Crashed today - Page 19 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

12-13-2004, 06:49 PM

>Frank Krygowski [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote in part:

>Here's what I find, on re-reading:
>
>"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
>they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."
>
>"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
>when construction resumes."
>
>"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
>when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
>yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
>blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
>word had not reached the job site."
>
>"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
>the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
>concerned about the safety issue."
>
>This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It
>> was a simple human error ...
>
>It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
>something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)

Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".

>If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
>bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
>again."

On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.

>Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
>about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
>litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
>responsibility - especially when caught!

Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

12-14-2004, 08:36 AM

Hunrobe wrote:

>>Frank Krygowski [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>Here's what I find, on re-reading:
>>
>>"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
>>they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."
>>
>>"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
>>when construction resumes."
>>
>>"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
>>when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
>>yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
>>blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
>>word had not reached the job site."
>>
>>"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
>>the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
>>concerned about the safety issue."
>>
>>This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It
>>
>>>was a simple human error ...
>>
>>It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
>>something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)
>
>
> Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
> marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
> can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".
>
>
>>If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
>>bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
>>again."
>
>
> On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.
>
>
>
>>Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
>>about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
>>litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
>>responsibility - especially when caught!
>
>
> Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
> complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
> though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
> where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
> I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
> action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
> swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Fine. The picture of the "shoulder" is now taken down, so I can't point
to what it _really_ looked like anyway.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

12-14-2004, 08:36 AM

Hunrobe wrote:

>>Frank Krygowski [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>Here's what I find, on re-reading:
>>
>>"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
>>they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."
>>
>>"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
>>when construction resumes."
>>
>>"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
>>when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
>>yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
>>blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
>>word had not reached the job site."
>>
>>"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
>>the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
>>concerned about the safety issue."
>>
>>This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It
>>
>>>was a simple human error ...
>>
>>It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
>>something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)
>
>
> Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
> marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
> can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".
>
>
>>If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
>>bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
>>again."
>
>
> On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.
>
>
>
>>Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
>>about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
>>litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
>>responsibility - especially when caught!
>
>
> Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
> complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
> though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
> where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
> I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
> action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
> swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Fine. The picture of the "shoulder" is now taken down, so I can't point
to what it _really_ looked like anyway.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

12-14-2004, 08:36 AM

Hunrobe wrote:

>>Frank Krygowski [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>Here's what I find, on re-reading:
>>
>>"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
>>they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."
>>
>>"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
>>when construction resumes."
>>
>>"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
>>when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
>>yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
>>blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
>>word had not reached the job site."
>>
>>"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
>>the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
>>concerned about the safety issue."
>>
>>This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It
>>
>>>was a simple human error ...
>>
>>It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
>>something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)
>
>
> Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
> marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
> can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".
>
>
>>If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
>>bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
>>again."
>
>
> On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.
>
>
>
>>Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
>>about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
>>litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
>>responsibility - especially when caught!
>
>
> Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
> complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
> though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
> where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
> I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
> action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
> swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Fine. The picture of the "shoulder" is now taken down, so I can't point
to what it _really_ looked like anyway.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

12-14-2004, 08:36 AM

Hunrobe wrote:

>>Frank Krygowski [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>Here's what I find, on re-reading:
>>
>>"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
>>they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."
>>
>>"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
>>when construction resumes."
>>
>>"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
>>when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
>>yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
>>blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
>>word had not reached the job site."
>>
>>"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
>>the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
>>concerned about the safety issue."
>>
>>This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It
>>
>>>was a simple human error ...
>>
>>It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
>>something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)
>
>
> Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
> marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
> can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".
>
>
>>If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
>>bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
>>again."
>
>
> On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.
>
>
>
>>Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
>>about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
>>litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
>>responsibility - especially when caught!
>
>
> Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
> complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
> though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
> where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
> I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
> action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
> swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Fine. The picture of the "shoulder" is now taken down, so I can't point
to what it _really_ looked like anyway.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]