fbpx

New laws in Calfornia for 2014

This topic contains 92 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  plasmadrive 5 years, 9 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #174357

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Here are some new laws in store for Californians

    Bicycles: Passing Distance. AB 1371 (Bradford), known as the Three Feet for Safety Act, will require a motor vehicle driver passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction to pass with no less than 3 feet between any part of the vehicle and any part of the bicycle or driver. When three feet is not possible, the motor vehicle must slow to a reasonable and prudent speed and only pass when no danger is present to the bicyclist. Failing to do so can incur a fine, regardless of a collision or not. This law will take effect September 16, 2014.

    Teen Drivers. SB 194 (Galgiani) will prohibit a person who is under 18 years of age from using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text–based communication while driving, even if it is equipped with a hands–free device.

    California school officials will soon have the authority to discipline students who cyberbully, whether it takes place on campus or off. The new law becomes effective in January.

    CHARTER BUS CARRIERS: Limousines: Emergency Exits (SB 109, Corbett): By January 1st, 2016, every limousine that has been modified or extended to accommodate additional passengers shall have two rear doors and one or two internally removable rear emergency windows. If such modifications occurred on or after July of 2015, these requirements apply immediately after July 1st, 2015. All new limousines manufactured after January 1st, 2015 must meet these requirements as well.

    AB 10, Alejo. Minimum wage: annual adjustment.
    Existing law requires that, on and after January 1, 2008, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $8.00 per hour.
    This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after July 1, 2014, to not less than $9 per hour. The bill would further increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $10 per hour.

  • #262517

    kindrlindr
    Participant
    • Topics - 34
    • Replies - 2,374
    • Total Posts - 2,408

    Does the minimum wage increase affect those workers not making that amount currently? Are all wages going to increase $1. an hour?

  • #262503

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    No, that won’t be a problem. The people making $10 per hour now will be delighted to share the [shrinking] labor pool at their work with those newer and less skilled than they. Celebrate equality.

  • #262518

    kindrlindr
    Participant
    • Topics - 34
    • Replies - 2,374
    • Total Posts - 2,408

    Wow……..we really suck.

  • #262473

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    So on a 25 MPH roadway (like Elk Grove Blvd) we all have to slow down to a crawl to accomodate a bicyclist? That’s crazy! Why can’t the cyclists use bike trails?

  • #262435

    DivotMaker
    Participant
    • Topics - 263
    • Replies - 1,112
    • Total Posts - 1,375

    @bevone 91061 wrote:

    So on a 25 MPH roadway (like Elk Grove Blvd) we all have to slow down to a crawl to accomodate a bicyclist? That’s crazy!

    No, just a reasonable speed to make it safe for you and the cyclist. EG Blvd has plenty of room so 3 feet shouldn’t be an issue. You could also use the oncoming lane in rural areas.

    @bevone 91061 wrote:

    Why can’t the cyclists use bike trails?

    The bike trails have speed limits of 15mph and no serious cyclist goes 15mph. I’ve seen my share of rude cyclist and drivers, so we all need to learn to share the road and be as safe as possible.

    This law exists in Texas according to a friend I know that lives/rides there. I see no downside when safety is concerned.

  • #262438

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Where it can be an issue is on rural roads with no shoulder like Bond and Bader. You can’t pass because of oncoming traffic and double yellow lines.

  • #262439

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @bevone 91061 wrote:

    So on a 25 MPH roadway (like Elk Grove Blvd) we all have to slow down to a crawl to accomodate a bicyclist? That’s crazy! Why can’t the cyclists use bike trails?

    Just run ‘me over. That’ll learn ’em. 🙂

  • #262512

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    I actually agree with the bicyclist law. I don’t think many people realize they need to share the road with cyclists.

    The new laws that I DO NOT like are the driver’s licenses for illegals, and allowing illegals to practice law in California.

  • #262519

    kindrlindr
    Participant
    • Topics - 34
    • Replies - 2,374
    • Total Posts - 2,408

    Illegals can practice law in CA??? Isn’t that an oxymoron???

  • #262440

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    No it’s just moronic. 🙂

    It’s just the liberals pandering to another group for votes since illegals are an increasing group in the state. They can also get a drivers license now too. There has also been the ads about health care as well for illegals. Almost pays not to be a citizen in California.

  • #262474

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @sea 91066 wrote:

    I actually agree with the bicyclist law. I don’t think many people realize they need to share the road with cyclists.

    The new laws that I DO NOT like are the driver’s licenses for illegals, and allowing illegals to practice law in California.

    Since we need to share the roads with cyclists shouldn’t they also pay their share the taxes that maintain those roads? It should work both ways.

  • #262481

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @bevone 91061 wrote:

    So on a 25 MPH roadway (like Elk Grove Blvd) we all have to slow down to a crawl to accomodate a bicyclist? That’s crazy! Why can’t the cyclists use bike trails?

    Shockingly cyclists pay taxes too.

  • #262482

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @bevone 91095 wrote:

    Since we need to share the roads with cyclists shouldn’t they also pay their share the taxes that maintain those roads? It should work both ways.

    I’m willing to bet I pay more taxes a year than you do a decade. Where are you going in a hurry anyway?

  • #262441

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    How would you do that? Many already pay taxes and I don’t think that bikes tear up the roads like cars and trucks.

  • #262499

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    When they widened Bruceville to three lanes south of Laguna, they took out the bike lane and the three lanes are a tight fit. With such a busy street and a speed limit of 40 or 45, it is just dangerous for cyclists to be out there. I understand sharing the road, and I think most cyclists probably try to map their routes to avoid the worst places but those who don’t and insist on their piece of the road in situations like Bruceville make it very dangerous for everyone.

  • #262442

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    A really bad spot near us is on Bond east of Bradshaw where it is 2 lanes, no shoulder. Some idiot parents actually let their kids ride their bikes to middle and high school. If anyone has been on that road between 7:20 and 8:15 am, you know how crazy that is. It is bumper to bumper heading east and a lot of traffic heading west on Bond. Kids riding their bikes going west to school are in a lot of danger. There is no shoulder. With traffic in the other lane, cars can’t pass the bikers and then you have a lot of drivers getting upset going 15 mph on Bond.

  • #262525

    ErinO
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 795
    • Total Posts - 804

    @bevone 91095 wrote:

    Since we need to share the roads with cyclists shouldn’t they also pay their share the taxes that maintain those roads? It should work both ways.

    This is one of those comments that makes me scratch my head. Since when are cyclists exempt from taxes? I need to ride my bike more if it means I don’t have to pay taxes. :sarcastic

  • #262443

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I think maybe Bev means because drivers pay taxes on gas when they fill up so to use the roads they essentially pay a user fee, whereas bikers don’t have to. Other than that I can’t see any other way to understand what she said. :stir:

  • #262483

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @joy 91101 wrote:

    When they widened Bruceville to three lanes south of Laguna, they took out the bike lane and the three lanes are a tight fit. With such a busy street and a speed limit of 40 or 45, it is just dangerous for cyclists to be out there. I understand sharing the road, and I think most cyclists probably try to map their routes to avoid the worst places but those who don’t and insist on their piece of the road in situations like Bruceville make it very dangerous for everyone.

