Discussion:
municipalities
(too old to reply)
Peter McNichol
2005-12-22 13:55:19 UTC
Permalink
What is an incorporated Body?

A legal being in the eyes of the law.

What are the powers of an incorporated municipality?

To pass laws, to set and collect taxes, among others.

An incorporated body has a legal responsibility, a car does not!
DiscoDuck
2005-12-22 23:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
What is an incorporated Body?
A legal being in the eyes of the law.
What are the powers of an incorporated municipality?
To pass laws, to set and collect taxes, among others.
You take away people, and who is going to pass those laws? Dogs?
Cats? Concrete? Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above.
Post by Peter McNichol
An incorporated body has a legal responsibility, a car does not!
Right, who carries out the responsibility? Dogs? Cats? Concrete?
Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above. It is people such as
you (barely), and me. It takes people to run man/woman made thing on
this planet (like it or not).

For instance, did you know those signs erected on Cambie were,
designed, painted and put up by people? Even the rule book was written
by people. Any applicable laws...you guessed it..... passed by people.

Man, I hope you do not work where you have decision making over
people's lives. I can just see how your ego would get in the way. But
I bet you do. I bet you sought out such a job. I wonder if you're a
parking enforcment officer?
Peter McNichol
2005-12-24 18:02:46 UTC
Permalink
An incorporated body has a legal responsibility, a car does not!
Peter McNichol
2005-12-24 18:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
What is an incorporated Body?
A legal being in the eyes of the law.
What are the powers of an incorporated municipality?
To pass laws, to set and collect taxes, among others.
You take away people, and who is going to pass those laws? Dogs?
Cats? Concrete? Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above.
Post by Peter McNichol
An incorporated body has a legal responsibility, a car does not!
Right, who carries out the responsibility? Dogs? Cats? Concrete?
Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above. It is people such as
you (barely), and me. It takes people to run man/woman made thing on
this planet (like it or not).
I never disputed that people were involved.

But you failed to acknowledge the legal entity of a city.

The city can be taken to court, the employees of a city cannot.
DiscoDuck
2005-12-24 19:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
What is an incorporated Body?
A legal being in the eyes of the law.
What are the powers of an incorporated municipality?
To pass laws, to set and collect taxes, among others.
You take away people, and who is going to pass those laws? Dogs?
Cats? Concrete? Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above.
Post by Peter McNichol
An incorporated body has a legal responsibility, a car does not!
Right, who carries out the responsibility? Dogs? Cats? Concrete?
Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above. It is people such as
you (barely), and me. It takes people to run man/woman made thing on
this planet (like it or not).
I never disputed that people were involved.
Then why do you keep replying with rebuttles?

You stated (and I quote) "First of all Cambie Street is not doing the
mandating. The city may be"

and (my favourite) to Király "just to clarify the car would not see
anything. The driver would"

What could possible be the only aim of that? To nitpick. When thrown
back at you, you seem to take exception.
Post by Peter McNichol
But you failed to acknowledge the legal entity of a city.
Show where I denied the legal entity of a city. Never did, nope. I
was just trying to explain to you (since you seemed not to understand)
people run things, including the city.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city can be taken to court, the employees of a city cannot.
What are you TALKING about? Who said anything about taking PEOPLE to
court? That is the second time you've said that when it was non issue.
OH, remember, it takes people to run a court, as well.

So, are you a parking commissionaire?
Peter McNichol
2005-12-25 16:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.

The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.

You can argue all you want about the people involved and I am
not disagreeing. No doubt someone did some paper work at the
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.

A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.

You can nitpick all you want about by supposed nitpicking, but
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.

A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.

People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.

However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.

If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
What is an incorporated Body?
A legal being in the eyes of the law.
What are the powers of an incorporated municipality?
To pass laws, to set and collect taxes, among others.
You take away people, and who is going to pass those laws? Dogs?
Cats? Concrete? Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above.
Post by Peter McNichol
An incorporated body has a legal responsibility, a car does not!
Right, who carries out the responsibility? Dogs? Cats? Concrete?
Grass? Fire hydrants? None of the of the above. It is people such as
you (barely), and me. It takes people to run man/woman made thing on
this planet (like it or not).
I never disputed that people were involved.
Then why do you keep replying with rebuttles?
You stated (and I quote) "First of all Cambie Street is not doing the
mandating. The city may be"
and (my favourite) to Király "just to clarify the car would not see
anything. The driver would"
What could possible be the only aim of that? To nitpick. When thrown
back at you, you seem to take exception.
Post by Peter McNichol
But you failed to acknowledge the legal entity of a city.
Show where I denied the legal entity of a city. Never did, nope. I
was just trying to explain to you (since you seemed not to understand)
people run things, including the city.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city can be taken to court, the employees of a city cannot.
What are you TALKING about? Who said anything about taking PEOPLE to
court? That is the second time you've said that when it was non issue.
OH, remember, it takes people to run a court, as well.
So, are you a parking commissionaire?
DiscoDuck
2005-12-25 18:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
Uhm, Peter, EVERYONE understood what I said. IF they did not, then
they must be mildly retarded. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow
make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
You can argue all you want about the people involved and I am
not disagreeing.
Again, then why the repeated correcting, and rebuttals? You must
disagree on some level. Either that or you are attempting to make
yourself feel smarter, somehow.

No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Post by Peter McNichol
You can nitpick all you want about by supposed nitpicking, but
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise. I suspect the reason you have
this need to "correct" people is, again, to somehow make yourself feel
smarter, somehow. Do you realize you just make yourself look silly,
and less intelligent? Most people would read your comments and think
"OH GOD, You have GOT to be kidding." They wouldn't waste time on
you-But I will.
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
I understand legal responsibility fine. IT is you that had trouble
understanding people, including your own self. Perhaps you lack self
awareness? perhaps you DO have self awareness but enjoy the
nitpicking.
Either way, you look ridiculous.
Peter McNichol
2005-12-26 15:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Seems like you are the one that needs to be superior.

You never gave credence to my naming the city. You
keep trouncing the people. Which I never denied. What
I did deny was that the people did not pass the bylaw
in their own name. The people passed the bylaw in the
cities name. Thus the city is said to have passed the
bylaw.

