Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Now I Know Why Brent Slaps Fenders

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Scott en Aztlán - 23 Aug 2005 04:55 GMT
Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
roads. If you think they're bad to other drivers, you should see what
they do to pedestrians and pedalcyclists. I guess they feel all big
and brave in their 2-ton metal bunkers, or maybe they just don't pay
attention, but not a day goes by when I don't have to take some sort
of evasive action to dodge a vehicle that flies around a right turn on
a red light, or have some scumbag try to scare/intimidate me as I walk
through the crosswalk by zooming right up to me and braking sharply at
the last possible moment.

One bimbo in a minivan almost ran into me because she was too busy
looking to her left for cross-traffic while she prepared to turn right
on red. I looked her right in the eye and asked "what am I,
invisible?" through her open window; she hid her face in her hands in
embarrassment.

The most arrogant one was the Trucker who started to cuss me and my
co-workers out for having the audacity to cross the street in front of
him and make him wait. Of course, he wasn't MAN enough to get out of
his tandem dirt-hauler and come kick our a.ses or anything, but man,
was he vocal. ;)

One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
resounding fender slap from me.
Brent P - 23 Aug 2005 05:54 GMT
> One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
> resounding fender slap from me.

You are begining to get it.

I haven't had to actually touch someone's vehicle in some time now. (as
in a couple of years)

Today's dumb bitch driving an SUV with a phone glued to her ear... in the
left turn lane, I am behind her on the bicycle. Huge gap in oncoming
traffic... 5 vehicles in front of her make it through slothly. She's the
biggest sloth. I am yelling for her to accelerate, she gets close to the
light, sees traffic coming that is still at least an 1/8th of a mile away
and comes to a stop... I brake, dodge left of her and make the left turn
leaving her at the light.  
Larry Bud - 23 Aug 2005 12:28 GMT
> > One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
> > resounding fender slap from me.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Today's dumb bitch driving an SUV with a phone glued to her ear... in the
> left turn lane, I am behind her on the bicycle.

Maybe if you'd get off the road made for motor vehicles you wouldn't
have this problem.
Scott en Aztlán - 23 Aug 2005 14:06 GMT
>> > One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
>> > resounding fender slap from me.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Maybe if you'd get off the road made for motor vehicles you wouldn't
>have this problem.

0.5 on the Troll-O-Meter.
Larry Bud - 23 Aug 2005 17:57 GMT
> >> > One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
> >> > resounding fender slap from me.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> 0.5 on the Troll-O-Meter.

Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.  But let's not change the
subject.

Road are MOTORways, not bicycle ways, and bikes don't belong on
MOTORways.
Arif Khokar - 23 Aug 2005 18:42 GMT
> Road are MOTORways

Source?  I've always heard them called roadways, streets, highways,
freeways, etc.  I've never heard motorway used as a term.

Perhaps you should try to come up with something that's not quite so
lame next time.
Larry Bud - 23 Aug 2005 20:07 GMT
> > Road are MOTORways
>
> Source?  I've always heard them called roadways, streets, highways,
> freeways, etc.  I've never heard motorway used as a term.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-06,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&
q=define:motorway


> Perhaps you should try to come up with something that's not quite so
> lame next time.

Obviously hit a nerve with all you law breaking bike riders.
Arif Khokar - 23 Aug 2005 23:41 GMT
> Obviously hit a nerve with all you law breaking bike riders.

I haven't ridden a bike in nearly a decade.  The only traffic law I
violate on a routine basis is the speed limit.  Unlike you, I'm not
stupid enough to drive in such a way that I end up delaying a cyclist.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 23 Aug 2005 23:56 GMT
> > > Road are MOTORways
> >
> > Source?  I've always heard them called roadways, streets, highways,
> > freeways, etc.  I've never heard motorway used as a term.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-06,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&
q=define:motorway

Doesn't really apply in the U.S., Idiot.  Did you actually READ the
link?

> > Perhaps you should try to come up with something that's not quite so
> > lame next time.
>
> Obviously hit a nerve with all you law breaking bike riders.

Obviously you have no idea how I ride.  If you weren't such an idiot,
you'd know differently.

E.P.
Scott en Aztlán - 24 Aug 2005 04:36 GMT
>> > Road are MOTORways
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Obviously hit a nerve with all you law breaking bike riders.

*PLONK*
Marco Licetti - 23 Aug 2005 18:52 GMT
You just proved to be a troll
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 23 Aug 2005 19:44 GMT
> Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.

*You're* trolling. Or you're an idiot.

Aunt Judy posts here all the time, too - I guess he's not a troll, huh?

Your point, again?

E.P.
Larry Bud - 23 Aug 2005 20:05 GMT
> > Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.
>
> *You're* trolling. Or you're an idiot.

You guys need some web defintion help.

> Aunt Judy posts here all the time, too - I guess he's not a troll, huh?

Nope.  A troll is someone who posts and runs, "trolling" like a
fisherman, throwing bait out there seeing who will bite.  Mine is a
valid point.  Why I have to explain this is beyond me.

> Your point, again?

Read the thread, you'll understand the point.

Bicyclists don't belong on roads designed for automobiles any more than
automobiles belong on paths designed for bikes.

Some of you guys amaze me.  You complain (validly) about sloth driving,
but that's exactly what you are when you're taking up space with a bike
on road.  If you can't keep up with the laws of the road (which you
can't, you can't prevent blocking traffic because you can't pedal your
bike fast enough) you deserve a ticket, and too many tickets, your
"license" to drive on the road revoked.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 23 Aug 2005 20:52 GMT
> > > Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> bike fast enough) you deserve a ticket, and too many tickets, your
> "license" to drive on the road revoked.

A seemingly valid point, but unfortunately, current laws in some states DO
allow bicyclists on the same roads as motor vehicles.

Equally amusing are the yellow diamond bicycle warning signs with the yellow
rectangle signs indicating "SHARE THE ROAD"--as if cars were actually the
problem, rather than the frequent sloth/double-file riding/weaving in and
out of the right lane bicyclists.

In fact, there are some designated bike routes--at least in Southern
California--that direct bicyclists to use the shoulder of a multilane
interstate as a designated bike route, with a followup sign indicating that
Bicycles Must Exit to end the interstate bike route. As expected, though,
the bicyclists diligently ride on the shoulder for that designated bike
route and don't attempt to take the lane.

Still, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I'm a strong advocate
for curb-divided or concrete-barrier divided bike lanes that allow
bicyclists to travel with the flow of motor vehicle traffic, but also out of
the flow of traffic.
Timothy J. Lee - 23 Aug 2005 23:20 GMT
>Still, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I'm a strong advocate
>for curb-divided or concrete-barrier divided bike lanes that allow
>bicyclists to travel with the flow of motor vehicle traffic, but also out of
>the flow of traffic.

That only works when there are no intersections, because the barrier
prevents both the bicyclists and motorists from merging over to the
proper lane to make a turn -- thus forcing them to turn across each
others' paths).  A wide outside (straight through) lane that is safe
to share by a motor vehicle and a bicycle takes up the same or less
space, while allowing bicyclists and motorists to correctly position
themselves (based on which directions they are going) at an intersection.

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Larry Bud - 24 Aug 2005 13:20 GMT
> > > > Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> the bicyclists diligently ride on the shoulder for that designated bike
> route and don't attempt to take the lane.

That's fine if there are designated bike routes as they aren't blocking
traffic.

> Still, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I'm a strong advocate
> for curb-divided or concrete-barrier divided bike lanes that allow
> bicyclists to travel with the flow of motor vehicle traffic, but also out of
> the flow of traffic.

Sounds good to me.

But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
THERE'S A VALID BIKE PATH right next to the road!  WTF is wrong with
these people?  They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
own lives.  I don't get it.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2005 16:44 GMT
> But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
> blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
> THERE'S A VALID BIKE PATH right next to the road!

If the bicycle rider is legally allowed to use the road, then why take
the path?  The path isn't taken for a reason...

> WTF is wrong with
> these people?

Well, let's see:

The multi-use path has is in use by

- dog walkers who have their dogs on those long leashes
- rollerbladers
- yakking walkers walking two or three abreast
- recreational cyclists riding two abreast
- young kids skateboarding
- old folks taking their slothly stroll
- etc.

Which makes the path USELESS for commuting.  In order to avoid
endagering all the other users, you have to slow down to their pace,
because there's no place to pass them.

> They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
> people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
> own lives.

I'm only in danger when idiots like you decide that the law doesn't
apply to them.

Blocking both lanes?  A bicycle is how wide, again?

>  I don't get it.

That's because you're an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about
HOW TO DRIVE.  Get off the road, moron.

E.P.
Larry Bud - 24 Aug 2005 17:13 GMT
> In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow down
> to their pace,
> because there's no place to pass them.

Hey, sounds familiar!!  Now you know why I want you off the road.

> > They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
> > people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Blocking both lanes?  A bicycle is how wide, again?

One lane each way.   That's what a 2 lane road is.  You ride in the
lane, right on the white line, and I have to cross a double yellow so I
don't cream your a.s onto the road.  The guy coming the other way has
to be aware of you as well, since I'm now intruding into his lane.

> >  I don't get it.
>
> That's because you're an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about
> HOW TO DRIVE.  Get off the road, moron.

You know you lose when you start with the name calling.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2005 17:34 GMT
> > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow down
> > to their pace,
> > because there's no place to pass them.
>
> Hey, sounds familiar!!  Now you know why I want you off the road.

But it isn't, because you have a WHOLE OTHER LANE to pass in.  What a
moron.

> > > They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
> > > people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> don't cream your a.s onto the road.  The guy coming the other way has
> to be aware of you as well, since I'm now intruding into his lane.

Don't assume that because YOU don't know how to drive that everyone
else is just as unskilled.

Take a remedial driving course.  You need it.

> > >  I don't get it.
> >
> > That's because you're an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about
> > HOW TO DRIVE.  Get off the road, moron.
>
> You know you lose when you start with the name calling.

Wrong as usual, Moron.  You lost when you first trolled.  You're wrong
about the law, you're wrong about the skill required to pass, and wrong
about how I operate my bicycle and where.

Yer 0-fer, Dumbass.

E.P.
Larry Bud - 25 Aug 2005 13:43 GMT
> > > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow down
> > > to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> But it isn't, because you have a WHOLE OTHER LANE to pass in.  What a
> moron.

There isn't another lane unless I break the law and cross the double
yellow.  Don't you get it?  One lane EACH WAY, with a double yellow,
and dirt shoulders.  Got em all over the place here in a very populated
Detroit suburban area.  High traffic, 45+ MPH posted limits.  Bike
paths off to the sides that some decide to ignore.

> > > Blocking both lanes?  A bicycle is how wide, again?

> > You know you lose when you start with the name calling.
>
> Wrong as usual, Moron.

Thanks.  You prove my point! :-)

>  You lost when you first trolled.

Here's a web definition.  You obviously don't know what it means:

http://www.geocities.com/willrobsm/t-guide.htm

"To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses
or flames."
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 25 Aug 2005 14:31 GMT
> > > > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow down
> > > > to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> There isn't another lane unless I break the law and cross the double
> yellow.

I see.  You obviously break the speed law all the time, but that
double-yellow is sacrosanct?  Give me a break, you complete, f.cking
idiot.  Of course you would cross the double yellow at any time if it
suited you.  So would anyone else with an ounce of brains.

