Marksmu

For once I agree with S3MH - we don't need more BARS in the Heights, we need nice places that have good food & can serve alcohol. The up till 2am crowd is seldom good for property values, and the parking problems that follow them are not fun to deal with either. I also loathe the loud motorcycle butt-clowns who think the whole world needs to know that they are coming/going. Each/Every time the dip-wad down the street comes home at 2am with his loud motorcycle and wakes both my kids up with his blaring music and even louder tailpipes - I contemplate setting his house on fire...If I did not have other neighbors that it would annoy I would get up a 5am and mow my yard and toss in an extra 20 minutes of leaf blowing just to tick him off...alas - I am polite so I just get annoyed, but still - we don't need more bars - we need more nice places...Witchcraft seems to be a nice compromise a place with a nice crowd...but we need an ice-house like we need a hole in our heads.

Its pretty hard to be antagonistic when interpreting a statute. I would think a criminal attorney would be well versed in politically correct interpretation of a statute...given that your jury is usually a mix of race/sex/gender of which you have little control.

Well we may have argued a mute point...I did use the word shoulder, which was my mistake...I was not really referring to a shoulder...more the unused portion of the lane. On a road like Yale - it would, in my opinion, be illegal and discourteous, to ride your back up the unused portion of the lane to pass stopped cars at a red light (unless you are making a right turn) There may be room for you to do it, but it does not make it legal or polite.

I cant get that section to appear on any search...can you link to it. Im not saying your wrong, Im saying I cant get to it to see for myself... I agree that bikes should use the shoulder though but we aren't really arguing about whether bikes should be using a shoulder - we are arguing that bike riders use the right side of a lane (non-shoulder) to pass stopped cars at a light. I still contend (on a shoulderless road like Yale) that it is illegal for them to do so.

The 7 limitations dont apply. The Text of the statute still applies...A bicycle rider may use the shoulder when necessary and is exempt from the 7 vehicles exemptions.

But you ignored the first sentence of the statute...I highlighted the pertinent portion here. An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, It is not necessary to ride past stopped cars to get in front of them at a stop light. Its possible - but it is not necessary. Necessary means there is no other means...the lane is open to you and only you when the cars are stopped. And FWIW - I also enjoy the sparring - I don't hate bike riders - just the inconsiderate ones. In fact, I miss my bike. I wish someone would return it.

Seldom if ever correct is quite an arrogant statement, but I need not argue with you over how often I am correct. I may not like that bicycles are arrogant jerks on the road but the statutes are the statutes and I don't see a fault in my interpretation...if you do - please use some of your superior legal prowess to show me where my interpretation is incorrect. Oh gifted one. If a bicycle MUST follow every law that a motor vehicle must follow, then please show me the statute where it is permissible for another car to pass a car that is stopped at a stop light by using the shoulder to do so. IF you can show that to me I will admit you are correct and I am wrong. The very first statute dealing with cyclists on a roadway is quite clear - a bicycle MUST follow all rules that a car must follow...further down in the section it says that when the bicycle is moving SLOWER than the traffic it must hug the right side of the lane he is using. Even further down it states a bicycle may move away from the curb for the purpose of passing another vehicle....Obviously that is intended to mean that a bicycle should not impede traffic by using the shoulder at all time except when passing. It is nothing more than mental gymnastics to suggest that the reading of 55.103 allows a bicycle to pass on the shoulder. We will go through statute interpretation 101 for you RED since you have apparently forgotten from Criminal Law 1 or 2 how to do that. Every word in the statute is read literally - no word is put in the statute superfluously. So lets do a literal reading. Sec. 551.101. Rights and Duties (a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle The literal reading of this is clear - a bicycle is considered a motor vehicle when operating on the roadway....They must follow all of the same rules/laws. A car is not permitted to pass another car on the shoulder at a red light. That will get you a ticket. 551.103. Operation on Roadway (a) Except as provided by Subsection ( , a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless: (1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction; The literal reading of this is clear as well - a bicycle MOVING SLOWER than the other traffic shall be as near as practicable to the right edge....Subsection (1) states that to pass another vehicle the person on the bicycle may now move away from the curb for the purpose of passing. This does not say its permissible to pass on the curb. A car is not permitted to do it, neither is a bike. There is no possible interpretation from these statutes when read in conjunction with the motor vehicle statutes that imply, infer, or permit a bicycle rider to pass on the shoulder at a red light for the purpose of cutting in line. Now - Redscare usually ignores posts where he is proven wrong, or in the alternative states that he does not care enough to prove me wrong...If that is the case again, then I know I am right. Now Red - lets see you use your vast knowledge of the law and criminal statutes to show me how my interpretation of the statutes is wrong.