You were pushing your agenda.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
Uhm, Peter, EVERYONE understood what I said. IF they did not, then
they must be mildly retarded. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow
make yourself feel superior.
You are misreading me. You failed to see the point that I was
right to say what I said. And yet you criticize.

It is not that I did not see the people. You never acknowledged
the city as an entity.

Seems like you are doing the criticizing. Thus you are trying to
be superior.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can argue all you want about the people involved and I am
not disagreeing.
Again, then why the repeated correcting, and rebuttals? You must
disagree on some level. Either that or you are attempting to make
yourself feel smarter, somehow.
Again with the stupid comments. Talk to the point.
Post by DiscoDuck
No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Yes, but it is the in the city names that Cambie Street is prohibited,
even if a human did the work, the bylaw is in the cities name.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can nitpick all you want about by supposed nitpicking, but
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Again, you are doing name calling.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise. I suspect the reason you have
this need to "correct" people is, again, to somehow make yourself feel
smarter, somehow. Do you realize you just make yourself look silly,
and less intelligent? Most people would read your comments and think
"OH GOD, You have GOT to be kidding." They wouldn't waste time on
you-But I will.
The difference is I was correct.

Kiraly was not clear. As I said the car has no autonomy.
You cannot rebut my comments so you criticize.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Even you just said it. Cars cannot see. If one does not correct
their mistakes, realized what caused them, and how to prevent them
in the future one will do them again.

A collision is not an accident. It could have been avoided. If you
do not look before you change lanes and hit someone that is not
an accident it is an omission that caused the collision. Thus not
an accident.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Again you are using the logic that if people say it somehow makes it
right.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
I understand legal responsibility fine. IT is you that had trouble
understanding people, including your own self. Perhaps you lack self
awareness? perhaps you DO have self awareness but enjoy the
nitpicking.
Either way, you look ridiculous.
The city is a legal entity and thus can be named. Thus it is correct
to say the city is responsible. Thus the city passed the bylaw.
DiscoDuck
2005-12-26 19:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Seems like you are the one that needs to be superior.
You never gave credence to my naming the city. You
keep trouncing the people. Which I never denied. What
I did deny was that the people did not pass the bylaw
in their own name. The people passed the bylaw in the
cities name. Thus the city is said to have passed the
bylaw.
You were pushing your agenda.
LOL. LOL. MY Agenda? LOL. What agenda is that?
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
Uhm, Peter, EVERYONE understood what I said. IF they did not, then
they must be mildly retarded. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow
make yourself feel superior.
You are misreading me. You failed to see the point that I was
right to say what I said. And yet you criticize.
Misreading you? How is that? You DID say those thing, and you admit
to saying those things. So, No, I am am not misreading you.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is not that I did not see the people. You never acknowledged
the city as an entity.
No need to, as that was not the point being discussed bu me, or
Király.
Post by Peter McNichol
Seems like you are doing the criticizing. Thus you are trying to
be superior.
To you? Yes, I am superior. No doubt about it. I do not feel a need
to nitpick people's statements.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can argue all you want about the people involved and I am
not disagreeing.
Again, then why the repeated correcting, and rebuttals? You must
disagree on some level. Either that or you are attempting to make
yourself feel smarter, somehow.
Again with the stupid comments. Talk to the point.
THAT IS THE POINT. Your need to nitpick. You changed the issue when
you nitpicked, to, well, nitpicking.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Yes, but it is the in the city names that Cambie Street is prohibited,
even if a human did the work, the bylaw is in the cities name.
You see, I could nitpick here, and state, what you probably meant was
"in the city's name" (possessive as opposed to plural). But you see I
have no need to nitpick since I know what you were trying to say.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can nitpick all you want about by supposed nitpicking, but
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Again, you are doing name calling.
There is no name calling here. Where do you see name calling, above?
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise. I suspect the reason you have
this need to "correct" people is, again, to somehow make yourself feel
smarter, somehow. Do you realize you just make yourself look silly,
and less intelligent? Most people would read your comments and think
"OH GOD, You have GOT to be kidding." They wouldn't waste time on
you-But I will.
The difference is I was correct.
Kiraly was not clear. As I said the car has no autonomy.
You cannot rebut my comments so you criticize.
Király was absolutely clear. Totally and unequivocal. IT was only
you who did not seem to understand in whch event you should have asked
for clarification. But you didn't. You nitpicked (and even started
yelling at me cor calling you on it).
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Even you just said it. Cars cannot see. If one does not correct
their mistakes, realized what caused them, and how to prevent them
in the future one will do them again.
That is correct, just as Király wrote "The left-turning car did not
see the cyclist up on the sidewalk" yet you decided to correct her even
though it was totally and absolutley clear.
Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is not an accident. It could have been avoided. If you
do not look before you change lanes and hit someone that is not
an accident it is an omission that caused the collision. Thus not
an accident.
According to dictionary.com an accident is "An unexpected and
undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm" .Yet you
previously said "People talk about accidents. Accidents are no
accident. People are at fault."

That was quite a specific statement (and quite a silly one too) stating
accidents are not accidents.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Again you are using the logic that if people say it somehow makes it
right.
Uhm, no. I'm not stating that. What I am saying is, if people are
clear in their statements, then stick to the issue. If they say
something that you do not understand, then it is proper to ask for
clarification. Of course, that is not what you did. Both me and
Király were 100% clear.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
I understand legal responsibility fine. IT is you that had trouble
understanding people, including your own self. Perhaps you lack self
awareness? perhaps you DO have self awareness but enjoy the
nitpicking.
Either way, you look ridiculous.
The city is a legal entity and thus can be named. Thus it is correct
to say the city is responsible. Thus the city passed the bylaw.
No, people passed the law. Wood, and concrete, plants, etc. cannot
pass laws.
Peter McNichol
2005-12-30 14:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Yes, but it is the in the city names that Cambie Street is prohibited,
even if a human did the work, the bylaw is in the cities name.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise.
The difference is I was correct.
Kiraly was not clear. As I said the car has no autonomy.
You cannot rebut my comments so you criticize.
Király was absolutely clear. Totally and unequivocal.
Understanding and saying things correctly are two different things.

Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Even you just said it. Cars cannot see. If one does not correct
their mistakes, realized what caused them, and how to prevent them
in the future one will do them again.
That is correct, just as Király wrote "The left-turning car did not
see the cyclist up on the sidewalk" yet you decided to correct her even
though it was totally and absolutley clear.
Yes, the car did not see. The human driving did not either.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is not an accident. It could have been avoided. If you
do not look before you change lanes and hit someone that is not
an accident it is an omission that caused the collision. Thus not
an accident.
According to dictionary.com an accident is "An unexpected and
undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm"
Actually, accidents are unavoidable. Driving errors cause collisions.
There are very few accidents. Collisions happen every day.

You should expect that if you drive drunk you are more likely to
cause harm then if you are driving carefully. You should expect that
if you forget to look you could hit something.
Post by DiscoDuck
That was quite a specific statement (and quite a silly one too) stating
accidents are not accidents.
Yes, what many people call accidents are not accidents, but collisions
that could have been avoided and prevented by at least one of the parties
involved.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Again you are using the logic that if people say it somehow makes it
right.
Uhm, no. I'm not stating that. What I am saying is, if people are
clear in their statements, then stick to the issue. If they say
something that you do not understand, then it is proper to ask for
clarification. Of course, that is not what you did. Both me and
Király were 100% clear.
Legally your words, and those of Kiraly, were not clear.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
The city is a legal entity and thus can be named. Thus it is correct
to say the city is responsible. Thus the city passed the bylaw.
No, people passed the law. Wood, and concrete, plants, etc. cannot
pass laws.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
DiscoDuck
2005-12-30 18:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible.
But still people are doing it. You keep wanting to ignore that fact.
People did it. Concrete, trees, and wood did not.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Yes, but it is the in the city names that Cambie Street is prohibited,
even if a human did the work, the bylaw is in the cities name.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise.
The difference is I was correct.
Kiraly was not clear. As I said the car has no autonomy.
You cannot rebut my comments so you criticize.
Király was absolutely clear. Totally and unequivocal.
Understanding and saying things correctly are two different things.
Legally your words, were not clear. Far more unclear than you claiming
me and Király were unclear.
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
Again, everyone (including you) knew what was being said. Király
stated the car did not see. And you know what? It didn't!!!

By the way, this is not a "legal" forum. And Király and my self were
as clear as can be, both legally, and in common sense. Seems you are
the only one that cannot grasp that. Yes you do grasp it as evidenced
by your "nitpicking"
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Even you just said it. Cars cannot see. If one does not correct
their mistakes, realized what caused them, and how to prevent them
in the future one will do them again.
That is correct, just as Király wrote "The left-turning car did not
see the cyclist up on the sidewalk" yet you decided to correct her even
though it was totally and absolutley clear.
Yes, the car did not see. The human driving did not either.
Yet, you decided to nitpick anyway. Definitely control issues
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is not an accident. It could have been avoided. If you
do not look before you change lanes and hit someone that is not
an accident it is an omission that caused the collision. Thus not
an accident.
According to dictionary.com an accident is "An unexpected and
undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm"
Actually, accidents are unavoidable. Driving errors cause collisions.
There are very few accidents. Collisions happen every day.
But you said accidents are not accidents. And again you are wrong.
There are accidents everyday. You are suggesting people do this on
purpose? If it is on purpose, then by definition it is NOT an
accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
You should expect that if you drive drunk you are more likely to
cause harm then if you are driving carefully. You should expect that
if you forget to look you could hit something.
according to dictionary.com : collision: The act or process of
colliding; a crash or conflict
As you may not knew, collision and accidents are entirely different
words. It seemed you thought they were similar. They are not.
a "collision" CAN BE the result of an "accident". But again, the word
collision cannot replace the word accident under any circumstance, if
the even was on purpose. The word "collision" can apply in both
purposeful and accidental events.

Driving drunk increases your chances of, you guessed it, an accident.
If you forget to look, then again you increase the chance of an
accident. If a collision does happen, then they are still accidents.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
That was quite a specific statement (and quite a silly one too) stating
accidents are not accidents.
Yes, what many people call accidents are not accidents, but collisions
that could have been avoided and prevented by at least one of the parties
involved.
Incorrect. Whether on purpose or by accident, a collision is The act
or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Again you are using the logic that if people say it somehow makes it
right.
Uhm, no. I'm not stating that. What I am saying is, if people are
clear in their statements, then stick to the issue. If they say
something that you do not understand, then it is proper to ask for
clarification. Of course, that is not what you did. Both me and
Király were 100% clear.
Legally your words, and those of Kiraly, were not clear.
They were perfectly clear. You knew what they meant, and did I and
every reader that read the posts. I've just showed 6 people the posts
in questions, and no one, (and I mean NO ONE) was confused, nor asked
questions.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
The city is a legal entity and thus can be named. Thus it is correct
to say the city is responsible. Thus the city passed the bylaw.
No, people passed the law. Wood, and concrete, plants, etc. cannot
pass laws.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
DiscoDuck
2005-12-30 19:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, forgot to ask (again, as you never answer). Are you a parking
commissionaire?
Peter McNichol
2006-01-02 15:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible.
But still people are doing it. You keep wanting to ignore that fact.
People did it. Concrete, trees, and wood did not.
WHAT PART OF IN THE NAME OF THE CITY DID YOU NOT GET.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Yes, but it is the in the city names that Cambie Street is prohibited,
even if a human did the work, the bylaw is in the cities name.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise.
The difference is I was correct.
Kiraly was not clear. As I said the car has no autonomy.
You cannot rebut my comments so you criticize.
Király was absolutely clear. Totally and unequivocal.
Understanding and saying things correctly are two different things.
Legally your words, were not clear. Far more unclear than you claiming
me and Király were unclear.
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
Again, everyone (including you) knew what was being said. Király
stated the car did not see. And you know what? It didn't!!!
By the way, this is not a "legal" forum. And Király and my self were
as clear as can be, both legally, and in common sense.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Even you just said it. Cars cannot see. If one does not correct
their mistakes, realized what caused them, and how to prevent them
in the future one will do them again.
That is correct, just as Király wrote "The left-turning car did not
see the cyclist up on the sidewalk" yet you decided to correct her even
though it was totally and absolutley clear.
Yes, the car did not see. The human driving did not either.
Yet, you decided to nitpick anyway. Definitely control issues
So rather then saying anything concrete, you say I am nit picking.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is not an accident. It could have been avoided. If you
do not look before you change lanes and hit someone that is not
an accident it is an omission that caused the collision. Thus not
an accident.
According to dictionary.com an accident is "An unexpected and
undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm"
Actually, accidents are unavoidable. Driving errors cause collisions.
There are very few accidents. Collisions happen every day.
But you said accidents are not accidents. And again you are wrong.
There are accidents everyday. You are suggesting people do this on
purpose? If it is on purpose, then by definition it is NOT an
accident.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.