>  Don't you get it?

I get it just fine - you're *making something up* to justify your
irrational dislike of something that causes you no harm.

> > > You know you lose when you start with the name calling.
> >
> > Wrong as usual, Moron.
>
> Thanks.  You prove my point! :-)

Actually, I don't.  You're an idiot, and I'm merely telling the truth.
Now, calling you an "a.shole" would be namecalling.

> >  You lost when you first trolled.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses
> or flames."

Yeah, now, you stupid, drooling moron, go back and look at the last
twenty threads that discuss segregation of bikes and cars.  Oddly, they
all end *the same way*.

You've just been schooled, Troll - get back under your bridge.

E.P.
Jim Yanik - 25 Aug 2005 16:56 GMT
>> > > > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to
>> > > > slow down to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> idiot.  Of course you would cross the double yellow at any time if it
> suited you.  So would anyone else with an ounce of brains.

Only some senseless bicyclist would not recognize the differences between
exceeding arbitrary speed limits and crossing a double yellow line.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

gcmschemist@gmail.com - 25 Aug 2005 17:47 GMT
> Only some senseless bicyclist would not recognize the differences between
> exceeding arbitrary speed limits and crossing a double yellow line.

Where the line of sight is measured in HUNDREDS of yards, the speed
limit is set at 35mph, and the traffic not bumper to bumper, you're
claiming some sort of special hazard?

Idiotic.

Of course, the argument is about the LAW of crossing the double yellow.
Which makes it a hilarious argument for folks who exceed the speed
limit.  (IOW, everyone.)

All the conjecture of the swerving, the running off the road, and all
the other speculative bullshit is *exactly* that - bullshit.  I've
never seen it happen, never heard of it happening, and I seriously
doubt you could find even ONE published example of it happening.

Let's just say, for all practical purposes, your scenario is fantasy.

E.P.
Jim Yanik - 26 Aug 2005 00:20 GMT
>> Only some senseless bicyclist would not recognize the differences
>> between exceeding arbitrary speed limits and crossing a double yellow
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> limit is set at 35mph, and the traffic not bumper to bumper, you're
> claiming some sort of special hazard?

Ah,now you narrowly define the conditions,when they surely will not always
be those conditions,in order to frame the debate to suit you.

> Idiotic.

Yes,it was,to try to narrowly define the conditions.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

gcmschemist@gmail.com - 26 Aug 2005 01:54 GMT
> >> Only some senseless bicyclist would not recognize the differences
> >> between exceeding arbitrary speed limits and crossing a double yellow
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Ah,now you narrowly define the conditions,when they surely will not always
> be those conditions,in order to frame the debate to suit you.

Nice strawman.  Who said they will *always* be those conditions?

Here's the plain fact, Jim - folks cross double yellows all the time,
for all sorts of reasons.  Double yellows can be just as arbitrary as
speed limits, and in my commute there are only a very few places where
sightlines are not large, and when traffic is so heavy you can't get
into the other lane for minutes at a time.  Again, the question - if
there were debris in your lane that you didn't want to run over, would
you stop and wait for it to be cleared, or would you cross the double
yellow?

Now, turn it around your critique of the reality around these parts -
are you trying to suggest that most everywhere has high speed, narrow
two-lane with limited sight distance and very heavy traffic?  I don't
think you are, but that's the only condition under which a bike could
hold up traffic unreasonably.

> > Idiotic.
>
> Yes,it was,to try to narrowly define the conditions.

Those are the conditions here, and in the other places I've
bicycle-commuted.  Not so idiotic, except when it clashes with your
imagined reality.

E.P.
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 19:04 GMT
> Only some senseless bicyclist would not recognize the differences between
> exceeding arbitrary speed limits and crossing a double yellow line.

You've never seen arbitary and senseless double yellow lines? I have. Places
where visibility is great, the road straight and level, etc. I've seen
many nonsenical left-turn-on-arrow-only lights too.
Jim Yanik - 26 Aug 2005 00:22 GMT
> In article <Xns96BD7906FE475jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You've never seen arbitary and senseless double yellow lines? I have.
> Places where visibility is great, the road straight and level, etc.

But probably with entering traffic or other valid reasons for the double
yellow,that you arbitrarily dismiss.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P - 26 Aug 2005 03:53 GMT
>> In article <Xns96BD7906FE475jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> But probably with entering traffic or other valid reasons for the double
> yellow,that you arbitrarily dismiss.

Not at all. The only reason for it in many places is just lowest common
demonator, like the speed limits.
Arif Khokar - 26 Aug 2005 00:11 GMT
> Only some senseless bicyclist would not recognize the differences between
> exceeding arbitrary speed limits and crossing a double yellow line.

Exceeding the speed limit doesn't result in a crash the moment it
happens.  Crossing the double-yellow line doesn't result in a crash the
moment you cross it.

There are some straight 2 lane roads around here that don't have marked
passing zones for some odd reason.  If I come upon someone who's driving
slower than what most people do, I still pass them.  Passing a cyclist
would be much easier since I don't have to completely drive on the
opposite side of the road in order to pass them.
Jim Yanik - 25 Aug 2005 16:53 GMT
>> > > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to
>> > > slow down to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> populated Detroit suburban area.  High traffic, 45+ MPH posted limits.
>  Bike paths off to the sides that some decide to ignore.

They also ignore that crossing over the yellow even a small amount may
cause opposing traffic to veer off the road,perhaps causing an accident,or
loss of control,especially if they drop off a pavement edge and don't slow
to get back on the pavement.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 18:58 GMT
> They also ignore that crossing over the yellow even a small amount may
> cause opposing traffic to veer off the road,perhaps causing an accident,or
> loss of control,especially if they drop off a pavement edge and don't slow
> to get back on the pavement.

Drivers seem to be unware of all sorts of dangers, until there is a
bicyclist to pass, then they can think of everything short of a meteor
that would have missed them if they hadn't had to move over to pass a
bicyclist.
ela1705@cs.com - 24 Aug 2005 19:48 GMT
> > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow down
> > to their pace,
> > because there's no place to pass them.
>
> Hey, sounds familiar!!  Now you know why I want you off the road.

There is one major difference between those 2 scenarios. Cyclists that
take to the open road tend to be competent road users. The vast
majority of users of multi-use paths tend to not be all that competent
in using the path and knowing how to share it. Most multi-use path
users check their common sense at the side of the path before stepping
onto said path.

> One lane each way.   That's what a 2 lane road is.  You ride in the
> lane, right on the white line, and I have to cross a double yellow so I
> don't cream your a.s onto the road.  The guy coming the other way has
> to be aware of you as well, since I'm now intruding into his lane.

A typical lane on a 2 lane road is how wide? 12 feet I think. That is
plenty of room for a competent cyclist to hug the far rightside of the
lane, the passing motorist to scoot over so that there left wheels
touch the yellow, and any on-coming traffic to slide a tad right. It
all boils down to competent road users....not the form of transport. If
it's a very narrow 2 lane road, with heavy use and a fair amount of
commericial truck traffic, I doubt you ever see a cyclist period.
Attempting to ride on such a road is no fun at all.
Jim Yanik - 25 Aug 2005 00:44 GMT
>> > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow
>> > down to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> There is one major difference between those 2 scenarios. Cyclists that
> take to the open road tend to be competent road users.

Says who?

> The vast
> majority of users of multi-use paths tend to not be all that competent
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> plenty of room for a competent cyclist to hug the far rightside of the
> lane,

Brent P,claiming to be such a cyclist,often has said he "takes the lane" in
order to be safe. This conflicts with your statement.

> the passing motorist to scoot over so that there left wheels
> touch the yellow,

Then the cyclist claims it's a "brush-pass" and endangering them,warranting
a slap on the fender or worse.

> and any on-coming traffic to slide a tad right.

Ya think so? That rarely is the case,unless you FORCE them to move over.

> It
> all boils down to competent road users....not the form of transport.
> If it's a very narrow 2 lane road, with heavy use

It need not even be "heavy" use,nor any amount of "commercial" traffic.

> and a fair amount of
> commericial truck traffic, I doubt you ever see a cyclist period.

And you would be wrong.

> Attempting to ride on such a road is no fun at all.
>  

But according to Brent P.,that would be giving in to *fear*.
REAL men don't do that.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 06:34 GMT
>> A typical lane on a 2 lane road is how wide? 12 feet I think. That is
>> plenty of room for a competent cyclist to hug the far rightside of the
>> lane,
>
> Brent P,claiming to be such a cyclist,often has said he "takes the lane" in
> order to be safe. This conflicts with your statement.

Yes, I often take the lane. Just one small issue with your usage of that
statement... 99% of the time I am taking the lane, the prevailing traffic
speed is 30mph or less and I am doing +/-2mph of it or I am outright
leaving automobile traffic in the other lane in the dust. (when I take
the _LEFT_ lane to pass a line of backed up cars because they are turning
right and I am going straight)

>> the passing motorist to scoot over so that there left wheels
>> touch the yellow,

> Then the cyclist claims it's a "brush-pass" and endangering them,warranting
> a slap on the fender or worse.

If your left wheels are on the yellow, you are too far left for your
fender to be touched. (exception if you are driving an H1 or similiar)

>> Attempting to ride on such a road is no fun at all.

> But according to Brent P.,that would be giving in to *fear*.
> REAL men don't do that.

You've got things wrong on two counts. One, my statements regarding fear
are when people have told me I can't ride such and such because they are
affraid too. Where they call me crazy or whatever. Where they demand I
live inside their fear envolope. Typical american control freak nonsense.
I've never demanded that anyone ride in traffic as I do, but a fair
number have demanded that I must stop.

On the second count, he is saying a particular road type with a certain
traffic level is not fun to ride. And he's right, there are roads that
are not fun to ride. I'll avoid them when I am riding for fun. But if I
am riding to get from A to B and it's the fastest way to get there, the
chance of me riding them is significantly higher.
ela1705@cs.com - 25 Aug 2005 16:07 GMT
> >> > In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow
> >> > down to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Says who?

14 years and over 100,000 riden miles on the road. Adults that commute
to work via a bicycle in all my observations are competent road users.
I live in college town. The college aged kids riding around because
they don't own a car are a different story altogether. I do not lump
the two groups into the same class. But then again its highly unlikely
you'll find a college aged kid riding around in traffic at 7:30 AM. A
common trait I see amongst motorists is painting all cyclists with the
same broad brush.

> > The vast
> > majority of users of multi-use paths tend to not be all that competent
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Brent P,claiming to be such a cyclist,often has said he "takes the lane" in
> order to be safe. This conflicts with your statement.

There are times when taking the lane is needed and law in my state says
this is perfectly acceptable. A cyclist may take the lane to avoid a
dangerous situation and then move back to the right to allow cars to
pass when the danger is no longer present. I tend to only take the lane
on high speed mountain descents or use of an entire right hand turn
lane. It's simply appalling at how many drivers have no skill at all in
being able to maintain a line in using a right hand turn lane.

> > the passing motorist to scoot over so that there left wheels
> > touch the yellow,
>
> Then the cyclist claims it's a "brush-pass" and endangering them,warranting
> a slap on the fender or worse.