    Just slow down and give a wide berth. You will get to wherever you are going just as quickly. Then ten seconds you spend might save someone’s life.

  • #262475

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @EGL Admin 91107 wrote:

    I think maybe Bev means because drivers pay taxes on gas when they fill up so to use the roads they essentially pay a user fee, whereas bikers don’t have to. Other than that I can’t see any other way to understand what she said. :stir:

    That’s exactly what I meant. Also car taxes aka registration fees. As far as I know it isn’t mandatory for cyclists to pay that.

  • #262476

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @doclaguna 91098 wrote:

    I’m willing to bet I pay more taxes a year than you do a decade. Where are you going in a hurry anyway?

    I bet you do because we never seem to hear the end of it. Believe it or not in spite of the fact I was a State employee I paid (and still pay) taxes too.

  • #262477

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @EGL Admin 91099 wrote:

    How would you do that? Many already pay taxes and I don’t think that bikes tear up the roads like cars and trucks.

    Well for one thing how about ticketing them when they violate the laws? I cannot tell you how many times I see them riding on the wrong side of the road. That makes it difficult for drivers along with a bazzillion other things we have to watch for when driving. That particular thing drives me nuts. Also those idiots who don’t wear helmets both young and old. I will say it again for all of you bike lovers like SDL……you mess with a ton of steel out on the road guess who is going to get the worst of it? Laws or no laws that fact will never change unless someone decides to invent fiberglass cars.

  • #262500

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    @doclaguna 91110 wrote:

    Just slow down and give a wide berth. You will get to wherever you are going just as quickly. Then ten seconds you spend might save someone’s life.

    It is not as simple as that and you know it. Coming across a cyclist going 15mph when a tight three lanes of traffic are all going 40+ is dangerous.

  • #262444

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @joy 91116 wrote:

    It is not as simple as that and you know it. Coming across a cyclist going 15mph when a tight three lanes of traffic are all going 40+ is dangerous.

    Yep. Bike trails which are safer are not fast enough for the poor bikers. So they want to ride 20 mph on roads geared for much faster speeds and they want everyone else to slow down to make it safer for them. Entitled much you spandex wearing goof balls? 🙂

    When you pass them just honk your horn. I think they like that. 😉

  • #262484

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @joy 91116 wrote:

    It is not as simple as that and you know it. Coming across a cyclist going 15mph when a tight three lanes of traffic are all going 40+ is dangerous.

    There is a pedal to the left of the accelerator called a “brake” that you can use, so yes, its that simple.

  • #262485

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @bevone 91115 wrote:

    Well for one thing how about ticketing them when they violate the laws? I cannot tell you how many times I see them riding on the wrong side of the road. That makes it difficult for drivers along with a bazzillion other things we have to watch for when driving. That particular thing drives me nuts. Also those idiots who don’t wear helmets both young and old. I will say it again for all of you bike lovers like SDL……you mess with a ton of steel out on the road guess who is going to get the worst of it? Laws or no laws that fact will never change unless someone decides to invent fiberglass cars.

    No real cyclist is going to ride into traffic, that’s someone on a bike, not a cyclist. Same with not wearing a helmet. These have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Slow the **** down around someone on a bike, it’s pretty simple you old bag.

  • #262486

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91117 wrote:

    Yep. Bike trails which are safer are not fast enough for the poor bikers. So they want to ride 20 mph on roads geared for much faster speeds and they want everyone else to slow down to make it safer for them. Entitled much you spandex wearing goof balls? 🙂

    When you pass them just honk your horn. I think they like that. 😉

    The law and common courtesy are on the cyclists side. It’s pretty simple.

  • #262526

    jusme
    Participant
    • Topics - 258
    • Replies - 800
    • Total Posts - 1,058

    @sea 91066 wrote:

    The new laws that I DO NOT like are the driver’s licenses for illegals, and allowing illegals to practice law in California.

    I am with you Sea, it does not make sense to me to give an illegal a driver’s license let alone the ability to practice law!!!

  • #262462

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    I don’t mind giving licenses to the illegals or letting them practice law. I see no reason why our state should give a damn about who drives as long as they do it safely and pay their taxes to support the system. I also see no reason to restrict the supply of lawyers. I’d do the same things to doctors if I could. 8)

  • #262478

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @doclaguna 91120 wrote:

    No real cyclist is going to ride into traffic, that’s someone on a bike, not a cyclist. Same with not wearing a helmet. These have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Slow the **** down around someone on a bike, it’s pretty simple you old bag.

    :funny3::funny3::funny3:

  • #262513

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    @adiffer 91126 wrote:

    I don’t mind giving licenses to the illegals or letting them practice law. I see no reason why our state should give a damn about who drives as long as they do it safely and pay their taxes to support the system. I also see no reason to restrict the supply of lawyers. I’d do the same things to doctors if I could. 8)

    I mind a lot. This slaps the face of every single person who has immigrated here legally. Why should they have bothered to obey the law and go through the established process? Why shouldn’t all the Mexican criminals (yes, I said it) cross over here? They get rewarded. They are provided health care, food stamps, cash welfare, education, housing, driver’s licenses, ballots and ALL of that in their own language. No incentive to learn our language. No fear of reprisal and no sense of shame. What about all the immigrants who made the effort, abided by the laws, learned the language, and came here to be Americans? How do you suppose they feel about it?

  • #262514

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    As much as I hate to agree with DocL, on this subject I believe he has a point. (However, I am in no way condoning his juvenile name calling.) There are those who ride a bike (some idiots and assholes), and there are cyclists. I think cyclists need a layer of protection from idiot and asshole drivers, and if nothing else this new law brings a fresh awareness for the aforementioned drivers to give a wider berth. Cyclists aren’t going away, they are increasing. Get used to it, and don’t hit them.

  • #262445

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91120 wrote:

    No real cyclist is going to ride into traffic, that’s someone on a bike, not a cyclist. Same with not wearing a helmet. These have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Slow the **** down around someone on a bike, it’s pretty simple you old bag.

    That’s starting the New Years on a good note.

  • #262487

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91132 wrote:

    That’s starting the New Years on a good note.

    I agree. It’s horrible to suggest its OK to run someone over because your car is bigger than their bike, and you disapprove of their method of transportation. Should I proudly declare that I can mow down pedestrians and “they will lose.”

