kylejack

Residents who don't purchase or build adequate parking accommodations at their residence get "inconvenienced" by other people parking on a public street. If they want more parking, let them build it. The public street is paid for by all of us.

Works fine in Minneapolis. Just need to create some separation between the track and the trail. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Minneapolis,+MN&hl=en&ll=44.945909,-93.327404&spn=0.001146,0.002064&sll=31.168934,-100.076842&sspn=16.023013,33.815918&oq=minnea&hnear=Minneapolis,+Hennepin,+Minnesota&t=h&z=20&lci=bike Zoom that out a bit and see the best bike network in the country. Amazing what Minneapolis has done.

I think that some narrow streets either have their street parking suspended entirely, or only allow it on one side of the street. That, or even certain streets that require a resident tag seem fine to me. Better than putting the onus on the businesses.

The problem of mentally ill people having access to guns is very serious. Many of the active shooters in recent history have a history of mental illness. The Virginia Tech shooter and the one who shot Congresswoman Gifford were known by many to be crazy. Campus police had actually banned that latter from a campus because of his crazy behavior. Something must be done about insane people getting guns, and I think it's perfectly sensible to suspend someone's gun rights if they've been transported to a mental health facility during a paranoid schizophrenic break.

Blocking driveways is illegal and tow trucks are happy to oblige.

City proper.

Torchy's and the Heights are the best possible fit, and I mean that in the worst possible way.

Not in that big old truck you're always boasting about.

Houston not even in the top 70 most populous cities in the world. Not sure where you think the people would be going on a Saturday afternoon at this corner. I probably walked past you going back to my apartment, but Pavilions traffic would be located closer to Pavilions and Market Square traffic would be over there. Aside from Saucer this particular corner is kind of irrelevant, because it's between two rail stops.

Was discussing with marksmu restaurants that serve alcohol, not Beck's Prime, Lola, Jenni's, Collinas, Thai Spice, Revival Market, Dry Creek, Happy Fatz, soon to be Heights General Store and Torchy's. Yes, I'm aware of Shade and Coltivare, but so many restaurants with no alcohol, I think demonstrates my point.

Not a lot to walk to right around Saucer, but other parts of downtown have more activity. A new bar opened at 410 Main called Clutch City, and lots happening in that area. OKRA Charity Saloon, Hearsay, coming soon a new ramen shop called Goro n Gun and Bad News Bar. Plus established places in the area like Warren's, La Carafe, Charbar.

How do you expect to attract restaurants with alcohol if you support the alcohol ban with s3mh? Down House is an anomaly. Most business people aren't going to see the point in putting up with the "private club" workaround when there's an entire city out there that doesn't restrict them in this way.

More like Domdude, amiright?

Yes, this is one of the most common types of accidents, called the Right Hook. http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/watch-out-for-right-hook.html

The way I see it, bikes are to ride as far to right as they're able, when it is safe. Certain circumstances will dictate taking the lane, but when possible, cyclists should ride to the right. Cars can pass bikes and bikes can pass cars.

If you want to continue on this notion that a bicycle has exactly the same rights as a car, do you then believe that it is illegal for a car to pass a bike in the same lane? Because you certainly can't pass a car in the same lane.

Well that's why I was confused why you kept talking about "the shoulder." I thought we were talking about shoulderless roads, in which case the law instructs cyclists to ride "as near to the curb as practicable."

Those aren't limitations, they are exceptions to the limitation. The limitation is driving on the shoulder. Bikes can ride on the shoulder, flat out. And I'm sure you're happy they can, because that sometimes keeps them completely out of the car lane.

The entire text of the statute is ignored for cyclists. Cyclists don't have to worry about any of it, because none of it applies. © A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to: (1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call; (2) a police patrol; or (3) a bicycle.

Sure, I'll be happy to explain it to you. Bicycles are explicitly allowed to ride on the shoulder while cars are not except in certain circumstances. Sec. 545.058. Driving on Improved Shoulder. [i.e., a paved shoulder outside the traffic lane] (a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only: (1) to stop, stand, or park; (2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic; (3) to decelerate before making a right turn; (4) to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn; (5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass; (6) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or (7) to avoid a collision. ( An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the left of the main traveled portion of a divided or limited-access or controlled-access highway if that operation may be done safely, but only: (1) to slow or stop when the vehicle is disabled and traffic or other circumstances prohibit the safe movement of the vehicle to the shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of the roadway; (2) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or (3) to avoid a collision. © A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to: (1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call; (2) a police patrol; or (3) a bicycle.

People should not be walking on the wrong side of the path, no matter who they are.

Because I enjoy sparring with him on this topic. I think it actually lowers my blood pressure.

Yes it does! "shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb" When you're driving your car, you can't pass another car in the same lane...but you can pass a bike in the same lane. It's the same principle at work. As to shoulders, we're not talking about a shoulder, are we? We're talking about a street with a curb. But yes, of course cyclists are allowed to ride on the shoulder as well.

Well, if you will read the law, you will see that it requires cyclists to ride as near to the right as practicable. If it is practicable to do so, that is what they must do. You shouldn't expect people to disobey the law because it is more convenient for you. Share the road, and if you have to pass a cyclist a second time, well, that's just what you'll have to do.

Riders are required to ride as near to the right as practicable. Waiting behind cars when there is space on the right to move up is not riding as near to the right as practicable, as required by law.