There is plenty of room in the lane to allow for it. The law around
here states a car must give 3 feet. If both the driver and cyclist are
competent and paying attention this is no problem.

> > and any on-coming traffic to slide a tad right.
>
> Ya think so? That rarely is the case,unless you FORCE them to move over.

Again,  going back to years of experience it is simply a matter of the
parties involved being cognizant of the situtation.

> > It
> > all boils down to competent road users....not the form of transport.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> And you would be wrong.

Based on my experiences over the years, no I'm not. There are roads in
the region that are 2 laned, heavy traffic, no shoulder that you rarely
if ever see a cyclist on.

> > Attempting to ride on such a road is no fun at all.
>
> But according to Brent P.,that would be giving in to *fear*.
> REAL men don't do that.

I want to enjoy my ride and get home in 1 piece. I have no desire to go
out for a 3 hour ride on a road that is congested with auto traffic.
Jim Yanik - 25 Aug 2005 00:39 GMT
>> In order to avoid endagering all the other users, you have to slow down
>> to their pace,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> You know you lose when you start with the name calling.

These guys all seem to think that the majority of bicyclists are pro-level
riders,and follow most if not all of the rules of the road.

It ain't so.

Also they think that if one is hindered by a bicyclist,they do not know how
to drive.

It ain't so.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 06:25 GMT
> These guys all seem to think that the majority of bicyclists are pro-level
> riders,and follow most if not all of the rules of the road.
>
> It ain't so.

Compare the percentage of bicycling miles done by skilled bicyclists and
the percentage of driving miles done by similiarly skilled drivers.

> Also they think that if one is hindered by a bicyclist,they do not know how
> to drive.
> It ain't so.

I've never been hindered by any legally operating bicyclist like myself.
And haven't even been hindered more by an illegally operating bicyclist
than the average sloth driver. And guess what I encounter far more of?
That's right, poorly skilled sloth drivers.


ela1705@cs.com - 25 Aug 2005 17:14 GMT
> These guys all seem to think that the majority of bicyclists are pro-level
> riders,and follow most if not all of the rules of the road.
>
> It ain't so.

Commuting via bicycle is not for the timid, but one not need be Lance
Armstrong to successfully commute via bike. However, it does behoove
the individual to work on his/her skill so that they get to their
destination in one piece. I spent a fair number of years car commuting
before opting for a bicycle back in 1991. I can tell you that as a
bicycle commuter I am much more intuned to what is going on around me
while on the road. You develope instincts that you would not
necessarily acquire simply by driving around in car all the time. Plus,
most of us that do bike on a routine basis also drive a car so that we
do see both sides.
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 19:02 GMT
> Commuting via bicycle is not for the timid, but one not need be Lance
> Armstrong to successfully commute via bike. However, it does behoove
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> most of us that do bike on a routine basis also drive a car so that we
> do see both sides.

Much of what I do while driving was developed from my experience as
bicyclist. There are things regarding traffic flow and such that I
learned on a bicycle that most drivers are completely unaware of.

I never really know a road until I bike it. It's on a bicycle that I pick
up all the tiny little things that even when driving give me an
advantage.
ela1705@cs.com - 24 Aug 2005 18:24 GMT
> But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
> blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
> THERE'S A VALID BIKE PATH right next to the road!  WTF is wrong with
> these people?  They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
> people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
> own lives.  I don't get it.

I'll tell you why, because the paths are poorly designed. They often
are set back enough so that when they do intersect the road, or there
is a driveway cutting across the path, the bicyclists is out of the
site line of the motorist. When I ride I prefer to be part of the flow
of traffic and be seen. If a driver knows how to control his/her car
then they will not be slowed by me on my bike. There are plenty of
incompetent motorists however that freeze up and do not know how to
make a simple pass of a cyclists.

But getting back to the paths...your next flaw is labeling them "bike"
paths. They are not "bike" paths. They are multi-use paths where just
about every form of non-motorized transport uses the system. They are a
nightmare plain and simple. You have users ranging from young children,
to people walking dogs [leashed and not leashed], bladers, ambling
groups of walkers occupying the entire width of the path, etc. Add that
to the typical design flaws and I'll stick to the roadway, thank you
very much.
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 19:45 GMT
> But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
> blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
> THERE'S A VALID BIKE PATH right next to the road!  WTF is wrong with
> these people?  They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
> people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
> own lives.  I don't get it.

A bike path next to a road is called a SIDEWALK. It is very dangerous to
ride on the sidewalk. Drivers are not expecting vehicles moving in excess
of 15mph, and certainly not at speeds aproaching 30mph as I often ride,
on the sidewalk.

The vast majority of auto-bicycle collisions are on ride outs, where a
bicycle rider leaves a sidewalk to cross a street or enter traffic. On
the glorified sidewalk known as a street parallel bike path, there are
countless roads to cross not to mention driveways and the like too.

Now, throw in the fact that it's still a sidewalk and fill it with peds,
dogs, children, etc and so forth and it's a death trap for any
transporation bicyclist.

I learned the road was safer, easier, and faster. I don't ride on the
sidewalk for the same reasons you don't drive there. (Yes, it's also
illegal for adult bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk in many towns/cities)
Larry Bud - 25 Aug 2005 13:52 GMT
> > But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
> > blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of 15mph, and certainly not at speeds aproaching 30mph as I often ride,
> on the sidewalk.

I'm not talking about sidewalks in residential 25MPH areas.  Ride all
you want there.  Traffic is low, speeds are low.

We have hundreds of miles of 2 lane roads, with dirt shoulders, with
speeds 45+ MPH around here.   They're are vastly under designed roads
because of surburban sprawl.  15 years ago much of this was farmland,
and now it's an upscale community with thousands of people and not
enough lanes.

There are bike paths along every one of these roads.  They are not
sidewalks, they are designed for bicyclists.  A lot of bike riders use
them.  They stay safe, they're not ploying over puppies and old
grandmas out for a walk.  But you get in one lane bumper to bumper, and
suddenly traffic slows to 20 MPH (in a 45 or 50 zone).  You wonder what
the hell is going on, and invariably it's a bike rider taking up enough
space to cause hell in both directions of the road.
ela1705@cs.com - 25 Aug 2005 16:15 GMT
> > > But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
> > > blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> the hell is going on, and invariably it's a bike rider taking up enough
> space to cause hell in both directions of the road.

More than likely what has happened is you have an unskilled motorist in
front of you that freezes up and panics at the site of a bicyclist on
the road. I would wager that the cyclist in that situation is not a
novice to be riding on such a road. The rider knows how to handle
his/her bike, stay right and not be an obstacle. I almost gaurantee you
that the cyclist is far and away a hell of a lot more competent than
the driver failing to execute a clean and efficient pass.

I would also comment on the failed policy of your local government to
allow such a situation to occur, but that is for another
thread/arguement.
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 16:39 GMT
>> > But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
>> > blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I'm not talking about sidewalks in residential 25MPH areas.  Ride all
> you want there.  Traffic is low, speeds are low.

A road parallel bike path and a sidewalk are different in only one way.
The former has either signs declaring it a bike path or there is a
village/city map declaring it a bike path. Physically, it's no different
from a sidewalk. In fact, where I live, there is a map from the village
government that declares some sidewalks to be bike paths. This is the
only way to know which sidewalks are bike paths (legal for adults to ride
on) and which ones are just sidewalks (illegal for adults to ride on).

> We have hundreds of miles of 2 lane roads, with dirt shoulders, with
> speeds 45+ MPH around here.   They're are vastly under designed roads
> because of surburban sprawl.  15 years ago much of this was farmland,
> and now it's an upscale community with thousands of people and not
> enough lanes.

So, fix the problem.

> There are bike paths along every one of these roads.  They are not
> sidewalks, they are designed for bicyclists.

Do they have over and underpasses for every road and drive way they
cross? If not, they are sidewalks. If so, then your local government is
foolish and they should have just improved the road.

> A lot of bike riders use them.

Good for them. I am sure they don't go faster than 8mph. I hit 30mph
rutinely.

>  They stay safe, they're not ploying over puppies and old
> grandmas out for a walk.

At 30mph they would.

> But you get in one lane bumper to bumper, and
> suddenly traffic slows to 20 MPH (in a 45 or 50 zone).  You wonder what
> the hell is going on, and invariably it's a bike rider taking up enough
> space to cause hell in both directions of the road.

No, it's some timid driver lacking the skills to execute a simple passing
move that is blocking your process.

I've had this happen a couple times when riding on two lane roads. I've done
everything possible to encourage the pass except dive off the road and
crash and the driver still refuses to pass. When I've been driving I've
always been able to pass the same bicyclist without any issue at all.

A bicyclist simply cannot be held responsible for the lack of driving
skill of a particular driver.

Let me guess, when these same timid drivers need a clear road for 2 miles
to make a left turn or proceed from a stop sign you don't have any issue
with it. You just wait. Or at best, you realize the driver is skilless,
but still accept it.  But when the same driver who is lacking skill
needs the same huge amount of clearance to pass a bicyclist you blame the
bicyclist.


Allen Seth Dunn - 26 Aug 2005 05:17 GMT
<SNIP>

> But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
> blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
> THERE'S A VALID BIKE PATH right next to the road!  WTF is wrong with
> these people?  They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
> people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
> own lives.  I don't get it.

I may get chastised to no end for saying this, but I do agree with you
there. If others on the path are a problem, invest in a cheap horn to attach
to the bike to warn people you're approaching from behind. Those that don't
move out of the way are no different from the a.sholes who block up traffic
on an interstate highway going 10 to 15 MPH under the limit. In other words,
a fact of life, deal with it, and move on.
Brent P - 28 Aug 2005 06:26 GMT
><SNIP>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> there. If others on the path are a problem, invest in a cheap horn to attach
> to the bike to warn people you're approaching from behind. T

Let me guess, your practical experience bicycle riding is ZERO.

Horns don't make the glorified sidewalk safer. They don't allow it to
handle any higher speed. They don't help the turning cars, the blind
intersections, etc.

Experienced bicyclists don't use street parallel bike paths for the same
reasons you wouldn't drive on them if it were legal to do so.


The Real Bev - 29 Aug 2005 06:37 GMT
> > I may get chastised to no end for saying this, but I do agree with you
> > there. If others on the path are a problem, invest in a cheap horn to attach
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> handle any higher speed. They don't help the turning cars, the blind
> intersections, etc.

What they DO do is cause the pedestrians ahead of you to stop dead in their
tracks in confusion.  For all practical purposes, multi-use paths are
speed-limited by the slowest walkers and their leashed dogs.

> Experienced bicyclists don't use street parallel bike paths for the same
> reasons you wouldn't drive on them if it were legal to do so.

They've painted stripes in some of the streets for bike lanes in Pasadena, but
they're absolutely meaningless AND they're not paint but some kind of thick
plastic stuff that's really slippery when wet.  Just what we need.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes,  a quickly vanishing look
of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs
think humans are nuts."                  -- John Steinbeck

Matthew Russotto - 27 Aug 2005 02:28 GMT
>But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
>blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
>THERE'S A VALID BIKE PATH right next to the road!  WTF is wrong with
>these people?  They're not only blocking traffic going both ways since
>people have to swerve around them, they're stupidly endangering their
>own lives.  I don't get it.