  • #262446

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Well, we’ve already heard before that “cyclists” don’t believe that traffic laws necessarily apply to them. DocL said he doesn’t always stop at stop signs because he has to click out of his pedals. That’s inconvenient I guess. My biggest complaints about idiot bikers is them not obeying traffic laws. They don’t stop at all stop signs and stop lights. I’m making a right turn at a stop sign and they come zipping through without stopping. This law is unnecessary. How many accidents are there involving bikers? Biking with vehicles weighing 2+ tons is a major risk. You can’t legislate that risk out of the situation.

  • #262447

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91133 wrote:

    I agree. It’s horrible to suggest its OK to run someone over because your car is bigger than their bike, and you disapprove of their method of transportation. Should I proudly declare that I can mow down pedestrians and “they will lose.”

    I don’t think she said that did she?

    Bikers also need to brush up on the law and follow it even when it’s inconvenient.

  • #262488

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91135 wrote:

    Well, we’ve already heard before that “cyclists” don’t believe that traffic laws necessarily apply to them. DocL said he doesn’t always stop at stop signs because he has to click out of his pedals. That’s inconvenient I guess. My biggest complaints about idiot bikers is them not obeying traffic laws. They don’t stop at all stop signs and stop lights. I’m making a right turn at a stop sign and they come zipping through without stopping. This law is unnecessary. How many accidents are there involving bikers? Biking with vehicles weighing 2+ tons is a major risk. You can’t legislate that risk out of the situation.

    If a cop wants to ticket me for running a stop sign, then I’ll accept my punishment. Once again, one thing has nothing to do with the other. The fact is its elementary for a cyclist to slow to time going through a stop sign without a full stop. If you are stopped and making a right, and someone zips through on a bike its on them. If you decide you want to beat the bike off the stop and make a right turn in front of them, then its on you.

  • #262489

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91136 wrote:

    I don’t think she said that did she?

    Bikers also need to brush up on the law and follow it even when it’s inconvenient.

    ” I will say it again for all of you bike lovers like SDL……you mess with a ton of steel out on the road guess who is going to get the worst of it?”

    Yeah, that’s what she said. She is in a rush and has a larger vehicle, so she doesn’t care if she runs over some kid on a bike.

  • #262504

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    How about the spandex clad riders with fine bikes going 10-15 mph on Winding Way who refuse to move to the right? That’s a dangerous road with lots of tight curves and no bike lane. Probably two thirds of the cyclists are very aware of traffic and when they hear an approaching vehicle from the rear they start looking for a safe place on the right. They’re doing what they can and they try to act swiftly.

    It’s the other third that are yakking and dawdling along and won’t move over. What’s your recommendation for these riders, Doc? How long do we need to wait for them to finish their conversation on a road where moving into the opposing lane to pass them is both (often) illegal and dangerous?

    Does the new law mandate that cyclists help to create the 36″ distance too?

  • #262490

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @lc 91143 wrote:

    How about the spandex clad riders with fine bikes going 10-15 mph on Winding Way who refuse to move to the right? That’s a dangerous road with lots of tight curves and no bike lane. Probably two thirds of the cyclists are very aware of traffic and when they hear an approaching vehicle from the rear they start looking for a safe place on the right. They’re doing what they can and they try to act swiftly.

    It’s the other third that are yakking and dawdling along and won’t move over. What’s your recommendation for these riders, Doc? How long do we need to wait for them to finish their conversation on a road where moving into the opposing lane to pass them is both (often) illegal and dangerous?

    Does the new law mandate that cyclists help to create the 36″ distance too?

    The misconception is that the guy on the bike is any different than any other vehicle. It’s not. Consider the bicycle another car. Do you pass another car in the same lane? If you can’t pass the bike with 3 feet clearance, then you are breaking the law. It’s that simple. Many of these guys know what they are doing – “claiming the lane.” I do this because it’s safer sometimes than getting blown off the road by some asshole who is going to pass you with 6 inches clearance.

  • #262491

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    Here I found what I was saying:

    “When to Take the Traffic Lane

    A bicycle lane is a designated traffic lane for bicyclists, marked by a solid white line, and typically breaking into a dotted line at the corner. A bicycle lane is different from a simple white line showing the edge of the road because it follows specific width requirements and is clearly marked as a bike lane. Many roads do not have designated bicycle traffic lanes, so bicyclists share the traffic lane to the left of the white line. If there is no shoulder or bicycle lane and the traffic lane is narrow, ride closer to the center of the lane. This will prevent motorists from passing you when there is not enough room. Bicyclists can travel at speeds of 20 mph, or faster. You should also use the traffic lane when you are traveling at the same speed as the traffic around you. This will keep you out of motorists’ blind spots and reduce conflicts with right-turning traffic.’

    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl37.htm

  • #262448

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91140 wrote:

    If a cop wants to ticket me for running a stop sign, then I’ll accept my punishment. Once again, one thing has nothing to do with the other. The fact is its elementary for a cyclist to slow to time going through a stop sign without a full stop. If you are stopped and making a right, and someone zips through on a bike its on them. If you decide you want to beat the bike off the stop and make a right turn in front of them, then its on you.

    Of course one thing has something to do with the other. You can’t pick and choose which laws to obey and then complain if others do the same.

  • #262492

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    As far as your question regarding how long should you wait, cyclists are to subject to the law that says if they cause a 5 car or more back up (as a slow moving vehicle) they need to pull over… So if its just you and the cyclists, they have no legal responsibility to clear the way for you.

  • #262493

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91146 wrote:

    Of course one thing has something to do with the other. You can’t pick and choose which laws to obey and then complain if others do the same.

    Again, not really, because your assumption is every one of these cyclists deserves to be blown off the road because some other cyclist might break traffic rules. It makes no sense.

  • #262449

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91141 wrote:

    ” I will say it again for all of you bike lovers like SDL……you mess with a ton of steel out on the road guess who is going to get the worst of it?”

    Yeah, that’s what she said. She is in a rush and has a larger vehicle, so she doesn’t care if she runs over some kid on a bike.

    That’s your interpretation, but I don’t think that’s her point. I think her point is you are trying to mix with traffic that is not compatible and it’s inherently more dangerous for the biker. You know from experience that drivers are inattentive. It just takes one small error on their part and your toast. It’s not a matter of if, but when you are involved in a serious accident if you ride regularly. It’s about limiting the possibilities of that happening. A guy that’s a member of my golf club was seriously injured just over a year ago riding on waterman road where there is no shoulder. He was struck by the mirror on a pickup or truck I believe and now he is paralyzed. That’s not a safe road for bikers or pedestrians. There are other ways to get places without using that road. It may take longer., but it would be safer.