If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision.
An action of omission is still an action and serves just as much purpose.

If you drive drunk on purpose you must expect consequences.
If you speed you must expect consequences.
If you shoot a gun you must expect consequences.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You should expect that if you drive drunk you are more likely to
cause harm then if you are driving carefully. You should expect that
if you forget to look you could hit something.
according to dictionary.com : collision: The act or process of
colliding; a crash or conflict
As you may not knew, collision and accidents are entirely different
words. It seemed you thought they were similar. They are not.
a "collision" CAN BE the result of an "accident". But again, the word
collision cannot replace the word accident under any circumstance, if
the even was on purpose. The word "collision" can apply in both
purposeful and accidental events.
Driving drunk increases your chances of, you guessed it, an accident.
If you forget to look, then again you increase the chance of an
accident. If a collision does happen, then they are still accidents.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
That was quite a specific statement (and quite a silly one too) stating
accidents are not accidents.
Yes, what many people call accidents are not accidents, but collisions
that could have been avoided and prevented by at least one of the parties
involved.
Incorrect. Whether on purpose or by accident, a collision is The act
or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
And if the driver did something to cause that collision it is no accident.

It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Again you are using the logic that if people say it somehow makes it
right.
Uhm, no. I'm not stating that. What I am saying is, if people are
clear in their statements, then stick to the issue. If they say
something that you do not understand, then it is proper to ask for
clarification. Of course, that is not what you did. Both me and
Király were 100% clear.
Legally your words, and those of Kiraly, were not clear.
They were perfectly clear. You knew what they meant, and did I and
every reader that read the posts. I've just showed 6 people the posts
in questions, and no one, (and I mean NO ONE) was confused, nor asked
questions.
If car cannot see then it could not have seen. That is not correct English.
Numbers do not change facts.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
The city is a legal entity and thus can be named. Thus it is correct
to say the city is responsible. Thus the city passed the bylaw.
No, people passed the law. Wood, and concrete, plants, etc. cannot
pass laws.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.