Bicyclists feel the need to prove their mettle as "vehicles" by
avoiding bike lanes and using the regular traffic lane.  Perhaps you
could pass them on the right (in the bike lane).

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P - 27 Aug 2005 02:44 GMT
>>But I can't tell you the number of times every day that a bike rider is
>>blocking traffic on a two lane tight road that I'm travelling on, WHEN
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> avoiding bike lanes and using the regular traffic lane.  Perhaps you
> could pass them on the right (in the bike lane).

If you can manage to drive in the bike lane, go for it. Considering the
bulk of  bike lanes I encounter are never wider than 3 feet and the
right edge of them is under the driver's side mirrors of parked cars, go
for it.

The reason bicycle lanes are not used is because they are generally of
very poor and dangerous design.

If you drove them, you wouldn't exceed 5mph if you cared about your
vehicle. And not driving more than 5mph, you wouldn't be passing any
competent road going bicyclists.
Matthew Russotto - 27 Aug 2005 03:52 GMT
>If you can manage to drive in the bike lane, go for it. Considering the
>bulk of  bike lanes I encounter are never wider than 3 feet and the
>right edge of them is under the driver's side mirrors of parked cars, go
>for it.

We've got one bike line that narrow (actually narrower) in my area
The rest are all more like four feet, and combined with the space on
the far side of them, big enough for a car.

>If you drove them, you wouldn't exceed 5mph if you cared about your
>vehicle.

What, they're unpaved?
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P - 27 Aug 2005 04:03 GMT
>>If you can manage to drive in the bike lane, go for it. Considering the
>>bulk of  bike lanes I encounter are never wider than 3 feet and the
>>right edge of them is under the driver's side mirrors of parked cars, go
>>for it.

> We've got one bike line that narrow (actually narrower) in my area

The narrowest I've seen is on NB MLK drive at 31st street. It is narrower
than my handlebars.

> The rest are all more like four feet, and combined with the space on
> the far side of them, big enough for a car.

Space on the far side? What you talkin' about willis? Here there is no
space on the far side. And in maui, where there were more bike lanes than
I had ever seen before (and poorly done at all the intersections) had
things like hills, ditches, and drop offs beyond the right edge.

>>If you drove them, you wouldn't exceed 5mph if you cared about your
>>vehicle.

> What, they're unpaved?

Guess you missed the part about the parked cars. feel free to drive along
knocking off mirrors and plowing into open(ing) doors.
Alex Rodriguez - 29 Aug 2005 19:28 GMT
>Bicyclists feel the need to prove their mettle as "vehicles" by
>avoiding bike lanes and using the regular traffic lane.  Perhaps you
>could pass them on the right (in the bike lane).

There is usually a good reason for that practice.  It is usually one of three
things.  The bike path is full for garbage thrown from cars.  The bike path is
crowded with pedestrian too stupid to figure out they should not be on the bike
path.  The cyclist is going to make a left turn and needs to move left.
----------------
Alex
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 29 Aug 2005 22:46 GMT
> >Bicyclists feel the need to prove their mettle as "vehicles" by
> >avoiding bike lanes and using the regular traffic lane.  Perhaps you
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> crowded with pedestrian too stupid to figure out they should not be on the bike
> path.  The cyclist is going to make a left turn and needs to move left.

And in all cases, the bicyclist MUST signal EVERY TIME they take the lane,
instead of just weaving in and expecting faster and higher priority motor
vehicle traffic to accommodate the reckless biker.
Brent P - 30 Aug 2005 04:34 GMT
> And in all cases, the bicyclist MUST signal EVERY TIME they take the lane,
> instead of just weaving in and expecting faster and higher priority motor
> vehicle traffic to accommodate the reckless biker.

Higher priority?  Not in the IL vehicle code, and I doubt any other.

PS. most drivers don't even understand hand signals it seems.
Alex Rodriguez - 30 Aug 2005 17:27 GMT
>And in all cases, the bicyclist MUST signal EVERY TIME they take the lane,

It is a good idea, but not always necessary or safe to do so.  

>instead of just weaving in and expecting faster and higher priority motor
>vehicle traffic to accommodate the reckless biker.

Higher priority?  Where did you pull that out of?  Weaving in traffic is a
bad idea, for cars or bikes.   Although for bikes it is less dangerous since
you can weave quite a bit and still stay in your lane.  It is only dangerous
when some idiot driver illegally passes you in the same lane.
---------------
Alex
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 23 Aug 2005 21:47 GMT
> > > Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.
> >
> > *You're* trolling. Or you're an idiot.
>
> You guys need some web defintion help.

I'm only a single person (not "you guys") and I know exactly what a
troll is.  I gave you and example (Aunt Judy.)

> > Aunt Judy posts here all the time, too - I guess he's not a troll, huh?
>
> Nope.  A troll is someone who posts and runs, "trolling" like a
> fisherman, throwing bait out there seeing who will bite.

I guess someone *does* need to look up what a troll is.  (Hint:  it
ain't me.)

> Mine is a
> valid point.

Bullshit.  OK, you're not a troll, you're an idiot.  Works for me.

>  Why I have to explain this is beyond me.

Because when you explain it, it helps to poke holes in your so-called
"logic."

> > Your point, again?
>
> Read the thread, you'll understand the point.

No, I'm asking for a *valid* point, not the one on top of your head.

> Bicyclists don't belong on roads designed for automobiles any more than
> automobiles belong on paths designed for bikes.

Except where the law state otherwise (most places.)

> Some of you guys amaze me.  You complain (validly) about sloth driving,
> but that's exactly what you are when you're taking up space with a bike
> on road.

Takes up less space than a car, and holds up no traffic (except for
idiots who don't know how to pass.)  A bicycle has NEVER held me up
while I was in a car.  Not once.  And having lived in five university
towns, I have seen my share of bikes as transport devices.  Cars, OTOH,
slow me up all the time.  Mostly fatheaded idiots like yourself, who
don't understand or comprehend the traffic laws, nor are able to
successfully operate their vehicles to minimize their impacts on the
rest of traffic.

Any other tidbits of "wisdom" you'd like to share?

>  If you can't keep up with the laws of the road (which you
> can't, you can't prevent blocking traffic because you can't pedal your
> bike fast enough)

Ooops, wrong again, Idiot.  I *can* keep up with traffic just fine.

> you deserve a ticket, and too many tickets, your
> "license" to drive on the road revoked.

Wrong yet again, Idiot.  I follow all the rules of the road.

E.P.
Old Wolf - 25 Aug 2005 08:05 GMT
> Nope.  A troll is someone who posts and runs, "trolling" like a
> fisherman, throwing bait out there seeing who will bite.

I thought it was because trolls are ugly and hairy and
live under bridges -- traits that troll posters have

> Bicyclists don't belong on roads designed for automobiles any more than
> automobiles belong on paths designed for bikes.

Paths designed for bikes? What is this, somewhere between the
footpath and the road? Are you referring to the gutter?

> Some of you guys amaze me.  You complain (validly) about sloth driving,
> but that's exactly what you are when you're taking up space with a bike
> on road.  If you can't keep up with the laws of the road (which you
> can't, you can't prevent blocking traffic because you can't pedal your
> bike fast enough)

Cycling does not imply blocking traffic. Most of the time, there is
enough room for the car to go beside the cyclist.
dizzy - 27 Aug 2005 14:17 GMT
>> Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.
>
>*You're* trolling. Or you're an idiot.

I vote for both.
DTJ - 23 Aug 2005 23:03 GMT
>> >> Today's dumb bitch driving an SUV with a phone glued to her ear... in the
>> >> left turn lane, I am behind her on the bicycle.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Road are MOTORways, not bicycle ways, and bikes don't belong on
>MOTORways.

This one was a negative 7 on the troll-o-meter.
Timothy J. Lee - 23 Aug 2005 23:16 GMT
>Road are MOTORways, not bicycle ways, and bikes don't belong on
>MOTORways.

Motorway is typically used by those in the UK to describe what people
in the US call a freeway.  Most roads are not motorways / freeways
(certainly not those roads where a left turn across oncoming traffic
at an at grade intersection is possible).

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Scott en Aztlán - 24 Aug 2005 04:35 GMT
>> >Maybe if you'd get off the road made for motor vehicles you wouldn't
>> >have this problem.
>>
>> 0.5 on the Troll-O-Meter.
>
>Who's trolling?  I post here all the time.

You have a strange definition of "troll."

>Road are MOTORways, not bicycle ways, and bikes don't belong on
>MOTORways.

0.2 on the Troll-O-Meter.
Marco Licetti - 23 Aug 2005 18:51 GMT
You should know moron, PEOPLE own the roads if you see a pedestrian give
them a chance beforerunnin gover
Brent P - 23 Aug 2005 19:10 GMT
>> > One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
>> > resounding fender slap from me.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Maybe if you'd get off the road made for motor vehicles you wouldn't
> have this problem.

On how many levels is this come back just pure idiotcy?

1st level: Roads are for vehicles. (not motor vehicles)
2nd level: Drivers are slowing down bicyclists.
3rd level: I am even faster with my car, so how would this woman be less
annoying had I been driving? Had I been driving I would not have been
able to go around her.
4th level: If I had been driving and stuck behind her, the congestion and
delay she would have caused would have been greater.
Larry Bud - 23 Aug 2005 20:11 GMT
> >> > One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
> >> > resounding fender slap from me.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> 1st level: Roads are for vehicles. (not motor vehicles)

So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
allowed?

> 2nd level: Drivers are slowing down bicyclists.

Nonsense.  I pass bike riders constantly.  You can't keep up with the
flow of traffic.  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
because you force people to pass you in the same lane.

> 3rd level: I am even faster with my car, so how would this woman be less
> annoying had I been driving? Had I been driving I would not have been
> able to go around her.

The annoyance level may have been the same, but you wouldn't have been
able to break the law by an illegal pass.  I thought you followed all
traffic laws when you bike ride, Brent?
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 23 Aug 2005 21:51 GMT
> > On how many levels is this come back just pure idiotcy?
> >
> > 1st level: Roads are for vehicles. (not motor vehicles)
>
> So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
> allowed?

In most places, there is a rule by which a certain wheel size defines a
vehicle suitable for travel upon the roadways.  Only an idiot would
suggest a kid taking a toy into the street.

> > 2nd level: Drivers are slowing down bicyclists.
>
> Nonsense.  I pass bike riders constantly.

So, WTF is your problem?  You pull out and you pass.  BFD.

> You can't keep up with the
> flow of traffic.

I can.

>  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
> because you force people to pass you in the same lane.

No, I take the lane and force them to do a proper pass.

Hey, Idiot - if you can't take the time to learn how to drive properly,
turn in your license.

E.P.
Larry Bud - 24 Aug 2005 13:24 GMT
> > > On how many levels is this come back just pure idiotcy?
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> So, WTF is your problem?  You pull out and you pass.  BFD.

On two lane roads you block traffic and cause people to swerve to avoid
creaming your a.s.

> > You can't keep up with the
> > flow of traffic.
>
> I can.

Nonsense.  You can't keep up with 45 MPH traffic.  I'm not talking
about 25 MPH low traffic residential areas.

> >  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
> > because you force people to pass you in the same lane.
>
> No, I take the lane and force them to do a proper pass.

I thought you can keep up with traffic?  Ooops, apparently not.