  • #262436

    DivotMaker
    Participant
    • Topics - 263
    • Replies - 1,112
    • Total Posts - 1,375

    To clarify what DL has already said, there are two groups of riders out there, and to non-riders, you see us all as the same. The problem group consists of people riding without helmets, riding side by side on busy streets, blowing through red lights, etc. Then you have the other group which actually cares about sharing the road. I do a lot of group rides, often with groups of 30 or more riders. We mainly ride in Folsom, EDH, Auburn and Ione. We never ride in EG, as it’s not bike friendly. We are a very structured group, and when the group is large, we always break out into smaller group and leave a couple minutes in between start times. This does a couple things–It allows cars to pass easier since there are fewer bikes in one line and it also keeps the group small so that in areas with traffic lights, only 10 people need to make the light instead of 30. The ride leaders always make it clear that safety is our primary goal for ever ride. Yesterday we did a ride and there 90 riders. My group had 15 people in it and some were out there with the group for the first time. Ride leaders saw that they were riding side by side and told them single file only and the problem was solved.

    I’ve seen drivers throw things at riders, cross yellow lines on purpose to scare riders, you name it. Even had a driver get behind our group of 6 people and keep his horn on for at least a minute, even though we were riding single file and safely. Just as there are idiot riders out there, there are idiot drivers out there.

  • #262450

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91148 wrote:

    Again, not really, because your assumption is every one of these cyclists deserves to be blown off the road because some other cyclist might break traffic rules. It makes no sense.

    You need to stop making such idiotic assumptions. No one has said they deserve to be run off the road. Your portraying those who have questions about this as evil maniacs trying to kill bikers. You’re trying to demonize drivers.

  • #262494

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91149 wrote:

    That’s your interpretation, but I don’t think that’s her point. I think her point is you are trying to mix with traffic that is not compatible and it’s inherently more dangerous for the biker. You know from experience that drivers are inattentive. It just takes one small error on their part and your toast. It’s not a matter of if, but when you are involved in a serious accident if you ride regularly. It’s about limiting the possibilities of that happening. A guy that’s a member of my golf club was seriously injured just over a year ago riding on waterman road where there is no shoulder. He was struck by the mirror on a pickup or truck I believe and now he is paralyzed. That’s not a safe road for bikers or pedestrians. There are other ways to get places without using that road. It may take longer., but it would be safer.

    Where do you propose I find 50+ miles of contiguous bike path? I’m not taking a leisurely 2 miles ride to get Starbucks…

  • #262495

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91151 wrote:

    You need to stop making such idiotic assumptions. No one has said they deserve to be run off the road. Your portraying those who have questions about this as evil maniacs trying to kill bikers. You’re trying to demonize drivers.

    NO, just this particular individual.

  • #262437

    DivotMaker
    Participant
    • Topics - 263
    • Replies - 1,112
    • Total Posts - 1,375

    @EGL Admin 91149 wrote:

    A guy that’s a member of my golf club was seriously injured just over a year ago riding on waterman road where there is no shoulder. He was struck by the mirror on a pickup or truck I believe and now he is paralyzed. That’s not a safe road for bikers or pedestrians. There are other ways to get places without using that road. It may take longer., but it would be safer.

    That’s a good point about choosing roads wisely. Waterman is a horrible road and you should never have a bike on there. Have you been down Kammerer Rd by Bruceville? Last summer around 10pm, I was heading home after a softball game and passed 3 people on bikes, no helmets, dark clothes, and no lights. I didn’t see them until I was just about on them. I would never be on that road in the day, much less the night.

  • #262451

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91144 wrote:

    The misconception is that the guy on the bike is any different than any other vehicle. It’s not. Consider the bicycle another car. Do you pass another car in the same lane? If you can’t pass the bike with 3 feet clearance, then you are breaking the law. It’s that simple. Many of these guys know what they are doing – “claiming the lane.” I do this because it’s safer sometimes than getting blown off the road by some asshole who is going to pass you with 6 inches clearance.

    But that’s where you will have the issues. Some biker riding 20 mph on a road meant for faster speeds holding up traffic. Even if it’s just one car that’s going to lead to frustration and conflicts. As long as you’re aware that will happen then it’s on you when it does.

  • #262452

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @divotmaker 91154 wrote:

    That’s a good point about choosing roads wisely. Waterman is a horrible road and you should never have a bike on there. Have you been down Kammerer Rd by Bruceville? Last summer around 10pm, I was heading home after a softball game and passed 3 people on bikes, no helmets, dark clothes, and no lights. I didn’t see them until I was just about on them. I would never be on that road in the day, much less the night.

    I Agree. I use Kammerer a lot. I don’t even really like driving on it because it is narrow. I think a majority of the bikers people come in contact with are not the serious cyclists like you. It’s the guy riding his bike somewhere or kid and they are not obeying the law. Which all goes back to comments many times about allowing kids to ride their bikes around town. Knowing how drivers are around town, you really have to be an idiot to think its safe for kids to ride bikes around the city.

  • #262453

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91152 wrote:

    Where do you propose I find 50+ miles of contiguous bike path? I’m not taking a leisurely 2 miles ride to get Starbucks…

    That’s your choice. Biking for you is recreation. You don’t want to be inconvenienced.

  • #262479

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @doclaguna 91153 wrote:

    NO, just this particular individual.

    OMG you can’t be serious! You really are a nut job and I will not be dragged into a pissing match with you. Carry on.

  • #262510

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    Bikers-be it kids on a crappy BMX bike or an adult on an expensive model, should all obey the rules of the roads they are on. Just like drivers, if they don’t want to follow the rules-be it stopping at lights or stop signs, they shouldn’t be riding there. Yes, I always let riders go through stop signs at intersections if I get there first, and I always make a point to look for them and am overly cautious if they are anywhere near the intersection. However, an inexperienced driver isn’t going to think ahead to correctly judge a biker’s speed, or know that the bike rider most likely isn’t going to stop at the stop sign. That 17 year old driver will stop at the stop sign, see the bike rider, and go, potentially hitting that rider who chose to ride through the stop sign. And yes, the bike will lose against a car-any car-all the time. If a biker wants to do a ride without things like stop signs, then they need to go to the areas mentioned by Divot. Elk Grove isn’t the place for it. Does it suck? Yes. But it’s reality.
    That being said, I don’t believe bike riders should need to pay taxes to ride their bikes on the road. If they are riding to work or to do errands they are making the freeways less congested and aren’t pumping harmful pollutants into the air. They are being healthier by exercising rather than sitting on their butts driving someplace. The benefits for all of us are greater than the 15 cents in taxes they didn’t pay in gasoline for the trip.

  • #262454

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @bevone 91158 wrote:

    OMG you can’t be serious! You really are a nut job and I will not be dragged into a pissing match with you. Carry on.

    Great we made it 2 days before pissing came up. 😉

  • #262505

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    As far as your question regarding how long should you wait, cyclists are to subject to the law that says if they cause a 5 car or more back up (as a slow moving vehicle) they need to pull over… So if its just you and the cyclists, they have no legal responsibility to clear the way for you.