By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
smn
2006-01-02 18:04:52 UTC
Permalink
I will drink to that. You guys must be really sloshed to be making so much
sense.
We are all puppets for somebody.( By your reasoning people do not work
either. Only their muscles do) Have another?
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Well seems like we have each explained ourselves.
Actually, I was clear from the beginning. The reason you nitpicked was
to somehow make yourself feel superior.
Post by Peter McNichol
The city while composed of people doing the work is an entity
and thus can be named. So when I named the city I was correct
in the legal sense to name the city. The street has no legal
entity.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible.
But still people are doing it. You keep wanting to ignore that fact.
People did it. Concrete, trees, and wood did not.
WHAT PART OF IN THE NAME OF THE CITY DID YOU NOT GET.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
No doubt someone did some paper work at the
Post by Peter McNichol
city and got some high level approvals before legally (?)
restricting cyclists from Cambie Street.
A person is made of cells, brains, blood, muscles, heart, etc.
A city has many of those same things. They are both legal
entities.
And Cambie street prohibits bikes on some parts of the road.
Yes, but it is the in the city names that Cambie Street is prohibited,
even if a human did the work, the bylaw is in the cities name.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
that does not change the fact that legally a city is incorporated
and has legal responsibility and therefore can be named.
A car has no legal entity. The only reason I mentioned the car
cannot see was to clarify the incorrect and all too common
notion people blame cars. The driver has the eyes and is responsible.
Again, Kiraly was clear. Even though I do not like her, I understood
what she said. IT was clear and concise.
The difference is I was correct.
Kiraly was not clear. As I said the car has no autonomy.
You cannot rebut my comments so you criticize.
Király was absolutely clear. Totally and unequivocal.
Understanding and saying things correctly are two different things.
Legally your words, were not clear. Far more unclear than you claiming
me and Király were unclear.
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
Again, everyone (including you) knew what was being said. Király
stated the car did not see. And you know what? It didn't!!!
By the way, this is not a "legal" forum. And Király and my self were
as clear as can be, both legally, and in common sense.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People talk about accidents. Accidents are no accident. People
are at fault. The more correct term is collision. This is why
I corrected Kiraly. Not to nitpick but to emphasize the
distinction.
Nonesense.
Also, accidents ARE accidents. They are mistakes, and yes people are
at fault, yes. But that does not change the fact the car did not see
the other car, pedestrian, etc.
Even you just said it. Cars cannot see. If one does not correct
their mistakes, realized what caused them, and how to prevent them
in the future one will do them again.
That is correct, just as Király wrote "The left-turning car did not
see the cyclist up on the sidewalk" yet you decided to correct her even
though it was totally and absolutley clear.
Yes, the car did not see. The human driving did not either.
Yet, you decided to nitpick anyway. Definitely control issues
So rather then saying anything concrete, you say I am nit picking.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is not an accident. It could have been avoided. If you
do not look before you change lanes and hit someone that is not
an accident it is an omission that caused the collision. Thus not
an accident.
According to dictionary.com an accident is "An unexpected and
undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm"
Actually, accidents are unavoidable. Driving errors cause collisions.
There are very few accidents. Collisions happen every day.
But you said accidents are not accidents. And again you are wrong.
There are accidents everyday. You are suggesting people do this on
purpose? If it is on purpose, then by definition it is NOT an
accident.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision.
An action of omission is still an action and serves just as much purpose.
If you drive drunk on purpose you must expect consequences.
If you speed you must expect consequences.
If you shoot a gun you must expect consequences.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You should expect that if you drive drunk you are more likely to
cause harm then if you are driving carefully. You should expect that
if you forget to look you could hit something.
according to dictionary.com : collision: The act or process of
colliding; a crash or conflict
As you may not knew, collision and accidents are entirely different
words. It seemed you thought they were similar. They are not.
a "collision" CAN BE the result of an "accident". But again, the word
collision cannot replace the word accident under any circumstance, if
the even was on purpose. The word "collision" can apply in both
purposeful and accidental events.
Driving drunk increases your chances of, you guessed it, an accident.
If you forget to look, then again you increase the chance of an
accident. If a collision does happen, then they are still accidents.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
That was quite a specific statement (and quite a silly one too) stating
accidents are not accidents.
Yes, what many people call accidents are not accidents, but collisions
that could have been avoided and prevented by at least one of the parties
involved.
Incorrect. Whether on purpose or by accident, a collision is The act
or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
And if the driver did something to cause that collision it is no accident.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
However, in the courts employees are not sued, the corporation
is. You cannot sue a car.
I have heard in court many times, "the car did not see the pedestrian"
but never have I heard counsel (or judge). "No, the DRIVER did not
see"." Not even they have this insatiable need try and "correct"
others. The reason you nitpicked was to somehow make yourself feel
superior.
Again you are using the logic that if people say it somehow makes it
right.
Uhm, no. I'm not stating that. What I am saying is, if people are
clear in their statements, then stick to the issue. If they say
something that you do not understand, then it is proper to ask for
clarification. Of course, that is not what you did. Both me and
Király were 100% clear.
Legally your words, and those of Kiraly, were not clear.
They were perfectly clear. You knew what they meant, and did I and
every reader that read the posts. I've just showed 6 people the posts
in questions, and no one, (and I mean NO ONE) was confused, nor asked
questions.
If car cannot see then it could not have seen. That is not correct English.
Numbers do not change facts.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you cannot understand legal responsibility then you would not
understand what a court reference has to sustain that legal
responsibility and the link to naming the city.
The city is a legal entity and thus can be named. Thus it is correct
to say the city is responsible. Thus the city passed the bylaw.
No, people passed the law. Wood, and concrete, plants, etc. cannot
pass laws.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
DiscoDuck
2006-01-02 20:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible.
But still people are doing it. You keep wanting to ignore that fact.
People did it. Concrete, trees, and wood did not.
WHAT PART OF IN THE NAME OF THE CITY DID YOU NOT GET.
Is that a question? If so you neglected to end it with a question mark
(?). You must learn to be clear
WHAT PART OF CAMBIE STREET PROHIBITED CYCLISTS, DID YOU NOT GET?
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Legally your words, were not clear. Far more unclear than you claiming
me and Király were unclear.
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
Again, everyone (including you) knew what was being said. Király
stated the car did not see. And you know what? It didn't!!!
By the way, this is not a "legal" forum. And Király and my self were
as clear as can be, both legally, and in common sense.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
You are not the poster child for "sensibly." Any sensible person
understood mine and Király's statements. Clearly you are not sensible
to nitpick such things.
Post by Peter McNichol
So rather then saying anything concrete, you say I am nit picking.
I've said plenty of concrete statements.. You choose to ignore them.
And yes, you are, by any standard, nitpicking.
For example I provided the definition of accident. But you are trying
to change that definition, laughably enough.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
But you said accidents are not accidents. And again you are wrong.
There are accidents everyday. You are suggesting people do this on
purpose? If it is on purpose, then by definition it is NOT an
accident.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
it is an accident if you did not intend to hit someone or something,
but did.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
If there was no collision, then correct, it is no accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
If you did not hit anything or anyone, then correct, it is no accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
increasing risk of an accident, yes. But if there was no collision,
then there was no accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
Purposely sped? Yes. Had an accident? No. By definition an accident
is when some sort of collision occurs. What you describe above is
perhaps a "near collision". Is that what you meant?
Post by Peter McNichol
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision.
Incorrect. IN order to purposely cause an accident you would have to
KNOW for a FACT you are causing a collision. What you described what
simply forgetting to look, which may or (more likely) may not
contribute to a accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
An action of omission is still an action and serves just as much purpose.
Oh, here you are referring to an accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
If you drive drunk on purpose you must expect consequences.
If you speed you must expect consequences.
If you shoot a gun you must expect consequences.
Wrong. You run higher risks of accidents with those things, and run
the risk of accidents. But you should not "expect" those things to
happen.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You should expect that if you drive drunk you are more likely to
cause harm then if you are driving carefully. You should expect that
if you forget to look you could hit something.
according to dictionary.com : collision: The act or process of
colliding; a crash or conflict
As you may not knew, collision and accidents are entirely different
words. It seemed you thought they were similar. They are not.
a "collision" CAN BE the result of an "accident". But again, the word
collision cannot replace the word accident under any circumstance, if
the even was on purpose. The word "collision" can apply in both
purposeful and accidental events.
Driving drunk increases your chances of, you guessed it, an accident.
If you forget to look, then again you increase the chance of an
accident. If a collision does happen, then they are still accidents.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
it is an accident if you did not intend to hit someone or something,
but did.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
If there was no collision, then correct, it is no accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
If you did not hit anything or anyone, then correct, it is no accident.


Of course, ALL those things are accidents. Call the police and ask
them I just did. They referred to all those things as accidents.
Call the insurance company.