Yeah, you illegally block traffic which is just as bad on bike as it is
in a car.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2005 14:23 GMT
> > > > On how many levels is this come back just pure idiotcy?
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> On two lane roads you block traffic and cause people to swerve to avoid
> creaming your a.s.

Like I said, I don't block traffic.  Are you so stupid that you can't
comprehend the written word?

If you're "swerving", then you're not paying attention.  Stop driving,
Idiot.

> > > You can't keep up with the
> > > flow of traffic.
> >
> > I can.
>
> Nonsense.  You can't keep up with 45 MPH traffic.

Where did I say I was keeping up with 45mph traffic?  You're a complete
moron.

> > >  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
> > > because you force people to pass you in the same lane.
> >
> > No, I take the lane and force them to do a proper pass.
>
> I thought you can keep up with traffic?  Ooops, apparently not.

When drooling retards like yourself want to exceed the speed limit,
then that's where it happens.  Funny, I can do the same thing with my
car - pass a bicyclist so easily as to not even think about it.  You
must have a slow car, or are an exceedly unskilled driver.  Don't worry
about the bikes - get yourself off our roads.

> Yeah, you illegally block traffic which is just as bad on bike as it is
> in a car.

Only in your walnut-sized brain, Idiot.

E.P.
Larry Bud - 24 Aug 2005 17:17 GMT
> > On two lane roads you block traffic and cause people to swerve to avoid
> > creaming your a.s.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Where did I say I was keeping up with 45mph traffic?  You're a complete
> moron.

So make up your mind, can you keep up with 45 MPH traffic, or are you
blocking?  Those are the only choices on a two lane road (1 each way,
just to help you out), with no shoulder.

> > > >  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
> > > > because you force people to pass you in the same lane.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> When drooling retards like yourself want to exceed the speed limit,
> then that's where it happens.

You just admitted you FORCE them to pass you.  The fact that they are
foced to pass you means you're blocking them.  On a two lane road with
double yellow lines, you're either forcing them to break the law by
crossing a double yellow, or blocking the entire flow of cars.

It's the MFFY attitude for bikers.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2005 17:31 GMT
> > > On two lane roads you block traffic and cause people to swerve to avoid
> > > creaming your a.s.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> So make up your mind, can you keep up with 45 MPH traffic, or are you
> blocking?

Hey, dumbass - quote where I said I keep up with 45mph traffic, or shut
your idiotic piehole.

>  Those are the only choices on a two lane road (1 each way,
> just to help you out), with no shoulder.

The one you're making up?  If it has no shoulder, then there's no other
place to ride except in the lane.  If you can't deal with other
traffic, take the frickin' bus, you moron.

> > > > >  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
> > > > > because you force people to pass you in the same lane.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> You just admitted you FORCE them to pass you.

Yes.  If they want to exceed the speed limit, they can pass me just
like they would a car that was doing the speed limit.  If you can't
figure it out, you're a retard.

> The fact that they are
> foced to pass you means you're blocking them.

Wrong again, Idiot.

>  On a two lane road with
> double yellow lines, you're either forcing them to break the law by
> crossing a double yellow, or blocking the entire flow of cars.

Yeah, right.  So, when there's an obstacle in your lane, let's say a
cardboard box, or some other road hazard, you come to a complete stop
and wait until it's moved.

Uh, no.  You cross the double yellow (while speeding, no doubt) and
continue on without even thinking about it.

> It's the MFFY attitude for bikers.

Yeah, when you make up a scenario that fits your argument, yeah it is.

But unlike you, most everyone else actually knows how to drive.

E.P.
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 19:58 GMT
> So make up your mind, can you keep up with 45 MPH traffic, or are you
> blocking?  Those are the only choices on a two lane road (1 each way,
> just to help you out), with no shoulder.

You are under this delusion that all traffic moves at 45mph. It doesn't.
Even on the roads with a 45mph speed limit that I ride on, I often stay
on the same traffic light cycle as motorists who were ahead of me before
I turned on to that road. They never had to pass me, yet I keep up with
them on average for few miles at a stretch given normal traffic volumes.
Sometimes, the roads are so congested that they are slowing my pace
considerably.
Matthew Russotto - 27 Aug 2005 02:40 GMT
>> So make up your mind, can you keep up with 45 MPH traffic, or are you
>> blocking?  Those are the only choices on a two lane road (1 each way,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>on the same traffic light cycle as motorists who were ahead of me before
>I turned on to that road.

Because you pass them in the red light queue.

Though I've had bicyclists keep up in the same traffic light cycle as
I was in in Philly, and they not only pulled up in the queue, they ran
the lights whenever possible.  Which provided quite an advantage.

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P - 27 Aug 2005 02:57 GMT
>>> So make up your mind, can you keep up with 45 MPH traffic, or are you
>>> blocking?  Those are the only choices on a two lane road (1 each way,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Because you pass them in the red light queue.

I do no such thing. Nor do I need to. However I've had drivers decide
that they didn't have to wait behind me and tried to suck up to the
bumper of the vehicle in front of me. Should I start accusing you of
various behaviors?

> Though I've had bicyclists keep up in the same traffic light cycle as
> I was in in Philly, and they not only pulled up in the queue, they ran
> the lights whenever possible.  Which provided quite an advantage.

I don't need to do any such thing. A couple years back I was riding in
the loop. I caught up to a cop on a bicycle just before a red light. I
passed him. He ran the red. I went on green, I passed him mid block, got
a red and stopped. He ran the red, I went on the green, passed him
midblock.... well you get the idea.

Just as recently as this past tuesday I was riding my old road bike in
the loop. For four lights in a row I was waiting at a red signal next to
the same taxi and VW.  

Later that night, I was using the left lane (left turn ahead)
and keeping up with all traffic until I had to brake at the end of the
left turn queue.

The reason I was riding the old bike is because it's the one with the
light.
Jim Yanik - 25 Aug 2005 00:47 GMT
>> > On two lane roads you block traffic and cause people to swerve to
>> > avoid creaming your a.s.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> It's the MFFY attitude for bikers.

Face it,Larry,you are just wasting your time trying to debate this.
You certainly are not going to change their attitudes.

They're pros,and they know best. 8-}

(and the rest of us don't know how to drive.)

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 06:37 GMT
> Face it,Larry,you are just wasting your time trying to debate this.
> You certainly are not going to change their attitudes.
>
> They're pros,and they know best. 8-}
>
> (and the rest of us don't know how to drive.)

Sorry, I just don't have the problems with bicyclists you do. Sure I
encounter wrong ways or the like and I'll often let them know they are
doing something wrong. But with legally riding bicyclists there is no
problem at all.

I can only conclude it's a driving skill issue.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 25 Aug 2005 14:55 GMT
> Face it,Larry,you are just wasting your time trying to debate this.
> You certainly are not going to change their attitudes.
>
> They're pros,and they know best. 8-}
>
> (and the rest of us don't know how to drive.)

Frankly, that last one is the only logical conclusion.  Arging about
how the double-yellow is a physical barrier that prevents a pass,
except that since just about everyone breaks the speed laws, we
certainly know that the double yellow is not so special any more.  It's
just a device to try and score usenet argument points.  After all, if a
Lloyd LLounger was in the middle of the lane, NOBODY would just stop
and stay there until it was moved.  They'd (at their mortal peril, to
be sure) cross the double yellow and just keep on driving.

I counted the bicycles, autosloths, and pedestrians that I encountered
yesterday in my ten-mile commute between two college towns.  There were
26 bicycles, all ridden by folks obviously over the age of 16, and
about 75% were being ridden approximately in a road-legal fashion -
about the same as cars.  25% were on sidewalks.  Of the 75%, most of
them were being ridden within one foot of the fog line.  None of them
held up traffic at all, and I did not see a single close pass.  Effect
on my commute time due to bicycles - none.

Of the pedestrians I saw, 5 actually had a potential to impact my
commute.  The first two jaywalked at a light, preventing a left turn.
The first one delayed traffic enough to make me miss the light.  Two
minutes lost.  The second one made me stop in the intersection and
caused a malfunction in my horn, and, after I got past the jackoff,
made me yell "obey the signals, a.shole!"  Another 10 seconds.  500
yeards up the road, a ped crossed, in a crosswalk, and held up evening
traffic both ways while taking a leisurely stroll across the road.
Another 20 seconds.

The remainder were autosloths.  Trapped through a cycle of lights when
dumbasses in cars can't seem to get on that "go" pedal enough to allow
anyone behind them to get through the light.  Another two minutes.  On
a short section of two-lane, a cement truck drove at 35mph the whole 4
miles.  In a 55 that usually runs at 60.  Do the math.  Then right near
my house, and old lady who can't figure out that after you stop at the
sign, you are allowed to go.  My horn had another malfunction after 30
seconds of waiting, with no cars passing in front.  Of course, after
*she* goes, I have to wait for a string of cars.  LOL.

This was not different from every other day - the cement or gravel
trucks along that road are also regular, if not everyday, occurances.
The jaywalkers really gripe me, because the light cycles are long
around here.  But it's the cars that are the problem.  Bikes NEVER
factor in, and there are many more than in non-college towns.

If you can navigate through the sloths and the jaywalkers, but can't
figure out how to pass bikes, your driving skills are indeed in
question.

E.P.
Jim Yanik - 25 Aug 2005 16:49 GMT
>> Face it,Larry,you are just wasting your time trying to debate this.
>> You certainly are not going to change their attitudes.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Frankly, that last one is the only logical conclusion.  

Along with the concept of "I'm right and the world's all wrong".
Fits right in there with it.

> Arging about
> how the double-yellow is a physical barrier that prevents a pass,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> and stay there until it was moved.  They'd (at their mortal peril, to
> be sure) cross the double yellow and just keep on driving.

So you advocate breaking one more law to "solve" the problem of bicyclists
hindering traffic.

> I counted the bicycles, autosloths, and pedestrians that I encountered
> yesterday in my ten-mile commute between two college towns.  There were
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> held up traffic at all, and I did not see a single close pass.  Effect
> on my commute time due to bicycles - none.

Well,here we have the definitive unbiased survey!

But of course,when WE say we have seen bicyclists hindering traffic,we
"don't know how to drive",or "it's anecdotal,not evidence".

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

gcmschemist@gmail.com - 25 Aug 2005 17:54 GMT
> >> Face it,Larry,you are just wasting your time trying to debate this.
> >> You certainly are not going to change their attitudes.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Along with the concept of "I'm right and the world's all wrong".
> Fits right in there with it.

Since you seem unable to pass bicycles, which seems to me to be a
trivial task, I can't fathom how your driving skills are anywhere near
advanced as mine.  Why the stark difference?

> > Arging about
> > how the double-yellow is a physical barrier that prevents a pass,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> So you advocate breaking one more law to "solve" the problem of bicyclists
> hindering traffic.

Nice strawman.  Try again.

> > I counted the bicycles, autosloths, and pedestrians that I encountered
> > yesterday in my ten-mile commute between two college towns.  There were
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Well,here we have the definitive unbiased survey!

I didn't claim any sort of science.  Yet another argument tactic.

> But of course,when WE say we have seen bicyclists hindering traffic,we
> "don't know how to drive",or "it's anecdotal,not evidence".