The EPA in conjunction with the NRCS dictate what can/cant be built in wetlands, floodways, etc... I had the joy of navigating the NRCS/EPA while building Ducks Unlimited ponds in what the NRCS considers farmed wetlands...its a process, and I was able to navigate it by not building any permanent structures. However, after IKE - the county lost a bridge that is on my property - they could not get the NRCS to give them permission to sink new piers for the bridge to replace the broken ones so the county ended up having to replace the bridge with a span bridge. It was significantly more expensive than the wood one it replaced. On a side note, I have a nice brand new 102' bridge and steel bulkhead that is 26' wide and solid concrete and steel....The county told me it cost $1,200,000 to build and it is built entirely on my property....the county has only an access easement that lets them maintain the flood districts ditch banks. Its probably crossed 200x a year....you want to find government waste? Lets start here.

Sec. 551.101. Rights and Duties (a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle 551.103. Operation on Roadway (a) Except as provided by Subsection (, a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway That does not say, nor does it imply, that a person must continue past stopped cars waiting at a traffic light...If its not legal for a car to do it, then its not legal for a bike to do it. I am pretty sure a car is not allowed to pass on the shoulder, thus a bicycle is not allowed to pass on the shoulder. The statute says nothing more than ride close to the curb so you stay out of the way of cars that are moving faster than you are.....Its the law trying to tell you not to be an inconsiderate prick by adding congestion to the roads. Your interpretation is not the law. Its nothing more than your own mental gymnastics used to justify you being inconsiderate to others. Cars will happily share the road once the bike riders get the chip off their shoulder that they are special in some way just b/c they are on a bike. You cause traffic/congestion by illegally passing a stopped car at a red light.

I agree with the dog walkers who take up the whole trail...I walk the dogs on the trail, but I keep them on a 3' leash. Folks with retractable leashes are going to seriously take out a bike rider one of these days.

I don't think the law requires you to pass people on the right who are stopped at lights as you claim. I believe that you are misinterpreting the law in order to put a positive spin on being an inconsiderate rider. Heights blvd excluded b/c it has a designated trail, if you pass stopped cars at a light who moments before just had to slow down, change lanes, etc to get around you, then you are the inconsiderate person here. I'm not alone in this belief. I think most people find that to be a persistent problem with bike riders.

Its not creative and unique so heights snobs dont like it.....Could it be better? Yes - absolutely. I would think someone could, if they could get, State, Federal permission, build something cool near the bayou, but that is a BIG if...the bayou is a floodway, and thus according to our current EPA you cant build a permanent structure on it...so any nice outdoors place like rainbow lodge, would probably never get permits to build something unique and neat by the bayou... Then you have the freeway, with the traffic/noise - nothing but chains, stores, gas stations ever make it on busy streets like that b/c of the traffic counts and outrageous rents so - you pretty much wipe out any unique stores that way as well. What are you left with? Generic strip malls built by someone who can afford to build them, chopped into tiny storefronts, occupied by the highest bidder. Its a financial decision - You can't build a super expensive, awesome unique place, and then get sporatic patronage...I think the Heights demographics are changing for the better economically speaking, but much of that income demographic change is from families with kids, who dont frequently dine without children - so you get what you get...fast food, gas stations, banks, and at least one mattress, check cashing, auto title place.