For a guy who claims to want to be "legally" correct, it is surprising
how you want to deny the true definition of "accident"
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
That was quite a specific statement (and quite a silly one too) stating
accidents are not accidents.
Yes, what many people call accidents are not accidents, but collisions
that could have been avoided and prevented by at least one of the parties
involved.
Incorrect. Whether on purpose or by accident, a collision is The act
or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
And if the driver did something to cause that collision it is no accident.
It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
it is an accident if you did not intend to hit someone or something,
but did.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
If there was no collision, then correct, it is no accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before moving.
If you did not hit anything or anyone, then correct, it is no accident.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Legally your words, and those of Kiraly, were not clear.
They were perfectly clear. You knew what they meant, and did I and
every reader that read the posts. I've just showed 6 people the posts
in questions, and no one, (and I mean NO ONE) was confused, nor asked
questions.
If car cannot see then it could not have seen. That is not correct English.
Numbers do not change facts.
IT was CORRECT English. The fact that Király wrote that is perfect
English. Show were her grammar was wrong in her initial statement.
Why does it bother you that cars cannot see, and that Király stated
it?
However you seem to have a poor grasp of this language so perhaps that
is explaining your reluctance to admit you are wrong.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
Actually you are wrong there, too. While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain-something you seem to lack). Also muscles are not an invented
concept. They are a fact. This legal entity you're so fond of is a
concept, run by people.

So how long have you been a parking commissionaire?
Peter McNichol
2006-01-09 11:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible.
But still people are doing it. You keep wanting to ignore that fact.
People did it. Concrete, trees, and wood did not.
People work for a city and the city gets the credit. That is how incorporations
work. Incorporated municipalities have bylaws and are responsible for them legally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
As an advocate who is trying to indicate legal responsibility the car
cannot be charged or sued. The driver can be.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain. Also muscles are not an invented concept. They are a fact.
This legal entity you're so fond of is a concept, run by people.
And the people are part of the legal entity.

The original information I inquired about was what legal body had
restricted cyclist use on Cambie street (city, region, province,
federal, etc.). A person's name, by itself, would not give me that.

DD, you have failed to provide any information regarding the which
organization, which department, which methodology, and why
definitively cyclist use was restricted on Cambie street.

DD, you did indicate that some sort of transit construction was going
on, but only Kiraly indicated the reason was due to narrow lane
width.

Even the narrow lane width could have been avoided by providing two
wide lanes rather than three narrow lanes. Which I felt was important
information for an advocate to indicate.
DiscoDuck
2006-01-09 21:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
People work for a city and the city gets the credit. That is how incorporations
work. Incorporated municipalities have bylaws and are responsible for them legally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
As an advocate who is trying to indicate legal responsibility the car
cannot be charged or sued. The driver can be.
But again, as you pointed out, that I pointed out, this is not a legal
forum.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain. Also muscles are not an invented concept. They are a fact.
This legal entity you're so fond of is a concept, run by people.
And the people are part of the legal entity.
The original information I inquired about was what legal body had
restricted cyclist use on Cambie street (city, region, province,
federal, etc.). A person's name, by itself, would not give me that.
I bet you there is a person's signature, "authorizing" restriction.
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you have failed to provide any information regarding the which
organization, which department, which methodology, and why
definitively cyclist use was restricted on Cambie street.
Actually I did, multiple times. I provided you an address even though
I don't care too much about initial issue . Here it is , yet again:
***@vancouver.ca. I posted the fact that Cambie restricted
cyclists here, as a courtesy and to prove another point (about how cars
and bicycles differ). You were so concerned which is why I kindly gave
you the email address to ask, (several times-you never did thank me).
But chose not to pursue it. You seem to care so much about it, yet for
some reason think I am the one who can answer your question. I do not
work for the city. For the umpteenth time, here is their address for
you to ask them, your self. They would know far better than I (or you)
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you did indicate that some sort of transit construction was going
on, but only Kiraly indicated the reason was due to narrow lane
width.
For RAV, yes. That is my assumption. Since you seem so desperate to
prove me wrong (even so far as to claim dictionnaires have the wrong
definition of accident), here is your chance. Maybe it has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with RAV? Maybe they are preparing for an
archaeological dig for ruins that are thousands of years old. I doubt
it, but it could be. This is your chance to prove ME wrong for a
change.
Post by Peter McNichol
Even the narrow lane width could have been avoided by providing two
wide lanes rather than three narrow lanes. Which I felt was important
information for an advocate to indicate.
Then contact ***@vancouver.ca and let them know your feelings.
You have no problem doing that here.
Peter McNichol
2006-01-11 16:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People work for a city and the city gets the credit. That is how incorporations
work. Incorporated municipalities have bylaws and are responsible for them legally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
As an advocate who is trying to indicate legal responsibility the car
cannot be charged or sued. The driver can be.
But again, as you pointed out, that I pointed out, this is not a legal
forum.
I only said you said this was not a legal forum.

This is a forum about BC.cycing and anything that affects cycling.
The organization responsible cycling for and the employees working
for that organization must be questioned about their actions.

If we are talking what legal body takes responsibility for the actions
of its employees as it regards to cycling then this is fair game.

The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.

Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain. Also muscles are not an invented concept. They are a fact.
This legal entity you're so fond of is a concept, run by people.
And the people are part of the legal entity.
The original information I inquired about was what legal body had
restricted cyclist use on Cambie street (city, region, province,
federal, etc.). A person's name, by itself, would not give me that.
I bet you there is a person's signature, "authorizing" restriction.
And that name alone would not give me their position, their department,
their organization, or their responsibilities within the incorporation.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you have failed to provide any information regarding the which
organization, which department, which methodology, and why
definitively cyclist use was restricted on Cambie street.
Actually I did, multiple times. I provided you an address even though
cyclists here, as a courtesy and to prove another point (about how cars
and bicycles differ). You were so concerned which is why I kindly gave
you the email address to ask, (several times-you never did thank me).
But chose not to pursue it. You seem to care so much about it, yet for
some reason think I am the one who can answer your question. I do not
work for the city. For the umpteenth time, here is their address for
you to ask them, your self. They would know far better than I (or you)
Providing an email is not information. If no one in Vancouver cares to
find out information and discuss better solutions I pity your city
and its people.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you did indicate that some sort of transit construction was going
on, but only Kiraly indicated the reason was due to narrow lane
width.
For RAV, yes. That is my assumption. Since you seem so desperate to
prove me wrong (even so far as to claim dictionnaires have the wrong
definition of accident), here is your chance. Maybe it has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with
Post by Peter McNichol
Even the narrow lane width could have been avoided by providing two
wide lanes rather than three narrow lanes. Which I felt was important
information for an advocate to indicate.
You have no problem doing that here.
This forum is to discuss problems. If local people do not want to react
then I again pity your city and its people.
DiscoDuck
2006-01-12 01:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People work for a city and the city gets the credit. That is how incorporations
work. Incorporated municipalities have bylaws and are responsible for them legally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
As an advocate who is trying to indicate legal responsibility the car
cannot be charged or sued. The driver can be.
But again, as you pointed out, that I pointed out, this is not a legal
forum.
I only said you said this was not a legal forum.
This is a forum about BC.cycing and anything that affects cycling.
The organization responsible cycling for and the employees working
for that organization must be questioned about their actions.
If we are talking what legal body takes responsibility for the actions
of its employees as it regards to cycling then this is fair game.
The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.
Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
No, you did with this nitpicking statement "First of all Cambie Street
is not doing the mandating. The city may be"
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain. Also muscles are not an invented concept. They are a fact.
This legal entity you're so fond of is a concept, run by people.
And the people are part of the legal entity.
The original information I inquired about was what legal body had
restricted cyclist use on Cambie street (city, region, province,
federal, etc.). A person's name, by itself, would not give me that.
I bet you there is a person's signature, "authorizing" restriction.
And that name alone would not give me their position, their department,
their organization, or their responsibilities within the incorporation.
But it still needed a person for it to take effect. Left blank, it
would not be in effect.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you have failed to provide any information regarding the which
organization, which department, which methodology, and why
definitively cyclist use was restricted on Cambie street.
Actually I did, multiple times. I provided you an address even though
cyclists here, as a courtesy and to prove another point (about how cars
and bicycles differ). You were so concerned which is why I kindly gave
you the email address to ask, (several times-you never did thank me).
But chose not to pursue it. You seem to care so much about it, yet for
some reason think I am the one who can answer your question. I do not
work for the city. For the umpteenth time, here is their address for
you to ask them, your self. They would know far better than I (or you)
Providing an email is not information. If no one in Vancouver cares to
find out information and discuss better solutions I pity your city
and its people.
You are the only one concerned. So write them. Email is information.
You are trying to get me to do your work, for you.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you did indicate that some sort of transit construction was going
on, but only Kiraly indicated the reason was due to narrow lane
width.
For RAV, yes. That is my assumption. Since you seem so desperate to
prove me wrong (even so far as to claim dictionnaires have the wrong
definition of accident), here is your chance. Maybe it has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with
Post by Peter McNichol
Even the narrow lane width could have been avoided by providing two
wide lanes rather than three narrow lanes. Which I felt was important
information for an advocate to indicate.
You have no problem doing that here.
This forum is to discuss problems. If local people do not want to react
then I again pity your city and its people.
You mean Vancouver? You pity Vancouver? Then do something about it.

The forum is for far more, than discussing problems.
Peter McNichol
2006-01-16 13:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People work for a city and the city gets the credit. That is how incorporations
work. Incorporated municipalities have bylaws and are responsible for them legally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
As an advocate who is trying to indicate legal responsibility the car
cannot be charged or sued. The driver can be.
But again, as you pointed out, that I pointed out, this is not a legal
forum.
I only said you said this was not a legal forum.
This is a forum about BC.cycing and anything that affects cycling.
The organization responsible cycling for and the employees working
for that organization must be questioned about their actions.
If we are talking what legal body takes responsibility for the actions
of its employees as it regards to cycling then this is fair game.
The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.
Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
No, you did with this nitpicking statement "First of all Cambie Street
is not doing the mandating. The city may be"
Yes, I was trying to locate responsibility. You failed to answer that question.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain. Also muscles are not an invented concept. They are a fact.
This legal entity you're so fond of is a concept, run by people.
And the people are part of the legal entity.
The original information I inquired about was what legal body had
restricted cyclist use on Cambie street (city, region, province,
federal, etc.). A person's name, by itself, would not give me that.
I bet you there is a person's signature, "authorizing" restriction.
And that name alone would not give me their position, their department,
their organization, or their responsibilities within the incorporation.
But it still needed a person for it to take effect. Left blank, it
would not be in effect.
So what! I was not looking for a person! I was looking for a legal body.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you have failed to provide any information regarding the which
organization, which department, which methodology, and why
definitively cyclist use was restricted on Cambie street.
Actually I did, multiple times. I provided you an address even though
cyclists here, as a courtesy and to prove another point (about how cars
and bicycles differ). You were so concerned which is why I kindly gave
you the email address to ask, (several times-you never did thank me).
But chose not to pursue it. You seem to care so much about it, yet for
some reason think I am the one who can answer your question. I do not
work for the city. For the umpteenth time, here is their address for
you to ask them, your self. They would know far better than I (or you)
Providing an email is not information. If no one in Vancouver cares to
find out information and discuss better solutions I pity your city
and its people.
You are the only one concerned. So write them. Email is information.
You are trying to get me to do your work, for you.
Again, I am not doing this for my benefit. I really do pity VANCOUVER.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you did indicate that some sort of transit construction was going
on, but only Kiraly indicated the reason was due to narrow lane
width.
For RAV, yes. That is my assumption. Since you seem so desperate to
prove me wrong (even so far as to claim dictionnaires have the wrong
definition of accident), here is your chance. Maybe it has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with
Post by Peter McNichol
Even the narrow lane width could have been avoided by providing two
wide lanes rather than three narrow lanes. Which I felt was important
information for an advocate to indicate.
You have no problem doing that here.
This forum is to discuss problems. If local people do not want to react
then I again pity your city and its people.
You mean Vancouver? You pity Vancouver? Then do something about it.
The forum is for far more, than discussing problems.
I am not the one living there complaining about CAMBIE street.

I offered solutions, but it is up to local people to fight the issue.