    I find it hard to believe that a motorist should have to slow to 10-15 mph on a 35-40 mph road for 4-5 minutes while the cyclists in front are having a coffee chat. It doesn’t happen with me, regardless, any more than it does with a dawdling vehicle. They are a hazard and need to be made aware of it.

    Here’s the problem: This is a VERY slippery slope.

    The 36″ law is fine, no argument there. But, what’s next? If it’s like Portland, there will be more, and more and more until the bicyclists run the city. There, if you park in a bike lane in a residential neighborhood where it’s fully legal, you can expect to get your tires slashed and sometimes “bikes rule” spray painted or keyed on your car. The City of Portland is run by a bunch of uber leftists. This is a green agenda and they do nothing to stop the militancy; in fact I’m told they promote it.

    I hope we don’t fall into that pattern,but I wouldn’t bet against it.

  • #262506

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    @EGL Admin 91160 wrote:

    Great we made it 2 days before pissing came up. 😉

    No Hitler?

  • #262455

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Here’s an example of something I have seen going through old town and probably Bev has too. I am heading west on EG Blvd approaching School Street. There is a light there. My light is green. A biker on School Street turns right on the red light without stopping, onto EG Blvd cutting right in front of me. What I have also seen in residential areas quite often is a 2 way or 4 way stop and a biker blowing right through the stop sign. Not stopping because you don’t want to lose momentum or “clip out” is ridiculous. What you’re saying is your more important than anyone else. Being willing to take a ticket is not the issue. It’s not safe and it leads being careless and feeling entitled which is kind of what I see on this thread. Riding a bike 20 mph on a road meant for 45+ is going to lead to confrontations. That’s the reality. No law will change that. So accept the honking and whatever goes along with it then. That’s the reality.

  • #262511

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    @EGL Admin 91160 wrote:

    Great we made it 2 days before pissing came up. 😉

    Woo hoo! Twice as long as last year!

  • #262456

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 91161 wrote:

    As far as your question regarding how long should you wait, cyclists are to subject to the law that says if they cause a 5 car or more back up (as a slow moving vehicle) they need to pull over… So if its just you and the cyclists, they have no legal responsibility to clear the way for you.

    I find it hard to believe that a motorist should have to slow to 10-15 mph on a 35-40 mph road for 4-5 minutes while the cyclists in front are having a coffee chat. It doesn’t happen with me, regardless, any more than it does with a dawdling vehicle. They are a hazard and need to be made aware of it.

    Here’s the problem: This is a VERY slippery slope.

    The 36″ law is fine, no argument there. But, what’s next? If it’s like Portland, there will be more, and more and more until the bicyclists run the city. There, if you park in a bike lane in a residential neighborhood where it’s fully legal, you can expect to get your tires slashed and sometimes “bikes rule” spray painted or keyed on your car. The City of Portland is run by a bunch of uber leftists. This is a green agenda and they do nothing to stop the militancy; in fact I’m told they promote it.

    I hope we don’t fall into that pattern,but I wouldn’t bet against it.

    Maybe Docl can organize a group of bikers to ride around naked in Elk Grove as a protest like they do in SF. 🙂

    I don’t mind waiting if it’s for a few seconds, but I wouldn’t want to wait for a few minutes behind bikers going 20 mph.

  • #262457

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @newmom 91164 wrote:

    Woo hoo! Twice as long as last year!

    Shoot for 3 days next year!

  • #262480

    bevone
    Participant
    • Topics - 60
    • Replies - 1,071
    • Total Posts - 1,131

    @EGL Admin 91166 wrote:

    Shoot for 3 days next year!

    :yesno:

  • #262496

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91165 wrote:

    Maybe Docl can organize a group of bikers to ride around naked in Elk Grove as a protest like they do in SF. 🙂

    I don’t mind waiting if it’s for a few seconds, but I wouldn’t want to wait for a few minutes behind bikers going 20 mph.

    So just to clarify, if you are driving down the street at 55 MPH and I want to 75 MPH, I should be able to run your car off the road?

  • #262458

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    What’s the speed limit? Is there more than one lane?

  • #262459

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91169 wrote:

    So just to clarify, if you are driving down the street at 55 MPH and I want to 75 MPH, I should be able to run your car off the road?

    It would more likely be the opposite with me going 75.

  • #262497

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @EGL Admin 91171 wrote:

    It would more likely be the opposite with me going 75.

    OK, so you are going 75. Should someone be able to run you off the road at 95?

  • #262501

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    I think it is more like should other cars be able to decide to go 15 mph in a 45 zone? Clearly that is a safety hazard, no?

  • #262498

    doclaguna
    Member
    • Topics - 216
    • Replies - 5,943
    • Total Posts - 6,159

    @joy 91178 wrote:

    I think it is more like should other cars be able to decide to go 15 mph in a 45 zone? Clearly that is a safety hazard, no?

    Legal, to the best of my understanding, as long as they pull off when they get 5 cars in a row behind them.

  • #262463

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @sea 91128 wrote:

    I mind a lot. This slaps the face of every single person who has immigrated here legally. Why should they have bothered to obey the law and go through the established process? Why shouldn’t all the Mexican criminals (yes, I said it) cross over here? They get rewarded. They are provided health care, food stamps, cash welfare, education, housing, driver’s licenses, ballots and ALL of that in their own language. No incentive to learn our language. No fear of reprisal and no sense of shame. What about all the immigrants who made the effort, abided by the laws, learned the language, and came here to be Americans? How do you suppose they feel about it?

    The solution is to quit providing them all those freebies, not to prevent them from participating through market distortions and dumb licensing limitations. We both know they drive anyway, right? Also, why should any of us care to protect the lawyers who are currently licensed to practice? That’s what guild protections do.

    I don’t care much about language learning around here and I REALLY don’t care to have state officials supporting the enforcing of federal laws. If we don’t want illegals leeching on our support net, change the support net. Blocking them from coming in is dumb because their first support net is going to be family (if we fix the lure of state systems) and that is precisely how many of our ancestors made it in this country before immigration laws tried to impose limits.

    Education and health care are special cases, though. I’m willing to finance some of this for illegals IF they are paying into the system elsewhere.

    I don’t give a damn how others feel who came here legally when they look at those who get here illegally. I really don’t. A person is a person and if they are participating in the local economy in a positive way I’m willng to welcome them no matter what language they speak. I don’t even care if they don’t want to be considered Americans while they are here. Once here, they are up against the culture that has the best track record of assimilation in history. Good luck to them because once they choose to have children here they are going to lose.

  • #262502

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    @doclaguna 91179 wrote:

    Legal, to the best of my understanding, as long as they pull off when they get 5 cars in a row behind them.

    Legal is not what I asked.

  • #262460

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @doclaguna 91172 wrote:

    OK, so you are going 75. Should someone be able to run you off the road at 95?

    I think Joy pointed out a better analogy. If you were on 2 lane road and couldn’t pass and you came upon a car doing 15-20 mph and had yo follow it for awhile you would flip out.