I agree - the heights needs a good ice cream place, but that location is awful. That area between Shepherd/Durham is dead to me. I have only been to the Kroger shopping center & Tommie Vaughn - everything else has been completely ignored by pretty much everyone I know. I dont know of anybody who has gone into any store north of 11th in between shepherd & durham.

Its ok to ride up to the right of them if your going to turn - I dont think anyone objects to that, but if you ride up to the right to go straight, and then get in the same peoples way a second time - well then that just inconsiderate and any rudeness that occurs from the drivers towards you was earned.

I dont hate or even dislike cyclists. Its just that with quite a few cyclists there is an attitude about them that they are riding a bike therefore everyone else, utilizing any other mode of transportation, car, walking, skateboard, whatever it may be should get out of their way because by god they are on a bike. It just happens to be that a big chunk of bike riders are very inconsiderate no matter where they ride. If people just practiced common curtosey and common sense we would not even have to have the conversation. I have....no, I had...a bike (it was stolen a few months back) but when I rode I tried not to obstruct traffic - I was conscience about my ridings effect on other people...when I was on the hike/bike trail, I slowed down when I approached kids or people walking dogs...its just common sense - minimize risk and be polite...All we actually need is for everyone, even the hard core bike crazies, to be polite and use common sense... Some good tips for bike riders would include: 1. Stop at intersections with red lights & stop signs. 2. Slow down when you approach children/pets - especially when approaching from behind. 3. Dont yell some snide comment when passing 4. Dont cut between cars at a light to get to the front of the light - ESPECIALLY if the cars just spent the last few minutes trying to pass you. Wait your dang turn. 5. Yield to pedestrians just like you expect a car to yield to you 6. Use a light front/back at night. 7. Turn your headphones down so you can hear your surroundings. 8. Drop the attitude that just b/c you are on a bike that you are morally/environmentally/whatever superior. 9. Treat other people like you would like to be treated.

Bicycles must follow all the same rules as a motor vehicle...motor vehicles are required to operate at a safe speed in a safer manner and yielding to pedestrians at all times....it shouldn't be that hard to find the statute.

The path through the Heights is a hike/bike path - not a bike path. (except on Heights blvd which is clearly a bike path). I frequently use the hike/bike trails...its clearly designated for walking & biking. Ive got kids and I let them walk on the path...The law pertaining to bikes is the same as it is to cars. Pedestrians have the right of way. When I see a biker coming I will try to get my kids hands or pick them up to keep them from getting in a bikers way. However, many times they come up quickly from behind, or are riding 2 across taking up the whole path. I can only do so much to ensure that a bike rider is being responsible on the trail. Many ride way too fast for a trail that is not specifically for bikes only....the really obnoxious ones like to get close to you as they zip by in their little bike-tights. I can tell you this with authority. I would not hesitate for one second to knock a bike rider off his bike if he was about to collide with my kids. Not even one second...nor would I feel guilty, or take responsibility for his injuries or his bike. Bike Riders are required to ride their bikes at a safe speed, exactly like a car is required to operate at a safe speed...if a bike rider is riding too fast on a trail with kids on it they are acting irresponsibly and will have to suffer the consequences of their boneheaded self righteousness...Pedestrians have the right of way. Its almost ironic that bikers complain about pedestrians...its the same complaints that cars have about bikes - slow, taking up the whole road, and difficult to safely pass.

I use the trail consistently and just thought you mis-spoke when you said 11th and yale.... I did not read the initial response to mean the two crossings at both 11th and another at yale. I was not reading it as grammar police or anything else - just that you meant 11th and Nicholson....

