Josh Mueller 
Member since Aug 14, 2008


Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Charleston diners, stop asking servers this question

Well said, Phillip. You've got a bright future... Once you graduate school. ;)

20 of 31 people like this.
Posted by Josh Mueller on August 30, 2016 at 4:56 PM

Re: “Bicyclists and pedestrians should not be treated like second-class citizens

FishPimp there's a debate to be had about this, sure, but one can't help but observe you're really here to derail it with wild accusations. I said you were clearly aware because we've discussed that particular point about the city law on bikes & sidewalks before: "…". Yet you antagonize your fellow commenters instead of volunteering that info to the conversation.


4 of 4 people like this.
Posted by Josh Mueller on October 21, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Re: “Bicyclists and pedestrians should not be treated like second-class citizens

Fish pimp, respectfully:

While you make broad implications like "so we might learn something" and "leaving the public to conclude", really all you're providing is your spin on things. And you accuse folks of "running away" instead of defending their positions, despite several presentations of such defenses. The information you seek is available for your own consumption but you need to broaden your mind on the topic.

Your summary is incomplete/one sided, your moral is off-street / irrelevant, and your free advice is better directed at your legislators since the rights & rules applicable to cyclists are already written into the state and city codes.

Things aren't just automatically discarded simply because they don't fit your narrow logic.

6 of 7 people like this.
Posted by Josh Mueller on October 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Re: “Bicyclists and pedestrians should not be treated like second-class citizens

Trollslayer, lets not go citing state code without painting the whole picture... the full code is accessible at… While you're correct that section 56-5-3430 does provide that cyclists "shall ride as near to the right as PRACTICABLE" (emphasis added), it also mandates they "shall not ride more than two abreast". Bear in mind that section 56-5-3420 first lays out that the cyclist "upon a roadway must be granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle..." and section 56-5-3435 goes on to explain that drivers "must at all times maintain a safe operating distance between the motor vehicle and a bicycle." So, who determines what's PRACTICABLE for the cyclist? Who determines what's a safe operating distance between the driver and the cyclist? Point being... share the road. Be neighborly. The cyclist has a right to the road same as the driver. If I'm on a bike, I'll ride further from the right if I can't trust my neighbors in the car to give me safe operating distance when they pass. Because that's what's practicable.

FishPimp, you've crossed from trolling into nonsense territory. Zoom out and get some perspective, man. Here's some stats for you: - (disclaimer! you have to actually read them). SC has a bicycle fatality rate that is double the national average. That's only one takeaway--there's more and it's all pretty shameful. Cyclists have the same rights to the road and they deserve certain specific protections since compared to a driver in a car, they are far and away more vulnerable. If you had a sister/daughter/wife that rode their bike on the roads let's be honest, you'd be singing a different tune. But instead you get on this utilitarian soapbox in CP comment threads. You seem so committed about this I'd figure you'd have started your own advocacy group by now, or heck take all your charisma to the stump and see how many hearts and minds you can win with it. Of course you'll have to reveal yourself from behind your cartoon profile for that.

8 of 13 people like this.
Posted by Josh Mueller on October 17, 2014 at 11:56 PM

Re: “Bicyclists and pedestrians should not be treated like second-class citizens

2007 Chas Co. Roadwise Retrofit Feasibility Study (URL - "…")
See the project history section (page 2): the existing bridge section as an F for bike an pedestrian accessibility. A level of service of F represents a roadway that is inadequate for pedestrian and bicycle use. These roadways do not provide any continuous pedestrian facilities and are characterized by high levels of motor vehicle use." See also at page 3: "an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicyclists or motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of the road."

2011 Chas Co. Roadwise Traffic Study (URL - "…")
See the introduction (page 1): "Both of these routes lack adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which makes non-motorized travel across the Ashley River between the West Ashley community and downtown Charleston challenging and unsafe."

I know what I know having ridden that bridge hundreds of times. It's unsafe and inconvenient. Period. There are hundreds if not thousands of people that would love to ride their bikes but when it's not safe most folks simply won't do it. Cities all over the country have taken the "if you build it" leap on protected bike lanes and the results are in: "…". If you're looking for more targeted research, that's on you.

Also I can't help but recommend you'll appeal to more folks with your arguments if you lighten up some and stop calling everyone a liar. Presumably that's not how you behave in person, right?

8 of 8 people like this.
Posted by Josh Mueller on October 17, 2014 at 12:45 AM

All Comments »

Classified Listings
Most Viewed

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2016, Charleston City Paper   RSS