 07:25 PM
| #178 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
| Re: Buses with racks go a long way Steve Spence wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote: >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote: >>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, >>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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. >> > > I-90 is a interstate, and it ain't free. > > Sections of 90 are toll roads but most of it free. Saying is is not free is like saying I-80 is not free because there is a toll on the Bay Bridge. |
| |
 |
Add this thread to:
 Tag This Thread  Clesto  Digg  Reddit  Furl  Del.icio.us  Spurl |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Style Design by vBStyles.com
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Style Design by vBStyles.com