    Legally I don’t know what the rule is. You can get a ticket for driving too slow. You don’t have to wait for 5 cars to just go ahead and pull over. That’s more a common sense issue. How many bikers get run off the road? I’m fine with the law. Usually in this case you would call it nanny government I think. How many bikers are killed? Was this law necessary? Isn’t it more likely you would struck by lightning? 🙂

  • #262464

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    This isn’t nanny government. Nannies are mother replacements and this isn’t close.

  • #262507

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    SEA would probably know for sure, but I don’t think the five car thing is an isolated law. I think that means it is incumbent on a driver to pull over to allow others to pass if there are five.

    That doesn’t by any stretch mean driving 15 mph in a 35-45 MPH zone is legal, as California, like many other states, has a Basic Speed Limit meaning a speed that is reasonable and prudent, not to exceed the posted limit. I know for a fact you can get pulled over for going too slow because it happened to me on 99 years ago. I was probably going 5 mph under and the cop wanted to have a close look at me–he pretty much told me that–and used the Basic Speed Limit as a reason.

    Driving 15 on a 35 mph road in good conditions is not lawful for a vehicle, and I assume it’s not for a cyclist either.

  • #262515

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    @adiffer 91182 wrote:

    The solution is to quit providing them all those freebies, not to prevent them from participating through market distortions and dumb licensing limitations. We both know they drive anyway, right? Also, why should any of us care to protect the lawyers who are currently licensed to practice? That’s what guild protections do.

    I don’t care much about language learning around here and I REALLY don’t care to have state officials supporting the enforcing of federal laws. If we don’t want illegals leeching on our support net, change the support net. Blocking them from coming in is dumb because their first support net is going to be family (if we fix the lure of state systems) and that is precisely how many of our ancestors made it in this country before immigration laws tried to impose limits.

    Education and health care are special cases, though. I’m willing to finance some of this for illegals IF they are paying into the system elsewhere.

    I don’t give a damn how others feel who came here legally when they look at those who get here illegally. I really don’t. A person is a person and if they are participating in the local economy in a positive way I’m willng to welcome them no matter what language they speak. I don’t even care if they don’t want to be considered Americans while they are here. Once here, they are up against the culture that has the best track record of assimilation in history. Good luck to them because once they choose to have children here they are going to lose.

    So what I’m getting from this is that they’re going to sneak in and drive anyway so let’s reward them for this. People are going to rob banks anyway so why not make it legal. Really, why have any rules of any type because some people will break them anyway.

    Try working in emergency service, Al, you will change your tune on the language.

    You don’t give a damn how legal immigrants feel? That speaks volumes as to who you are. Kind of sickens me.

  • #262465

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    if driving a car was remotely like robbing a bank, I’d consider your analogy. The breaking of some laws is NOT like the breaking of others and you know this from how well people supported you in your effort to enforce them. Some we judge to be useless or less important and that’s just the way it is.

    I hear you on emergency services. Remember that I live in Ventura county where employment options across the board are improved if one is bilingual. Many of the people around here are or have someone within arms reach who is. I have no issue with this. I listen to the kids of the adults who don’t want to learn English and just smile. Sooooo many rebels.

    I don’t care to support ANYONE who would use the power of government to limit what the next wave of useful immigrants can do or how they get here. I prefer small government and that includes power to erect useless fences. Getting here legally is appreciated, but getting here and being a contributor is appreciated much more. Focusing too much on the legality of the path creates another form of entitlement that I don’t support.

  • #262516

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    Focusing too much on the legality of the path creates another form of entitlement that I don’t support.

    You lost me right here.

    As far as entitlements, you seem to think that illegals, or even most illegals, are here being useful, taxpaying citizens. Take a look at our prison, jail and welfare statistics. Go take a look at some of their neighborhoods, if you dare. Wish you were riding with me the night I contacted the young Mexican illegal who was so drunk he drove his car off onto some railroad tracks. He was quite the entitled asshole, yelling that he had rights and was part of the Dream Act. He was in fact a student of the Dream Act. What a nice contributor to our future. He fought us and yelled and spit all the way to jail. He was 19 years old, and had Norteno tats. You live in Ventura where there are field workers, right? I guess it’s different there, and they all pay taxes and obey laws and work hard and smile and work to be good illegal citizens. Remember while they’re doing this they are fathering anchor babies and their baby mama’s are all sucking up your tax dollars.

    I understand I’m jaded by my years of personal experiences. But I think it’s attitudes like yours that are ruining our once great country. It used to be that being on welfare was a temporary thing to help people get on their feet. It used to be shameful. Now they’re proud of it, and live on it for good. I was just watching a report yesterday on how the “poor” have a WAY higher instance of their kids having asthma. I immediately thought because they get SSI for that, and SSI is the big gravy train. Jaded, yes. But jaded based on my own eyes and ears, not some magical myth spun by the liberal media. Getting here legally is appreciated. Wow. By who? Not you, or others like you who don’t care if people don’t obey the rules or laws. So robbing a bank maybe wasn’t a good example, since it’s a felony. How about a misdemeanor or infraction? People are going to drive drunk, or speed in their cars anyway, so why not reward them for it?

  • #262466

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Babies, use of support services, demands for use of their language, expectations for zoning exceptions to fit their cultural norms, and all sorts of variations are what I see. I also notice many of them wearing those ‘California Republic’ shirts as if they expect to do to California what white folks did to Alta California when it was taken from Mexico. I don’t mind any of this mostly because I expect the cultural conflict to go on for a couple more generations AND I expect the US will benefit greatly from it. There will be pain along the way, but by the time this century wraps up we will have a strong neighbor to the south and their contribution to our world dominance will have proven significant.

    Regarding your jadedness, I’m not going to pick on you. I get it. What you might not get is that my recent family tree has some of those people you would have had to bust up. One of my grandmothers was at least a thief when she was young and probably worse. I learned a thing or two about fencing stolen goods from her. Smuggling too. In her old age she cracked and was obviously feeling quite guilty over a number of things she had done, but couldn’t articulate them well. The other side of my family is only a little better. My father explained his joining the military as an option between that or jail based on the people he was running with at the time. He chose a better path and tried to follow his brother out of the Baltimore slums through the military while his sisters tried to marry out. One of them made it.

    The Mexican gangs don’t scare me on the larger scale. Individually they are a problem, but in the historical sense we’ve been here before and know what to do. Bust heads for now and try to keep the violence to a minimum, but the way out of it involves economics, intermarriage, and lots of babies.

    I hear you on the gravy train, but the solution is to change the flavor of the gravy or reduce it to avoid the lure. I see similar draws regarding autism support services where some kids who AREN’T autistic got diagnosed as such because that is what the state was willing to pay to support. It is a very sensible thing for parents of kids with special needs to do even if it is gaming the system. There are two possible outcomes. One is that we run out of money and the other is that we change the incentives. I prefer the latter, but plan for the former.