I have lots of friends in the Heights, its full of good people, young families, its got good food all around, a great location, good parks, trails, and nice houses that are not the same generic tract home that is being built everywhere...that is what makes the heights attractive to me....I assume its what makes it attractive to others as well. I loved the diversity of homes when I moved here (which is why I loathe the historic districts) - As to the hood being transitional...ehhh - 5 years ago when I moved in it was transitional, now I would say its transitioned, but it still has hold outs. The hold outs are the minority now by a long shot, and many of those hold outs are old and just not willing to move. The crime is another story though...its actually gotten worse as the neighborhood has gentrified. I blame it on the access in/out and the vast quantity of construction which brings in the opportunity criminals....I had my garage broken into about a year ago - came through the alley - not surprisingly there were 3 houses under construction at the time that backed up to my house but on the other side of the alley. The construction was the bait, a visible bike in my garage just made collateral damage. I don't think the Heights is transitional or dangerous, I think its filled with homes where both owners (if applicable) work full time, nice things and easy access, for those reasons its frequented by opportunistic criminals who generally know that nobody is home. Also, older homes are less likely to have alarms....this is changing FAST, but its still basically true.

The only "pro" of living in the city for me is that I get to stay married....if my wife was willing to commute to work without divorcing me I would be long gone. I would miss the diversity of food, the trails and the parks, - but I wouldn't miss much else. I have enjoyed my time in the city but the crime is outrageous compared to anywhere else I have ever lived. That said I don't feel that its dangerous...just that you always have to lock EVERYTHING up. That is frustrating. I'd just like to start shooting the jerk off's who are committing the crime.

luckily the stray bullets are few and far between - what we get to deal with much more frequently is the petty crime - the car break ins, bike theft, etc...I dont ever see that going away. The Heights has an awesome street grid. It ensures that there is not too much traffic, BUT, that grid is also extremely easy for thieves to navigate in/out of the neighborhood. When you think about it, our grid is a thief's wet dream...upscale neighborhood surrounded by 3 major thoroughfares (I-10, 610, 45) with literally hundreds of streets that almost all access a major thoroughfare out...its easy to lose someone chasing you by making turns, and every turn will eventually drop you onto a major thoroughfare out of the hood. Its b/c of this I never seen the petty crime going down much...we can reduce it with patrols, and vigilant neighbors, but it will never be as crime free as a neighborhood that is not easily navigable in/out.

Congrats! I wish I could have been able to help you out. I am just ecstatic for you that you won. It would be helpful to everyone in the future if you would post, or at the very least memorialize exactly how much extra time and money it cost you to fight the fascists. That way future individuals doing searches on this topic will know exactly what they are getting themselves into. Being as subjective as the ordinance is it would be very useful information to others. I would guess you spent quite a bit of extra money and countless hours...but I would still think it would help others if you can count those countless hours and the dollars! Congrats again!

Looks like they are demolishing the building. *Sarcasm*

You don't get to turn this around on us. We stated long ago that the ordinance was far too vague and that because of its being so vague it was subject to abuse and favortism. It seems to me now that the only folks getting approvals now are the folks who have been deemed worthy by the HAHC, and that its not a property by property basis. The HAHC is making up the rules as they apply to individuals. Any ordinance that is so vauge that it can be interpreted should be void on its face. This is a travesty and its application is inexcusable. The HAHC has literally stolen these individuals property rights from under them....(assuming they owned before the ordinance) Either way, its a travesty. A small shack does not support the lifestyle of a growing family. The HAHC does not care. This is going to reverberate throughout the heights and only hasten the depreciation of the rest of the remaining shacks property values. This should not be happening in the name of preservation. I can only hope that a bulldozer accidentally, and in the middle of the night, flattens this property. If it were my house, I would allow it to crumble to nothing just to spite the gestappo.

He/She/It has not chimed in on this thread one time since this perfect example of over-reaching started...its funny how indefensible stances often garner silence from the opposition.