gdp's Comments

Daily Camera.com: : Second day in trial of driver in Boulder County fatal truck vs. bike case begins - Boulder Daily Cam

Fri, 8 Mar 2013 00:55:46 +0000

So many disingenuous trolls in this thread, you make me sick. We know for a fact that Howrey was not over the speed limit at this intersection. Anyone suggesting Howrey's speed was a contributor is either willfully ignorant or deliberately lying, no doubt about it. It is right there in the article, his cyclocomputer confirms it, and it was affirmed in the court proceedings. We know for a fact that to make this turn *safely*, you pull up NEXT TO AND EVEN SLIGHTLY PAST the tree, prepared to stop, as you look to see if the road is clear. Look at the picture posted above - it really is very obvious, and if you have driven or ridden there you know this too. If you a) don't cut the corner and b) slow down enough to check the road ahead, then the tree is not even in the line of sight. if Loven was driving safely, the tree would not be a factor. We know for a fact that this intersection can be navigated safely, without killing anyone - tree or not. It is not inherent a dangerous intersection, let alone a murderous one. Thousands of drivers and cyclists do it every week, before the tree was removed and since. Anyone arguing the tree was at fault should have their license revoked immediately because they are reckless and unsafe drivers who should be nowhere near the wheel of a vehicle. We know for a fact that Loven did not stop at the intersection before turning. You simply do not lay down skid marks if you stop (next to the tree) before making that turn, no matter how hard to subsequently brake. He has admitted it, and the court record reflects it. When he was doing 18-22mph on that stretch in a large truck-and-trailer, it actually seems most likely that he did not even slow down before charging into the intersection. We know for a fact that Loven did not have the right of way, and that Howrey did have the right of way. There is neither circumstance nor evidence in this case that anyone or anything could negate this essential rule of law. We know for a fact that Loven did not navigate this intersection safely. He killed someone who had the right of way on the opposite side of the road while turning across it. Clearly this was unsafe. QED. And for anyone arguing the tree is the fault - if the tree was a factor at all, then it is because Loven was negligent in its presence. Remember, Loven lives in the area and knows that intersection very well. He knows cyclists (and cars) come downhill quickly. He knows that you need to take that corner safely to ensure you have the visibility you need to make a legal turn against oncoming traffic, even when they are doing the speed limit. Loven is clearly 100% at fault here. Not the tree, not the county, and most certainly not Howrey. Any other finding will be a complete travesty. Anyone arguing that Howrey bears even one iota of the blame is a horrible and nasty person who sickens me to my core. If you still don't think Loven bears responsibility, ask yourself - if you were driving your car and Loven turned across you and totaled your vehicle, sending you to hospital, would you give him a pass? How about if it were your husband, wife, son or daughter who was driving, and he had killed them at that intersection? Still all the tree's fault? A bike with someone you don't know on it has as much right to that road as a car with your loved ones in it. Perhaps Loven's prior history of naked and criminal aggression isirrelevant to this case - though I tend to disagree ("goes to motive, you honor"). Even if so, then it absolutely should be brought out for sentencing. This man should never be allowed to menace Boulder cyclists again as he has done in the past; he should never be allowed to kill Boulder cyclists as he has also done. Our community should be permanently saved from his violence, aggression, and deadly actions.

Daily Camera.com: : Colorado\'s medical pot industry fuels illegal trade, review shows - Boulder Daily Camera

Sat, 4 Aug 2012 06:41:45 +0000

The Camera should not just act as a PR agency for such horribly biased and seriously suspect propaganda. This drivel is just pandering to the unconscionable funding for the illegitimate 'war on drugs'. And where is the link to the review? Has the writer even seen it? Why can't we see it for ourselves? Is the anti-drug agency scared we might find gaping holes, and reveal the lies in this 'report'? So to start with, this is a sloppy, lazy article. To the substance, such as it is, how do the anti-MMJ crusaders distinguish between medical MJ and illegal MJ? Do they take the word of a drug runner? A dealer in Commerce City? A 14 year old? Not like these people would have any incentive to lie about their source, maybe to hide their illegal suppliers or grow-ops, right? *facepalm* Seems like they just decided to put the word 'medical' in front of all their marijuana busts, and blame MMJ for all the demand for pot. Is there any evidence at all that this was really MMJ? This whole article just disgusts me. The systemic dishonesty, the easy propaganda, the sloppy journalism, the obvious bias, the legitimization of lies ... Ugh.

Daily Camera.com: : Fatal car-bicycle accident closes Lefthand Canyon Drive - Boulder Daily Camera

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:23:53 +0000

No, you are factually wrong. Many roads are built for both cars and bicycles. It's right there in the laws of the state of Colorado. If you cannot deal with that fact, in a way that the law requires, then you should stop driving. It's entirely your choice.

Daily Camera.com: : Comcast raises rates; increases average 4.6 percent - Boulder Daily Camera

Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:14:00 +0000

Not Happy Comcast! Visiting Qwest soon enough. http://qwest.com

Daily Camera.com: : More snow for Colorado mountains, more wind for Boulder - Boulder Daily Camera

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:15:42 +0000

Done in one. Thanks.