    Your bank robbery analogy fails largely because bank robbery is immoral while driving without a license isn’t. Driving drunk is also immoral because it demonstrates a profound lack of personal responsiblity for one’s actions. Speeding isn’t necessarily immoral, so maybe that will work, but I’m skeptical. Speeding in a residential area definitely looks like drunk driving in the moral sense, right? It doesn’t matter whether it is a felony, misdemeanor, or infraction. What matters is the moral behavior of those doing it. Breaking a law isn’t the underlying problem. Immoral behavior is. THAT is why I don’t mind them getting here illegally. I don’t see immorality in the act.

    I usually DO lose people when it comes to that entitlement argument and don’t expect to win you over on this, but I’ll explain it anyway. Every group that can define its borders for group membership can game their rules to protect those who are already in the group. We see this in a variety of ways from national borders to city planning. The ‘Haves’ get to exclude the ‘Have-nots’ through careful rule adjustments. The entitlement belongs to the ‘Haves’. What I object to is the ‘Haves’ pretention to a righteousness indignation when protecting that entitlement when they did little more to earn it than organize early. If I were a religoius person I would consider this behavior deeply sinful and based upon a very flawed sense of pride. I’m not, though, so I’ll settle for calling it highly immoral. The ‘have-nots’ are just as human as the rest of us and excluding them demonstrates a lack of charity in one’s heart. See?

  • #262467

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Hmm… I suspect my belief that Mexico will be a strong partner for us will seem strange too. I come to that conclusion using a number of bits of data, but mostly from the fact that a large swathe of US territory is a cultural borderland where both nations overlap. Where we overlap there is the potential for intermarriage and thus for assimilation and that is precisely what I think is happening. At present the immigration problem can be seen as an ‘us vs them’ scenario, but I argue that it is already murky and getting very hard to tell the difference between us and them. The harder that distinction is to make, the stronger the partnership will be between us and the more immoral a stupid border fence will be.

    For data on the partnership, consider the following graph at gapminder. It shows some history of nations linking population growth and gdp/capita growth. The size of the bubbles on the chart is directly related to absolute GDP. Play the history of the statistics a few times and pick a nation or two to watch their bubbles move around. You’ll see that most nations stay in the upper part of the chart and shift left to right as recessions come and go. Some fall to the lower section, though, and begin to shrink a bit. Nations that fall to the bottom are in danger of losing their tax base and following the path that Detroit is on right now. If you tag the US, Mexico, and Germany together and watch you’ll see something neat. Try swapping Japan for Germany and watch again. Can you see what Mexico enables us to do and why we should be intermarrying as much as possible?

  • #262508

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Should have listened to Ross Perot.

  • #262468

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    How so? 8)

  • #262509

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    That “giant sucking noise” of American companies moving there operations/manufacturing to Mexico. I know, I know, the potential for a North American consortium exists, but there’s little argument that Mexico has benefitted more than the U.S., especially in the aircraft markets.

  • #262469

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    They have benefited to some degree, but most of the sucking noise came from China where there are many more people and a culture more ameanable to the kinds of labor practices that work in manufacturing on an industrial scale. Personally, I think Perot was incorrect in detail but did understand that jobs would move. He just got the country name wrong.

    One thing to remember about Mexico is they are smaller than us in terms of population making them safer to assimilate than China. Also, Mexico is essentially already ‘here’ in the sense that the people are. We already know them on a deeper level. The religious difference will take a bit of swallowing, but the US border states are exactly the correct entities to manage that.

    As some famous historical persons used to say…

    “Bella gerant alii, tu, felix Austria, nube!”

    In the US we expand that to trade and marriage. 8)

  • #262520

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    [video=youtube_share;LO2eh6f5Go0]http://youtu.be/LO2eh6f5Go0[/video]

  • #262461

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    That’s a good one. I’ll have to share on FB page. Weed out a few more friends. 🙂

  • #262527

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    @doclaguna 91179 wrote:

    Legal, to the best of my understanding, as long as they pull off when they get 5 cars in a row behind them.

    Not so sure about that. If I remember correctly, there is a min spd limit in relation to the posted limit, at least for cars. This may be outdated and no longer in effect but there used to be such a law. Perhaps someone should check into that. Would be curious..

  • #262521

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    They do ticket bicyclists … I speak from personal experience.

    I ride mostly on the ARBT, but I have to either drive to it or bike to it… I mostly bike to it. There are bicycle lanes all the way to the trail, but SOME drivers think the “Bike Lane” actually is the “opportunity-for-me-to-squeeze-up-a-car-length-because-I’m-more-important-than-everyone-else-on-the-road Lane”.

  • #262522

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @adiffer 91218 wrote:

    Your bank robbery analogy fails largely because bank robbery is immoral while driving without a license isn’t. Driving drunk is also immoral because it demonstrates a profound lack of personal responsiblity for one’s actions. Speeding isn’t necessarily immoral, so maybe that will work, but I’m skeptical. Speeding in a residential area definitely looks like drunk driving in the moral sense, right? It doesn’t matter whether it is a felony, misdemeanor, or infraction. What matters is the moral behavior of those doing it. Breaking a law isn’t the underlying problem. Immoral behavior is. THAT is why I don’t mind them getting here illegally. I don’t see immorality in the act.

    In the past you have argued against laws based on “morality.” Now you are justifying your position by using “morality.” Which is it?

  • #262523

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @sea 91191 wrote:

    So what I’m getting from this is that they’re going to sneak in and drive anyway so let’s reward them for this. People are going to rob banks anyway so why not make it legal. Really, why have any rules of any type because some people will break them anyway.

    Try working in emergency service, Al, you will change your tune on the language.

    You don’t give a damn how legal immigrants feel? That speaks volumes as to who you are. Kind of sickens me.

    I agree with SEA.

    I have to wonder if the “Bratton Principle” doesn’t apply here. Does the fact that they came here illegally contribute to a likelyhood that they will commit crimes (above and beyond the original crime)? Proportionally, illegal immigrants are more likely to commit a crime than legal immigrants, and much more likely to belong to a violent gang. Studies by several Universities show than over 60% of LA gang members are illegal immigrants. Prison populations are also disproportionate, with a far larger share of illegal immigrants compared to the population as whole.

    While the liberal “people are people” argument has some merit (radical anti-immigrant groups are appallingly inhumane), and obviously most illegal immigrants aren’t coming here to commit crimes – but subverting the rule of law seems a poor response and a dangerous precedent.

    Our immigration system needs to be revamped – no question. We need a better worker program – no question. We need better accounting of public benefits for all (not just illegal immigrants) – no question. But ignoring immigration laws, and rewarding illegal immigration with citizen rights – or even citizenship isn’t a sensible answer.

