Wouldn't that make trying to scalp them prohibitively inconvenient?

Constantly. This is slashdot, after all. Further, any time historically hat anyone has ever attempted any kind of eugenics procedure on mankind, it inevitably fails to produce the desired result. Say that you killed every believer in god, for example... Or tried to wipe out homosexuality by killing everyone who was gay.

I was unaware that foxes constituted "people". The claim was about people, not animals in general.

But you can't. The Republicans won't have you.

What...like they would supposedly go and tell them to vote for someone else?

Religion is not a belief *IN* the supernatural, it is a subscription to a belief system that in some way revolves around the supernatural. Atheism is still a belief system about the supernatural (even though it is a subscription to the belief that the supernatural does not exist) which makes it thus technically still qualify as a religion. Agnosticism is far closer to the opposite of a religious belief than Atheism could hope to be.

If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation. That is a scientific fact. Just because you don't like the political act of mass murder, doesn't make it scientifically invalid.

Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?

Only if the guy behind him isn't just as much of a jackass. If he is, he'll accelerate too.

My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them). To be fair, however, I have seen a disturbing number of cyclists completely disregard the rules of the road... going right through stop signs where pedestrians are crossing without even slowing down, for instance..

No...not infinite. nor did I mean to ever imply that it should be... only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice. It's not impossible, but still implausible. In my experience, one would spend less time waiting at the far end of the intersection for the light to change in the other direction than they would waiting for an opening to move safely from the far right bicycle lane to the leftmost turning lane.

Who said anything about changing lanes?

Ahem:

How do you turn left from a bike lane?

Of course... but that's still not most of them.

Sure. But you obviously don't ride a bike, do you even know how?

Ad hominem. Yes I do... I used to do so daily during the warmer months, during rush hour... and I did this for about 5 years.

There are large accordian spots in traffic.

Sure... they can happen... they can also not happen. My experience is that it is more expedient, not to mention safer, to simply cycle through the intersection and wait at the far corner for the light to change in the other direction than it is to wait, or especially slow down and wait, for such an opportunity to get into the leftmost lane... particularly if it is a multilane road (which is usually the case if there is a special bike lane, and going into the left turning lane from the right hand bicycle lane would require changing lanes *TWICE*, not just once).

Unless they drive like you sound, and floor it to get on the tail of the bike and honk because they have some insane belief that bike can never legally change lanes.

Of course a bike can change lanes... as long as there is enough space to do so. The problem is that when the lane you are merging into is moving slower than you... and it does not matter whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle in this matter, the amount of space you are going to require is actually going to be larger than what a vehicle moving at the same speed would need, and in the kind of city driving that I see almost every day, people often tend to drive almost as close together as they can... while still leaving sufficient distance that they could still safely come to a stop if the vehicle in front of them had to stop unexpectedly, often barely leaving enough space for a car that is moving exactly the same speed as them to merge into safely, let alone a cyclist that may not even be able to get up to half of that speed. Simply put, motorists do not typically drive in a way that accommodates cyclists from being able to move in traffic exactly the same way that cars do. Whether they are legally entitled to do so or not is irrelevant. And if a car speeds up and hits you just after you finished changing lanes, then you're going to need witnesses and some pretty objective proof to substantiate that claim because every experience I've had says that the insurance company will rule against you in those circumstances.

I'm saying that "adequate spacing" needs to be greater than what is typical (would allow a vehicle moving at the same speed to safely merge) when merging with traffic that is moving faster... and that such larger spacing is not particularly common on main throughfare roads.

Not all are, obviously... but most are.. And even if "most" included only just more than half, that would still be a lot.