I've seen bikes hindering traffic as well, but in comparison to all the
other delays, they are insignificant.  Yesterday, they didn't
contribute at all.  Maybe today, they'll contribute some.  But I know
for a fact that sloth drivers will slow me down and delay my arrival at
my destination.

Complaining about bicycles and their effect on traffic is akin to
complaining about a scratch on your fender when your car is on fire.

E.P.
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 19:54 GMT
> On two lane roads you block traffic and cause people to swerve to avoid
> creaming your a.s.

I've never had a problem passing bicyclists on a two lane road when I'm
driving. I drive, I drive quite a bit in addition to bicycling. I simply
never have this problem all of you anti-bicycling drivers do.

I see the bicyclist up ahead. I examine the traffic, I adjust my speed
slightly (up or down) so I have a gap to pass the biyclist, I pass, I
return to my normal speed. I don't understand the difficulty.  

> Nonsense.  You can't keep up with 45 MPH traffic.  I'm not talking
> about 25 MPH low traffic residential areas.

If you think all non residential roads move at 45mph or more all the time
you are sadly mistaken. Actually these days much of the problem drivers I
encounter are on residential roads while I am riding at or near the speed
limit. They see I am on a bicycle and automatically assume I am going
5mph, so they adjust their speed up to 40 or 50 mph to pass me, see a
stop sign, cut back in front of me and nail the brakes.

> Yeah, you illegally block traffic which is just as bad on bike as it is
> in a car.

As I've posted many times, if my goal was to screw up traffic, I would
use a car. Legal bicycling has no significant or measurable impact on
traffic or traffic speeds unless an incompetent motorist is involved.
Then the incompetent motorist jams up traffic. But that is not the
bicyclist's fault or in his control.
Matthew Russotto - 27 Aug 2005 02:38 GMT
>I see the bicyclist up ahead. I examine the traffic, I adjust my speed
>slightly (up or down) so I have a gap to pass the biyclist, I pass, I
>return to my normal speed. I don't understand the difficulty.  

If there's no gap, the motorist must slow to the bicyclist's speed.  At
the bicyclist's speed, the motorist needs a far longer gap, which may
be minutes in coming.

>As I've posted many times, if my goal was to screw up traffic, I would
>use a car. Legal bicycling has no significant or measurable impact on
>traffic or traffic speeds unless an incompetent motorist is involved.

Legal bicycling is just about nonexistent.  So is legal driving, for
that matter, though the offenses are different.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P - 27 Aug 2005 02:51 GMT
>>I see the bicyclist up ahead. I examine the traffic, I adjust my speed
>>slightly (up or down) so I have a gap to pass the biyclist, I pass, I
>>return to my normal speed. I don't understand the difficulty.  

> If there's no gap, the motorist must slow to the bicyclist's speed.  At
> the bicyclist's speed, the motorist needs a far longer gap, which may
> be minutes in coming.

I drive in heavy chicago area traffic. I've always been able to pass a
bicyclist without slowing to his speed. I doubt I am anything close to
super human.

>>As I've posted many times, if my goal was to screw up traffic, I would
>>use a car. Legal bicycling has no significant or measurable impact on
>>traffic or traffic speeds unless an incompetent motorist is involved.

> Legal bicycling is just about nonexistent.  So is legal driving, for
> that matter, though the offenses are different.

I see mostly legal bicycling amung those who use roads. The illegal
riders are mostly on the sidewalk. It's when they enter the roadway
briefly and (to most drivers) randomly that they are biggest problem.  
Other than that, I encounter slow moving, gutter riding wrong ways, whom
depending on my mood and traffic condition I make no allowance for or
even block their progress on the gutter forcing them to remove themselves
from the roadway. The later is done at traffic signals where I will be
stopping.
brink - 24 Aug 2005 02:07 GMT
> So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
> allowed?

you want to ban non-motorized vehicles like bikes because they're--in your
words--"motorways."  so if you want to take your riding mower on the road,
that should be allowed?

brink
Larry Bud - 24 Aug 2005 13:25 GMT
> > So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
> > allowed?
>
> you want to ban non-motorized vehicles like bikes because they're--in your
> words--"motorways."  so if you want to take your riding mower on the road,
> that should be allowed?

Of course not, as they don't follow the laws any better than a bike for
a road worth vehicle.  In addition, a riding mower, like a bike, can't
keep up with the flow of traffic.
Jim Yanik - 24 Aug 2005 16:09 GMT
>> > So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
>> > allowed?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> for a road worth vehicle.  In addition, a riding mower, like a bike,
> can't keep up with the flow of traffic.

Cyclists seem to be short on common sense.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

brink - 25 Aug 2005 07:09 GMT
>> > So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
>> > allowed?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> a road worth vehicle.  In addition, a riding mower, like a bike, can't
> keep up with the flow of traffic.

it was a rhetorical question in response to your disingenous "big wheel"
question.

brink
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 06:59 GMT
>> >> > One of these days some deserving prick is going to get a nice
>> >> > resounding fender slap from me.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> So if you want to take your big wheel out there, that should be
> allowed?

A big wheel isn't legally defined as a vehicle. A bicycle IS.

>> 2nd level: Drivers are slowing down bicyclists.

> Nonsense.  I pass bike riders constantly.  You can't keep up with the
> flow of traffic.  No better than a sloth driver.  In fact worse,
> because you force people to pass you in the same lane.

I am faster than sloth drivers. Also read the story you responded to. I
was delayed by the driver. Tonight I was FASTER than most drivers I
encountered. (downtown chicago)

>> 3rd level: I am even faster with my car, so how would this woman be less
>> annoying had I been driving? Had I been driving I would not have been
>> able to go around her.

> The annoyance level may have been the same, but you wouldn't have been
> able to break the law by an illegal pass.  I thought you followed all
> traffic laws when you bike ride, Brent?

Passing in the same lane is only prohibited on the right when there is
less than 8 feet of open space available. I passed the driver just as
many drivers have passed me while I was bicycling, to the left of the
vehicle being passed and in the same lane.

Also, if you read the IL vehicle code, a two wheeled vehicle is not
prohibited from passing on the left of another vehicle unless it (the two
wheeled vehicle) is to the right of yet another. (ie lane splitting is
illegal). This, being a left turn lane, had no other traffic to my left.

The move was legal.
Larry Bud - 24 Aug 2005 13:38 GMT
> I am faster than sloth drivers. Also read the story you responded to. I
> was delayed by the driver. Tonight I was FASTER than most drivers I
> encountered. (downtown chicago)

You cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, no way.  You can't pedal
your bike 45 MPH.  You're as bad a sloth driver, and in fact, much more
dangerous.

> > The annoyance level may have been the same, but you wouldn't have been
> > able to break the law by an illegal pass.  I thought you followed all
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> many drivers have passed me while I was bicycling, to the left of the
> vehicle being passed and in the same lane.

Yeah, that's the problem, you don't have to follow the same laws as a
car.

> Also, if you read the IL vehicle code, a two wheeled vehicle is not
> prohibited from passing on the left of another vehicle unless it (the two
> wheeled vehicle) is to the right of yet another. (ie lane splitting is
> illegal). This, being a left turn lane, had no other traffic to my left.

There wasn't a double yellow line to the left of the driver in a left
turn lane?  I'm willing to bet there was.

What's your problem with getting off the road and riding on paths?
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 19:39 GMT
>> I am faster than sloth drivers. Also read the story you responded to. I
>> was delayed by the driver. Tonight I was FASTER than most drivers I
>> encountered. (downtown chicago)
>
> You cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, no way.

I've done it many times. In fact my bicycle commute time and my driving
commute time to work are so similiar I don't set out any earlier when I
ride.

>  You can't pedal your bike 45 MPH.

I have. Most recently was my return trip from Iao needle on Maui.

> You're as bad a sloth driver, and in fact, much more dangerous.

Sloth drivers slow me down and are more dangerous. I turn faster,
accelerate faster and am much more aware of traffic and road conditions
than any sloth driver.

>> > The annoyance level may have been the same, but you wouldn't have been
>> > able to break the law by an illegal pass.  I thought you followed all
>> > traffic laws when you bike ride, Brent?

>> Passing in the same lane is only prohibited on the right when there is
>> less than 8 feet of open space available. I passed the driver just as
>> many drivers have passed me while I was bicycling, to the left of the
>> vehicle being passed and in the same lane.

> Yeah, that's the problem, you don't have to follow the same laws as a
> car.

That isn't a special bicycling law. It's the vehicle code. It applies the
same way when I am driving. Just that my car can't fit in the passing
space that is legally available.

>> Also, if you read the IL vehicle code, a two wheeled vehicle is not
>> prohibited from passing on the left of another vehicle unless it (the two
>> wheeled vehicle) is to the right of yet another. (ie lane splitting is
>> illegal). This, being a left turn lane, had no other traffic to my left.

> There wasn't a double yellow line to the left of the driver in a left
> turn lane?  I'm willing to bet there was.

Didn't cross the center line. It's not my fault your car is so large.

> What's your problem with getting off the road and riding on paths?

What's your problem not doing the same with your car?

You'll find my answer very much the same.
Paul. - 23 Aug 2005 10:25 GMT
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:55:09 -0700, Scott en Aztlán , said the following
in rec.autos.driving...

> Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
> noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> through the crosswalk by zooming right up to me and braking sharply at
> the last possible moment.

<snip>

Since I started walking (to lose weight and general fitness)a few months
ago, I have also noted what a.sholes some people can be. Mostly it is
from the evidence that they leave behind (translation: litter) that I see
now that I didn't notice when in the car.

Signature

Paul

Self-appointed unofficial overseer of kooks
and trolls in rec.autos.driving.

They love Spam:
boilingpitsofsewage@yahoo.com

Disregard the e-mail above. It has nothing to do with the post.  

Scott en Aztlán - 23 Aug 2005 14:06 GMT
>Since I started walking (to lose weight and general fitness)a few months
>ago, I have also noted what a.sholes some people can be. Mostly it is
>from the evidence that they leave behind (translation: litter) that I see
>now that I didn't notice when in the car.

Yep. In at least two places along my usual route there is broken green
glass all over the sidewalk where someone in a car threw his empty
beer bottle out the window. Then there's the fast food bags, the piles
of cigarette butts (from smokers emptying their ashtrays), etc. etc.

There's a bunch of people whom I call "the lunchtime parking club."
These losers leave their offices at lunch time, get into their cars,
drive a few blocks away to some other company's parking lot, park
their cars in a shady spot, and sit there eating their lunches,
reading the newspaper, listening to the radio, taking a nap, getting a
BJ, etc. Then they dump all of their garbage out the window and drive
back to their offices.
Paul. - 24 Aug 2005 11:14 GMT
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:06:10 -0700, Scott en Aztlán , said the following
in rec.autos.driving...

> Yep. In at least two places along my usual route there is broken green
> glass all over the sidewalk where someone in a car threw his empty
> beer bottle out the window. Then there's the fast food bags, the piles
> of cigarette butts (from smokers emptying their ashtrays), etc. etc.

I know the feeling. On one of my routes, there is a stretch where the
sidewalk is a good 10 feet or more from the road and yet there will still
be broken glass (almost aleays green or brown) on the sidewalk. (granted,
it could be from pedestrians, but I doubt it).