  • #262470

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @politicopedro 91318 wrote:

    In the past you have argued against laws based on “morality.” Now you are justifying your position by using “morality.” Which is it?

    It’s simple enough. Laws based on morality are fine, but they should be ‘discovered’ in the sense that we have already constructed social rules most of us already follow on a voluntary basis. Writing those rules as law is meant to get the last few percent of people who aren’t willing to cooperate. This is the origin of my 90/10 rule if you recall which is based on the notiion that if you don’t have over 90% support for a moral rule you won’t be able to enforce it effectively whether it is voluntary or coercive. When support is less than 90%, those who wish to escape detection or punishment will find too much support in society.

    Ask people whether robbing banks is immoral and worthy of some kind of punishment and you’ll get more than 90% support.
    Ask people whether driving without a license is immoral and worthy of punishment and you’ll get much softer support, but probably retain a majority.

  • #262471

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @politicopedro 91320 wrote:

    I have to wonder if the “Bratton Principle” doesn’t apply here. Does the fact that they came here illegally contribute to a likelyhood that they will commit crimes (above and beyond the original crime)? Proportionally, illegal immigrants are more likely to commit a crime than legal immigrants, and much more likely to belong to a violent gang. Studies by several Universities show than over 60% of LA gang members are illegal immigrants. Prison populations are also disproportionate, with a far larger share of illegal immigrants compared to the population as whole.[/quote]

    Statistical arguments are going to win people like me over when liberty is at stake. Mistreating an individual isn’t morally justified by the misbehaviors of those we lump in to the group with that individual. It is incumbent upon us to recognize those we want to defend and find a way to change the incentives that enable the misbehaviors until the group is easier to enumerate.

    Quote:
    While the liberal “people are people” argument has some merit (radical anti-immigrant groups are appallingly inhumane), and obviously most illegal immigrants aren’t coming here to commit crimes – but subverting the rule of law seems a poor response and a dangerous precedent.

    Undermining the rule of law is a terribly bad idea. I agree. However, I’d argue that it is our attempt to enforce stupid laws supported by stupid incentives that is undermining the rule of law. We make things worse by mistreating people who would otherwise be constructive members of society except for their legal status because it looks like discrimination and THAT breaks the rule of law.

    Quote:
    Our immigration system needs to be revamped – no question. We need a better worker program – no question. We need better accounting of public benefits for all (not just illegal immigrants) – no question. But ignoring immigration laws, and rewarding illegal immigration with citizen rights – or even citizenship isn’t a sensible answer.

    No question, but I don’t see those rights as a reward. They are justified recognitions for certain people. Ignoring immigration laws is very bad policy, but it is the only option available at the moment. We need state-level solutions, but enforcement is supposed to be at a national level where we aren’t even close to agreeing on what the problems are let alone on sensible solutions.

  • #262524

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @adiffer 91339 wrote:

    Statistical arguments are going to win people like me over when liberty is at stake. Mistreating an individual isn’t morally justified by the misbehaviors of those we lump in to the group with that individual. It is incumbent upon us to recognize those we want to defend and find a way to change the incentives that enable the misbehaviors until the group is easier to enumerate. [/quote]
    I assume you mean “are NOT”

    How is applying the law equally mistreating individuals?

    Quote:
    Undermining the rule of law is a terribly bad idea. I agree. However, I’d argue that it is our attempt to enforce stupid laws supported by stupid incentives that is undermining the rule of law. We make things worse by mistreating people who would otherwise be constructive members of society except for their legal status because it looks like discrimination and THAT breaks the rule of law.

    Again – how is treating all people the same mistreating? How is having an immigration policy stupid?

    I know that some believe “open border” should be the policy. If so – then make that the law.
    If having a border is the law, then we should have a border and enforce it.
    If controlling who can cross the national border is the law – either enforce it or change it.

    Quote:
    No question, but I don’t see those rights as a reward. They are justified recognitions for certain people. Ignoring immigration laws is very bad policy, but it is the only option available at the moment. We need state-level solutions, but enforcement is supposed to be at a national level where we aren’t even close to agreeing on what the problems are let alone on sensible solutions.

    How is ignoring the law the only option – isn’t enforcing the law an option? How is creating more incentives to break the law a solution at all? How is a national border a state issue?

  • #262472

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @politicopedro 91349 wrote:

    I assume you mean “are NOT”

    heh. Yah. I blame the medication. I’ve been doing a lot of weird word slips since September and missing dropped negatives more than usual. Me no like Prednisone.

    Quote:
    Again – how is treating all people the same mistreating? How is having an immigration policy stupid?

    I’ll give you a ridiculous, extreme example showing this, but please don’t assume I’m arguing that what we are doing is actually this extreme. It’s just that I think we are close enough that I react.

    We could write a law that says all people with blue eyes get 100% of the social safety net support currently allowed, green eyes get 75%, and brown eyes get 50%. The law would apply to everyone, but distinguish between people based on eye color which isn’t a protected class. Obviously, this law would be a form of discrimination and it shows the difference between laws being equally applied and equality before the law. Protected classes are a weak defense against this issue.

    An illegal immigrant making an effort to be a productive member of society should be treated as such for moral reasons. Those who are here to take advantage of us should be treated as leeches. Applying a law that deals with leeches to productive people not only isn’t in our financial best interests, it teaches them that we are perfectly willing to dscriminate or don’t give a damn to try to avoid discriminating. You wrote elsewhere of the impact that ‘they are coming’ prop 187 advertisement had. We avoid some of that risk when we make the effort to distinguish the moral details and do the right thing. Not making this effort is what I think is stupid.

    Quote:
    I know that some believe “open border” should be the policy. If so – then make that the law.
    If having a border is the law, then we should have a border and enforce it.
    If controlling who can cross the national border is the law – either enforce it or change it.

    No debate here, but there is the obvious problem that writing laws and enforcing them are quite different problems. I think it is rather silly to write ones that cannot be effectively enforced and equally silly to try to enforce laws where public support for them is so soft that the police have to watch out for both the criminals and the citizens who support the criminals. We can’t ALL be criminals, after all. 8)

    Quote:
    How is ignoring the law the only option – isn’t enforcing the law an option? How is creating more incentives to break the law a solution at all? How is a national border a state issue?

    Ignoring it is the only option I see right now because of poltical gridlock on this issue. I’d much rather have sane law that was enforceable. That is obviously the right thing to do. Absent that option, though, I choose nullification.

    A national border is a state issue when the states don’t agree on what to do about the border. It is ALSO a national issue at the same time, but a state solution must be possible. That’s why I was torn on what AZ chose to do a while back. They have to be able to do something to defend their interests and I support that.

    What I think we should consider is an inter-state ‘treaty’ of sorts where the border states band together and hash out a few things on which we can agree. The other states can go hang for all I care. If TX and CA could actually agree on something from seemingly opposite sides of a political divide, we should act.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.