[peterw_diy]

@dplasters 177494 wrote:

I dunno, are they ‘ands’ or ‘ors’?

It can’t be “and” for the first item’s mid block scenario and the second item, which is all about the end of the block. There would be no point mentioning mid block in #1 if condition #2 were also required, ergo the motor vehicle operator must yield in any of the three conditions.

[peterw_diy]

@SarahBee 177418 wrote:

if you do get caught, ticketed, and unsuccessfully contest in court, Arlington will assess 3 points against your drivers license (even if you live in MD and even though it is a bike infraction) which is equivalent to a DUI.

That really really sucks. Why 3 points? Whose decision is that? Considering the relative lethality of the infractions (I.e. that drunk driving kills 10,000 people in the US annually), if a DUI is three points, failing to stop on a bike should be about 0.0003 points. Maybe less. Are Arlington’s hands tied in this matter or could they choose to be more fair and rational??

[peterw_diy]

Thanks for the citation. I’d love it if somebody could explain what this means: “pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles … Where intersections contain no marked crosswalks, pedestrians shall not be guilty of negligence as a matter of law for crossing … between intersections when crossing by the most direct route”

Does that mean crossing mid block in, say, a residential area with unmarked crosswalks is only illegal if the crossing is “maliciously” interfering with cars?

Also despite your highlighting, I think it’s arguable that the first sentence is most relevant and the issue of where a pedestrian crosses is only relevant if the crossing “carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles”.

[peterw_diy]

Actual Arizona law: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm

28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk

A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

As I mentioned before, the Arizona victim appears to have been violating item C because the two closest intersections have traffic signals, even though they’re over half a mile apart.

[peterw_diy]

@lordofthemark 176818 wrote:

A3 defines where a driver must stop for pedestrians, EVEN THOUGH the pedestrian is in violation of the law.

Which law? You keep making anti-pedestrian assertions without citing actual statutes. I’m not aware of any Virginia law that forbids crossing outside of marked or unmarked crosswalks.

Here’s another Virginia citation for you: “No pedestrian shall step into a highway open to moving vehicular traffic at any point between intersections where his presence would be obscured from the vision of drivers of approaching vehicles by a vehicle or other obstruction at the curb or side.” (§ 46.2-926.).

I’m open to the possibility that Virginia law somewhere forbids pedestrians crossing mid-block even while portions I’ve cited seem to imply a right to cross “at [some] point between intersections” but you’re going to need to cite some actual law. Can you do that?

I’ve seen things like § 46.2-924’s requirement that “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic” but I have never seen any statutory language supporting your assertions.

Would you please either provide some legal references or refrain from trying to criminalize pedestrian behavior?

[peterw_diy]

@lordofthemark 176790 wrote:

I should have used a better word than “fault” – and again as an advocate my focus would be on infra. … But crossing outside a crosswalk anywhere is technically illegal.

Wrong. Virginia § 46.2-924. A 2 and § 46.2-924. A 3 describe two scenarios in which vehicle operators are required to yield to pedestrians crossing highways outside of crosswalks. I’m not saying this woman met the requirements of Virginia law, just pointing out that your claim that “crossing outside a crosswalk anywhere is … illegal” is not even correct in your own state!

Arizona law (28-793) also appears to allow crossing outside crosswalks in many situations, although pedestrians in Arizona must yield to autos when crossing outside of marked crosswalks or not at intersections [“unmarked crosswalks”]. Arizona pedestrians are forbidden to cross mid-block between any pair of intersections that are governed by traffic signals, so it appears that the victim here was “jaywalking”. There’s over half a mile between the two nearest intersections, but the two nearest intersections on Mill Ave do have traffic signals.

Having watched the video i agree with scoot, the video suggests the car was driving too fast for the headlights, especially if videocamera frames are a significant input for the AV.

[peterw_diy]

It’s nice the officer attempted an apology, but IMO it wasn’t very good. “My apologies for any confusion caused.”? No. The officers didn’t cause any confusion. Confusion by the officer, rather, was the source of the problem. It’s as if the officer knew an apology was warranted (which is good!) but couldn’t actually admit what went wrong.

[peterw_diy]

1) Aren’t the rails supposed to be clamped so that only the area with those white lines is inside the seatpost clamp?

2) Did you examine the clamp to ensure there is no scratched, rough area making contact with your saddle rails? If the rails get scratched, the scratch can be a “stress riser” which can lead to premature failure. Any rough area facing the rails should be sanded smooth, or the post should be replaced.

[peterw_diy]

@AFHokie 174388 wrote:

Depending how rural your home/location, offsetting the circle still may not do much if for degrading the CEP if yours is the only house/compound in the area or a terrain overlay shows your house is the only reasonable option.

Or if you own your house and your Strava username is similar to your legal name.

[peterw_diy]

Yep, unable to connect. Hans, I recommend Uptime Robot for decent free monitoring with no strings attached. You can point it at anything that responds with a status 200 item or even a standard HTTP auth challenge (it treats an auth challenge as evidence of Uptime). So you could even point it at your webhook service…

Good luck with the repair, and thanks as always for all your work!

[peterw_diy]

@consularrider 173554 wrote:

Well I did ask our RSO (Regional Security Officer) in Kyiv if there was any issue with me using Strava, especially when riding withe Ambassador.

And the answer was…?

[peterw_diy]

@TwoWheelsDC 173537 wrote:

Can say from personal experience that special forces folks (and the military writ large) are shockingly bad at this type of opsec

From the article: “the Pentagon has encouraged the use of Fitbits among military personnel and in 2013 distributed 2,500 of them as part of a pilot program to battle obesity.”

Brilliant, especially since IIUC Fitbit can only work by sending data to Fitbit servers. (While not easy, at least it appears possible to use Garmin fitness trackers and only collect data locally.)

[peterw_diy]

@mstone 172685 wrote:

the trouble is that switching to anything else means losing all the history, all the links, etc., which are a valuable resource in themselves

FWIW I think vbulletin itself is just fine – it’s mainly the incredible volume of spam that’s making this place so much less pleasant than it should be.

[peterw_diy]

peterw_diy has also reported this item.

Reason:

Quote:

Spam

[peterw_diy]

peterw_diy has also reported this item.

Reason:

Quote:

Spam

[Author]

Posts