> There's a bunch of people whom I call "the lunchtime parking club."
> These losers leave their offices at lunch time, get into their cars,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> BJ, etc. Then they dump all of their garbage out the window and drive
> back to their offices.

Doesn't surprise me. Doesn't the other company have security that can run
these parasites off?

Signature

Paul

Self-appointed unofficial overseer of kooks
and trolls in rec.autos.driving.

They love Spam:
boilingpitsofsewage@yahoo.com

Scott en Aztlán - 25 Aug 2005 04:14 GMT
>> There's a bunch of people whom I call "the lunchtime parking club."
>
>Doesn't surprise me. Doesn't the other company have security that can run
>these parasites off?

The company was cheap; they had a security guard, but he only came on
duty at 5:00 PM (so all the ladies would feel safe walking through the
parking lot to their cars).
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 23 Aug 2005 16:31 GMT
> Since I started walking (to lose weight and general fitness)a few months
> ago, I have also noted what a.sholes some people can be. Mostly it is
> from the evidence that they leave behind (translation: litter) that I see
> now that I didn't notice when in the car.

When I rode bike to get back and forth to work, this was one of the
reasons I would get more into the travel lane than off to the side -
all the glass and other various crap that lived over past where the
tires swept the pavement clean.

Drivers piss and moan about bikes being in the lane, but if the side of
the road didn't have all this a.shole-generated waste, I could ride
further to the right.  And you just can't see it at 35mph from inside
your car.

E.P.
Scott en Aztlán - 24 Aug 2005 04:31 GMT
>When I rode bike to get back and forth to work, this was one of the
>reasons I would get more into the travel lane than off to the side -
>all the glass and other various crap that lived over past where the
>tires swept the pavement clean.

I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here the street
sweepers sweep the bike lanes, too.
The Real Bev - 24 Aug 2005 06:17 GMT
> >When I rode bike to get back and forth to work, this was one of the
> >reasons I would get more into the travel lane than off to the side -
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here the street
> sweepers sweep the bike lanes, too.

Not often enough, though.  Car tires either grind the junk in the traffic
lanes to an inoffensive powder or kick it over to the side where it lies in
wait for unwary bicyclists.  And let's not forget those heros who throw glass
bottles out the window at the curb or even the sidewalk if it's their first
beer.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev      
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While you can't fool all the people all the time, you can fool
enough of them most of the time to make the rest impotent.

Scott en Aztlán - 25 Aug 2005 04:17 GMT
>> I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here the street
>> sweepers sweep the bike lanes, too.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>bottles out the window at the curb or even the sidewalk if it's their first
>beer.

There are two spots along my route to the train station where the
sidewalk is covered with little shards of green glass. It seems that
the street sweepers NEVER sweep the sidewalk. One of the two has been
there for MONTHS.

I'm tempted to bring a whisk broom with me one day and sweep that
glass out into the street so the street sweeper will clean it up.
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 07:03 GMT
> I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here the street
> sweepers sweep the bike lanes, too.

Here, the street sweepers come about once a year.  There's enough build
up of crap in the gutter to grow plants. (and they grow there)


gcmschemist@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2005 14:26 GMT
> >When I rode bike to get back and forth to work, this was one of the
> >reasons I would get more into the travel lane than off to the side -
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here the street
> sweepers sweep the bike lanes, too.

Street-sweeping budget is the first one cut.  The sweep up the gravel
from the winter, and that's twice in the spring.

By the time October rolls around, my tires will leave tracks in the
crud.

E.P.
Dave Head - 23 Aug 2005 11:25 GMT
>Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
>noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>through the crosswalk by zooming right up to me and braking sharply at
>the last possible moment.

U are asking for a trip to the hospital if you are stepping out into the street
with something else there that hasn't already stopped, and relying on the _law_
to keep you safe.

Never rely on someone else doing something for your safety.  If something is
coming, and I can't get across the street before it gets there if it doesn't
slow or stop, I don't enter the street.  I _expect_ this sh.t. Remember
driver's ed - expect the unexpected?  This is it...

Dave Head
Alex Rodriguez - 23 Aug 2005 16:21 GMT
>Never rely on someone else doing something for your safety.  If something is
>coming, and I can't get across the street before it gets there if it doesn't
>slow or stop, I don't enter the street.  I _expect_ this sh.t. Remember
>driver's ed - expect the unexpected?  This is it...

If you cede the right of way to these idiots all the time, they will take it
all the time.  If I have the green, I will walk at a normal pace to get across.
I don't let the idiot drivers scare me.  
----------------
Alex
rally2xs@att.net - 23 Aug 2005 18:17 GMT
Murphy's Laws of Combat:  Incoming fire has the right of way.  So it is
with the relatively heavy, 4000 lb vehicle vs. a 200 lb man.  Ignoring
the practicalities of physics throws open to question exactly which
party is the idiot here.

DPH
Brent P - 23 Aug 2005 19:05 GMT
> Murphy's Laws of Combat:  Incoming fire has the right of way.  So it is
> with the relatively heavy, 4000 lb vehicle vs. a 200 lb man.  Ignoring
> the practicalities of physics throws open to question exactly which
> party is the idiot here.

So, everytime I have the bigger vehicle I can run the other person off
the road and out of my way? What if I mount a 50cal gun on my car?

If you know what you are doing and have some guts you can stand up to a
bully and force him to back down even if he's bigger.

I've made a number of auto driving bullies back down and even run away.

If you act weak, if you give in, you'll be pushed further and further
until you stay at home all the time or there just wasn't any more to give
and you end up hurt or killed.
Dave Head - 24 Aug 2005 01:57 GMT
>> Murphy's Laws of Combat:  Incoming fire has the right of way.  So it is
>> with the relatively heavy, 4000 lb vehicle vs. a 200 lb man.  Ignoring
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>So, everytime I have the bigger vehicle I can run the other person off
>the road and out of my way?

Nope.

>What if I mount a 50cal gun on my car?

You go to jail.

>If you know what you are doing and have some guts you can stand up to a
>bully and force him to back down even if he's bigger.

This isn't the gunfight at the OK corral, its staying alive on the road.  Give
a vehicle a reasonable opportunity to run over you, and eventually it will.

>I've made a number of auto driving bullies back down and even run away.

Who really needs a bully?  All you need is an inattentive driver.  You step
out, expecting the car to stop, but the person is turned around to slap the kid
in the back seat.  Wham.  Hair, teeth, and eyes all over the highway.   Yours.

>If you act weak, if you give in, you'll be pushed further and further
>until you stay at home all the time or there just wasn't any more to give
>and you end up hurt or killed.

If you put yourself in harms way for no earthly gain whatsoever, you're going
to lose eventually, and its really gonna hurt.

Dave Head
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 06:51 GMT
>>> Murphy's Laws of Combat:  Incoming fire has the right of way.  So it is
>>> with the relatively heavy, 4000 lb vehicle vs. a 200 lb man.  Ignoring
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> You go to jail.

So much for the might makes right arguements.

>>If you know what you are doing and have some guts you can stand up to a
>>bully and force him to back down even if he's bigger.

> This isn't the gunfight at the OK corral, its staying alive on the road.  Give
> a vehicle a reasonable opportunity to run over you, and eventually it will.

Backdown to them and you WILL be hurt/killed. I know this for a fact. The
time I was nearly sucked under a truck was when I moved to the edge to
get out of the way. So the driver decided since I gave him that, He'd
take all the paved space and force me over further, but there was no
where else to go. When I've held my ground there has never been any
significant incidence.

>>I've made a number of auto driving bullies back down and even run away.

> Who really needs a bully?  All you need is an inattentive driver.  You step
> out, expecting the car to stop, but the person is turned around to slap the kid
> in the back seat.  Wham.  Hair, teeth, and eyes all over the highway.   Yours.

You don't seem to understand the concept at all.

>>If you act weak, if you give in, you'll be pushed further and further
>>until you stay at home all the time or there just wasn't any more to give
>>and you end up hurt or killed.
>
> If you put yourself in harms way for no earthly gain whatsoever, you're going
> to lose eventually, and its really gonna hurt.

I've already been hurt practicing your pussy method of backing down. I
haven't been hurt doing it my way.
Alex Rodriguez - 25 Aug 2005 18:42 GMT
>Backdown to them and you WILL be hurt/killed. I know this for a fact. The
>time I was nearly sucked under a truck was when I moved to the edge to
>get out of the way. So the driver decided since I gave him that, He'd
>take all the paved space and force me over further, but there was no
>where else to go. When I've held my ground there has never been any
>significant incidence.

This is exactly what some people don't understand.  You have to learn how
to safely ride in traffic.  Riding on the right most 6 inches of the road
is not safe.  If you do that, you are inviting cars to share the lane with
you, which can be dangerous, or make an illegal pass in your lane.  

>>>If you act weak, if you give in, you'll be pushed further and further
>>>until you stay at home all the time or there just wasn't any more to give
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>I've already been hurt practicing your pussy method of backing down. I
>haven't been hurt doing it my way.

Luckily I have learned from others before I had a bad experience myself.   My
most recent experience with an idiot driver was partially my fault because
I did move over for one car and the idiot behind him then proceeded to run
me off the road.
-------------
Alex
Dave Head - 25 Aug 2005 21:44 GMT
>>Backdown to them and you WILL be hurt/killed. I know this for a fact. The
>>time I was nearly sucked under a truck was when I moved to the edge to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>is not safe.  If you do that, you are inviting cars to share the lane with
>you, which can be dangerous, or make an illegal pass in your lane.  

Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
expecting them to stop just because its the law.  Assert your rights?
Bullshit.  I say its a damn bad idea.  People seem to be arguing with me -
until someone comes along and tries to apply this to bicycles.  Got nothing to
do with bicycles - its _walking_ into traffic.  I say, "Don't do it".  Don't
give the inattentive moron or the over-hyped agressive driver the chance to
hurt you, not to mention the guy driving the crate with brakes he has to pump
up 9 time to get them to do anything.  They screw up and you bleed?  Damn bad
idea.

Dave Head

>Alex
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 25 Aug 2005 22:24 GMT
> Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
> people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
> expecting them to stop just because its the law.

Your pal Larry Bud trolled the group for bike responses.

It all comes back to unskilled/MFFY drivers, though.  "It's my road,
all you non-car types get the hell away from it."

E.P.
Dave Head - 26 Aug 2005 00:01 GMT
>> Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
>> people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
>> expecting them to stop just because its the law.
>
>Your pal Larry Bud trolled the group for bike responses.

<G>

>It all comes back to unskilled/MFFY drivers, though.  "It's my road,
>all you non-car types get the hell away from it."

Well, no, I was simply looking at it from the perspective of a pedestrian.  To
be a successful pedestrian requires a plan to survive.  Expecting someone else
to assume responsibility to fulfill that plan, with the alternative of bleeding
all over the highway if they don't, is just a really bad idea.

Dave Head

>E.P.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 26 Aug 2005 02:00 GMT
> >It all comes back to unskilled/MFFY drivers, though.  "It's my road,
> >all you non-car types get the hell away from it."
>
> Well, no, I was simply looking at it from the perspective of a pedestrian.

So am I.  I walk places, too.  It's nice to park away from the really
crowded places and have a short walk to your destination.  Maybe that's
why I most always park at the back of store lots.  Lots of spaces,
fewer door dings, a short walk to the door.

I'm a pedestrian, too.