What have you done locally to support cycling?
DiscoDuck
2006-01-16 21:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
People work for a city and the city gets the credit. That is how incorporations
work. Incorporated municipalities have bylaws and are responsible for them legally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
You can claim all you want, but cars do not have eyes. Neither do
streets have a legal entity.
And she said the car did not see. Yet that bothers you.
As an advocate who is trying to indicate legal responsibility the car
cannot be charged or sued. The driver can be.
But again, as you pointed out, that I pointed out, this is not a legal
forum.
I only said you said this was not a legal forum.
This is a forum about BC.cycing and anything that affects cycling.
The organization responsible cycling for and the employees working
for that organization must be questioned about their actions.
If we are talking what legal body takes responsibility for the actions
of its employees as it regards to cycling then this is fair game.
The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.
Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
No, you did with this nitpicking statement "First of all Cambie Street
is not doing the mandating. The city may be"
Yes, I was trying to locate responsibility. You failed to answer that question.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Cars cannot see. It is important to put the responsibility on the legal
entity, the driver.
If a car cannot see then it could not have seen. Therefore claiming
the car was at fault for not seeing is impossible, legally, and
sensibly.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
The people work for the city. Absolutely nothing can get done unless
people perform tasks. Concrete, wood, trees, water, computers, etc.
cannot perform work without human input.
The people work for the city. All their work is done in the name of the
city. Legally the city did it and it is responsible. That is the legal
function of an incorporated city.
People do all the work. Tree's, concrete, etc. do not.
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
While muscles are used, there are
also tendons, bones, and organs involved (most notably the
brain. Also muscles are not an invented concept. They are a fact.
This legal entity you're so fond of is a concept, run by people.
And the people are part of the legal entity.
The original information I inquired about was what legal body had
restricted cyclist use on Cambie street (city, region, province,
federal, etc.). A person's name, by itself, would not give me that.
I bet you there is a person's signature, "authorizing" restriction.
And that name alone would not give me their position, their department,
their organization, or their responsibilities within the incorporation.
But it still needed a person for it to take effect. Left blank, it
would not be in effect.
So what! I was not looking for a person! I was looking for a legal body.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you have failed to provide any information regarding the which
organization, which department, which methodology, and why
definitively cyclist use was restricted on Cambie street.
Actually I did, multiple times. I provided you an address even though
cyclists here, as a courtesy and to prove another point (about how cars
and bicycles differ). You were so concerned which is why I kindly gave
you the email address to ask, (several times-you never did thank me).
But chose not to pursue it. You seem to care so much about it, yet for
some reason think I am the one who can answer your question. I do not
work for the city. For the umpteenth time, here is their address for
you to ask them, your self. They would know far better than I (or you)
Providing an email is not information. If no one in Vancouver cares to
find out information and discuss better solutions I pity your city
and its people.
You are the only one concerned. So write them. Email is information.
You are trying to get me to do your work, for you.
Again, I am not doing this for my benefit. I really do pity VANCOUVER.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
DD, you did indicate that some sort of transit construction was going
on, but only Kiraly indicated the reason was due to narrow lane
width.
For RAV, yes. That is my assumption. Since you seem so desperate to
prove me wrong (even so far as to claim dictionnaires have the wrong
definition of accident), here is your chance. Maybe it has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with
Post by Peter McNichol
Even the narrow lane width could have been avoided by providing two
wide lanes rather than three narrow lanes. Which I felt was important
information for an advocate to indicate.
You have no problem doing that here.
This forum is to discuss problems. If local people do not want to react
then I again pity your city and its people.
You mean Vancouver? You pity Vancouver? Then do something about it.
The forum is for far more, than discussing problems.
I am not the one living there complaining about CAMBIE street.
Neither am I. Haven't complained, once about it.
Post by Peter McNichol
I offered solutions, but it is up to local people to fight the issue.
Like I said, I don't really care about the Cambie street issue. I
brought it up to prove the difference between cars and bikes.
Post by Peter McNichol
What have you done locally to support cycling?
Opposed the helmet law for one thing. I know it has reduced cycling
from where it would be without it.
Peter McNichol
2006-01-17 13:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.
Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
Yes, I was trying to locate responsibility. You failed to answer that question.
Excuse me. You failed to answer the question. You suggested I should get the answer
from engineering. That is not an answer.
Post by Peter McNichol
I offered solutions, but it is up to local people to fight the issue.
DiscoDuck
2006-01-17 18:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.
Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
Yes, I was trying to locate responsibility. You failed to answer that question.
Excuse me. You failed to answer the question. You suggested I should get the answer
from engineering. That is not an answer.
Because I cannot answer your question (not do I care about it as much
as you do).
Actually you don't seem to care either but get some sort of perverse
thrill out of trying to "make" others find the answer for you. How
bizarre.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
I offered solutions, but it is up to local people to fight the issue.
Peter McNichol
2006-01-20 14:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
The question I asked was who (and what body) authorized restricting
cycling on Cambie street.
Instead you DD turned this into an argument about what a city is.
Yes, I was trying to locate responsibility. You failed to answer that question.
Excuse me. You failed to answer the question. You suggested I should get the answer
from engineering. That is not an answer.
Because I cannot answer your question (not do I care about it as much
as you do).
You complain cyclists are not allowed on Cambie street yet you do not want to know the
answer.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by Peter McNichol
I offered solutions, but it is up to local people to fight the issue.
DiscoDuck
2006-01-20 18:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Again, for the fifth time, I simply provided the fact there was a
detour. I feven speculated that it was due to RAV construction.
YOU blew a gasket, stating, ""First of all Cambie Street is not doing
the mandating. The city may be"

But of course you cannot admit you are wrong!!!

And why have you avoided the questionss in the other posts? Here, I'll
repeat then here for you.
By the way, what is an "enlightened advocate" Someone who wants to say
if someone makes a mistake, they did it in purpose? oh brother. What
is the definition of "on purpose? Since you are randomly changing
definitions, (ahem,) on purpose!

I provided evidence directly from ICBC. Where is your evidence that
the definition has been officially changed by "enlightened advocates
and professionals" that accidents are done on purpose?

Eric®
2006-01-04 18:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Peter McNichol wrote . . .
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
I'm actually starting to miss the days when Bob Broughton was posting to
this group . . .

Eric
DiscoDuck
2006-01-04 19:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric®
Peter McNichol wrote . . .
Post by Peter McNichol
By your reasoning people do not work either. Only their muscles do.
I'm actually starting to miss the days when Bob Broughton was posting to
this group . . .
Frightening isn't it Eric? The kind of "sensiblity" Peter has?
Loading...