Daily Camera.com: : The E-470 toll road is moving to a policy of smaller, annual toll increases beginning Jan. 1 - Bould

Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:35:39 +0000

This.

Daily Camera.com: : Open space department grapples with allowing bikes on trails west of Boulder - Boulder Daily Camera

Sun, 5 Sep 2010 15:45:05 +0000

I don't mountain bike at all. Or walk the trails. So, I didn't get anything. Nice try. But FWIW - saying mt bikers got a bike park is like telling hikers they got a treadmill. So different as to be a non-sequitur. Your arguments in this thread are really quite non-sensical.

Daily Camera.com: : Open space department grapples with allowing bikes on trails west of Boulder - Boulder Daily Camera

Sun, 5 Sep 2010 06:00:42 +0000

Reading their website, and the reportage here in the Camera, it seems to me that SOS Boulder is just lying. Outright, bald-faced, self-serving lies. Appalling and selfish behavior from some appalling and selfish people. What horrible people.

Daily Camera.com: : Open space department grapples with allowing bikes on trails west of Boulder - Boulder Daily Camera

Sun, 5 Sep 2010 05:56:29 +0000

Just because you buy some boots doesn't turn you into some kind of protected minority.

Daily Camera.com: : 4 injured in road rage clash south of Boulder - Boulder Daily Camera

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:25:52 +0000

And people piss and moan about cyclists being a problem on the roads!? BAN ALL CARS!! THEY ARE A MENACE ON THE ROADS!!

Daily Camera.com: : Boulder to spend $140 million on public improvements - Boulder Daily Camera

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:08:56 +0000

I would love to hear the council justify spending just shy of $1,000,000 dollar of tax payer money - a million dollars of yours and my money - to provide a parking lot for private planes owned by private businesses and a privileged few individuals, at an airport that a vast majority of taxpayers will never visit or use. Really, why the hell should I pay for this? If you have enough money to own a plane or a glider, you have enough to pay to park it. If you don't, then you should not be owning a luxury item or running an aviation business.

Daily Camera.com: : Despite some ill will, Colo. still friendly for cycling - Boulder Daily Camera

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:17:01 +0000

How can any sane person believe it appropriate to post screeds of abuse - up to and including threats of physical violence and even murder - just because someone else chooses to ride a bike on a road they might use? Outside relatively rare organized rides and races (lived in CO for 5 years myself, and have *never* seen one), the worst possible case is that a driver gets held up, how long? Maybe 30 seconds? A minute? Two? How then do these crazies justify anything but sheer ennui to themselves? It truly defies belief. /Share the road. Keep to the right. Pass safely.

Daily Camera.com: : Boulder police join in Thursday cruiser rides - Boulder Daily Camera

Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:25:51 +0000

That's some mighty fine policing there Lou. Way to 'protect and serve'. Even if I am not sure who is being protected, or served. On the upside, it is great to know all other policing problems are solved in Boulder. I mean, it must be, if the BPD are wasting their time and our money every week on the cruiser bike ride. Right? Right?

Daily Camera.com: : Boulder County rolls out canyon cycling improvements: New signs part of plan to calm nerves - Boulde

Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:33:58 +0000

Why not have the signs just point out the law? - Ride on the right and let cars pass safely - Give riders 3 feet and pass when it is safe Then put some sheriffs in the canyons occasionally to ticket cyclists and drivers when they break the law. I ride and drive the canyons, and there are (thankfully few) self-righteous dicks who just don't know or follow the existing law. You can see some of them in these comments. Recommended signs are not going to change them. Inform them, and bust them if they keep ignoring the law.

Daily Camera.com: : The unwelcome backlash: The reactionary stance against marijuana - Boulder Daily Camera

Sun, 23 May 2010 19:22:02 +0000

Well, if you will just repeat post that dumb link, I will repeat my rebuttal.... Your post is so spurious, it merely shows your bias, and little else. The study you glibly referenced showed a somewhat weak if persistent correlation, yet showed absolutely no causative effects between cannabis and psychosis. It did not look at a host of other risk factors that may have caused the psychosis. It explicitly states that pre-existing psychoses could have led to self-medication with cannabis, rather than cannabis use leading to psychosis. It explicitly states that despite the correlation, it is not meaningful enough to draw any firm conclusions, and more study is needed. Also, did you miss the part where they were studying 15-21 year olds? Adult cannabis usage was not even looked at in this study. No one is suggesting we open up cannabis for kids. In fact, the post you replied to *specifically* wanted to ban any cannabis use by anyone under the age of 21 (i.e. treat it like alcohol). I am also willing to bet that if you studied 21 year olds who have been drinking alcohol since they were 15, you would find some pretty systemic problems too - and with much greater causative links and more deleterious outcomes than cannabis. So blithely and self-righteously posting a link to this study in response to the idea of regulating cannabis like alcohol is a pointless and baseless strawman that is ignorant of the proposal, the issue, the effects, and even the study itself. Well done! You really need to learn to read before coming off all high and mighty with a kneejerk reaction.