>  To
> be a successful pedestrian requires a plan to survive.

BS.  I've never needed any "plan."  I just walk.  I've never been run
over, even in some of the biggest cities in the U.S.  It helps when you
you don't break jaywalking laws, and when you pick times to cross
uncontrolled crosswalks when there are few cars, or slower-moving cars.
But that's risk-management.  The fear-based angle you're taking is a
waste of my time.

E.P.
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 22:57 GMT
> Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
> people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
> expecting them to stop just because its the law.  Assert your rights?
> Bullshit.  I say its a damn bad idea.

So because some nut case might run me down, I shouldn't walk or ride a
bicycle. But drive. Drive everywhere, be like everyone else. Conform, be
affraid.

This is a competitive society where being assertive is requirement. Don't
be assertive about your rights and you won't have any.
Dave Head - 25 Aug 2005 23:59 GMT
>> Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
>> people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>bicycle. But drive. Drive everywhere, be like everyone else. Conform, be
>affraid.

Be prudent, I'd say.

>This is a competitive society where being assertive is requirement. Don't
>be assertive about your rights and you won't have any.

Be assertive when its appropriate.  My Dad always used to say, when it looked
like someone was about to take the right of way when it didn't belong to them,
"You haul it out there, I'll knock it off" but he was driving a 2 ton Cadillac.

Arguing with a 2+ ton SUV while in possession of only a 200 lb body is... not
prudent.

Dave Head
Brent P - 26 Aug 2005 00:39 GMT
>>> Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
>>> people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Be prudent, I'd say.

Which in your view seems to be to always back down.

>>This is a competitive society where being assertive is requirement. Don't
>>be assertive about your rights and you won't have any.

> Be assertive when its appropriate.

Given what you've written that is aproximately, never.

>  My Dad always used to say, when it looked
> like someone was about to take the right of way when it didn't belong to them,
> "You haul it out there, I'll knock it off" but he was driving a 2 ton Cadillac.

I do very much the same.

> Arguing with a 2+ ton SUV while in possession of only a 200 lb body is... not
> prudent.

I can do nearly a grand in body damage to the SUV without getting hurt.
If you know what you're doing, you won't get hurt.
Dave Head - 26 Aug 2005 02:54 GMT
>>>> Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
>>>> people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Which in your view seems to be to always back down.

I don't view it as some macho expression of my personality, so there is no
"backing down", only a cat and mouse game where the other person always loses.

>>>This is a competitive society where being assertive is requirement. Don't
>>>be assertive about your rights and you won't have any.
>
>> Be assertive when its appropriate.
>
>Given what you've written that is aproximately, never.

I mostly do it by not appearing uncertain about what my next move is.  When I'm
_driving_, I don't appear to hesitate to take my right of way, accelerate
briskly to project the idea I've already made my decision about where I'm going
and getting in the way would be a really bad idea, things like that.

When walking, I make the game so's that anyone that would like to run me over
may have to accelerate very hard, or maybe try to run through some solid
object, etc.  And I make sure that they can't hit my by simply not paying
attention.

>>  My Dad always used to say, when it looked
>> like someone was about to take the right of way when it didn't belong to them,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I can do nearly a grand in body damage to the SUV without getting hurt.
>If you know what you're doing, you won't get hurt.

I think you are like a friend I have in Indianapolis - naturally combative.  He
seems to look for ways to have a confrontation.

DPH
Brent P - 26 Aug 2005 03:51 GMT
>>> Be prudent, I'd say.
>>
>>Which in your view seems to be to always back down.
>
> I don't view it as some macho expression of my personality,

Neither do I. I consider it survival.

> so there is no
> "backing down", only a cat and mouse game where the other person always loses.

Backing down all the time will only get me dead. Give an inch and they
will take a mile. It's true. But you, too affraid to actually gain the
experience I have, will tell me I'm wrong over and over again.

>>>>This is a competitive society where being assertive is requirement. Don't
>>>>be assertive about your rights and you won't have any.

>>> Be assertive when its appropriate.

>>Given what you've written that is aproximately, never.

> I mostly do it by not appearing uncertain about what my next move is.

That's a big part of it.

>  When I'm
> _driving_, I don't appear to hesitate to take my right of way, accelerate
> briskly to project the idea I've already made my decision about where I'm going
> and getting in the way would be a really bad idea, things like that.

And this is what I do bicycling or driving or walking. (it's VERY
important when walking in or near bad neighborhoods BTW)

> When walking, I make the game so's that anyone that would like to run me over
> may have to accelerate very hard, or maybe try to run through some solid
> object, etc.  And I make sure that they can't hit my by simply not paying
> attention.

I do exactly what I do driving and biking. I assertively continue leaving
myself an escape route.

>>> Arguing with a 2+ ton SUV while in possession of only a 200 lb body is... not
>>> prudent.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I think you are like a friend I have in Indianapolis - naturally combative.  He
> seems to look for ways to have a confrontation.

Not at all. I am actually naturally rather shy and one to avoid conflict.
I've had to learn these assertive behaviors to survive in US society.
Inside I am still quite passive. But I've learned to have an assertive,
appearance and make others fight for every inch they want to take from me
to survive. If I had not learned this, I would be cowering in my home all
the time or dead by now. And maybe that's why I feel so strongly about
it. Because of what I would have had to give up.
Jim Yanik - 26 Aug 2005 04:28 GMT
>>I can do nearly a grand in body damage to the SUV without getting
>>hurt. If you know what you're doing, you won't get hurt.

Wow,that's a nice brag,are we supposed to be impressed?

> I think you are like a friend I have in Indianapolis - naturally
> combative.  He seems to look for ways to have a confrontation.
>
> DPH

I have formed the same opinion,just from Brent's posts here.
I wonder if he's on steroids or something similar.
I don't think it's just "combative",either.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P - 26 Aug 2005 05:57 GMT
> I have formed the same opinion,just from Brent's posts here.
> I wonder if he's on steroids or something similar.
> I don't think it's just "combative",either.

Laff... see the previous post.
Alex Rodriguez - 26 Aug 2005 17:29 GMT
>Ride, hell - this thread is drifting away from the original premise that some
>people think its a great idea to step out into a crosswalk with cars coming and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>up 9 time to get them to do anything.  They screw up and you bleed?  Damn bad
>idea.

By ceding your right or way, you are encouraging the idiots.  It is pretty
easy to tell who is going to stop, and who is not.  I've asserted my right of
way many times and I have never been hit.
--------------
Alex
Marco Licetti - 23 Aug 2005 18:54 GMT
The idiot is you posting on Jewish groups pretending to be Russian,
Palestianian or Papa Karlo
Jim Yanik - 23 Aug 2005 16:24 GMT
>>Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
>>noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Dave Head

I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a 2500+
lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.
By this,I mean that people expect the MV's to yield to them even though the
people could pause and step out after the MV has passed by. These
days,especially with the young "adults",they think the law makes them
immune to traffic.

I do not interpret this to mean that one wait when they have the crossing
light or sign.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Dave Head - 24 Aug 2005 02:00 GMT
>>>Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
>>>noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a 2500+
>lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.

Yep.

>By this,I mean that people expect the MV's to yield to them even though the
>people could pause and step out after the MV has passed by. These
>days,especially with the young "adults",they think the law makes them
>immune to traffic.

They only need to find an inattentive driver, or a mechanical failure, or maybe
even a slick road, and they're going to bleed.

>I do not interpret this to mean that one wait when they have the crossing
>light or sign.

If there's something coming at a speed that would cause it to intersect my
path, and I don't have some assurance I can make it across the road no matter
what bonehead stunt the driver pulls, I'll wait.

Dave Head
Scott en Aztlán - 24 Aug 2005 04:34 GMT
>I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a 2500+
>lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.

Irrelevant. The law requires the 2500+ lb vehicle to yield to the
human body.
The Real Bev - 24 Aug 2005 06:20 GMT
> >I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a 2500+
> >lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.
>
> Irrelevant. The law requires the 2500+ lb vehicle to yield to the
> human body.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics aren't quite as elastic as the laws of
man.  It's probably easier for a person to stop a car if the person is
carrying an iron bar that might scratch the car's paint, but there are no
guarantees.

Remember, some bitch ran a red light BEHIND me as I was legally crossing in a
crosswalk.  If I'd been walking slower I wouldn't be here.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev      
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While you can't fool all the people all the time, you can fool
enough of them most of the time to make the rest impotent.

Scott en Aztlán - 25 Aug 2005 04:21 GMT
>> >I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a 2500+
>> >lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Unfortunately, the laws of physics aren't quite as elastic as the laws of
>man.

Clearly one can be right - and one can be DEAD right.

>It's probably easier for a person to stop a car if the person is
>carrying an iron bar that might scratch the car's paint, but there are no
>guarantees.

I've found that if I make eye contact as they approach, then look down
at their license plate, and then look them in the eye once again, they
tend to be a bit more respectful. ;)

The main problem is catching the driver's eye in the first place. Many
of the ones who I have to watch out for have their heads craned
solidly to the left, looking for approaching cross traffic which might
T-bone them as they fly through the red light and around the corner.

>Remember, some bitch ran a red light BEHIND me as I was legally crossing in a
>crosswalk.  If I'd been walking slower I wouldn't be here.

Never a cop around when you need one. ;)
Jim Yanik - 24 Aug 2005 16:11 GMT
>>I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a
>>2500+ lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.
>
> Irrelevant. The law requires the 2500+ lb vehicle to yield to the
> human body.

But the LAW is not always followed. That IS relevant.

CYA.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Matthew Russotto - 27 Aug 2005 02:12 GMT
>Irrelevant. The law requires the 2500+ lb vehicle to yield to the
>human body.

Fortunately, my vehicle weighs less than that.  Thump.

More seriously, the law will be cold comfort in the hospital or grave.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Jim Yanik - 27 Aug 2005 06:11 GMT
>>Irrelevant. The law requires the 2500+ lb vehicle to yield to the
>>human body.
>
> Fortunately, my vehicle weighs less than that.  Thump.
>
> More seriously, the law will be cold comfort in the hospital or grave.

Well,that's the practical part these folks are ignoring.
After all,they cannot give in to fear....,and they can always tell what the
other guy is going to do.....etc,etc,etc.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

gcmschemist@gmail.com - 27 Aug 2005 13:26 GMT
> > More seriously, the law will be cold comfort in the hospital or grave.
>
> Well,that's the practical part these folks are ignoring.

Nobody is ignoring it - you just made that up.

> After all,they cannot give in to fear....,

At least this one is partially true.  Whether you are a ped or on a
bike, if you don't exercize your rights, people will begin to assume
you have none, no matter what the law says.  A great example of this is
Larry Bud's attitude.

> and they can always tell what the
> other guy is going to do.....etc,etc,etc.

You made this up, too.

Making stuff up does really support your position - you do realize
that, right?

E.P.
gcmschemist@gmail.com - 27 Aug 2005 13:31 GMT
> Making stuff up does really support your position ...

Should read *doesn't*

E.P.
Jim Yanik - 27 Aug 2005 16:13 GMT
>> > More seriously, the law will be cold comfort in the hospital or grave.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> you have none, no matter what the law says.  A great example of this is
> Larry Bud's attitude.

Actually,a WISE person chooses their battles.

>> and they can always tell what the
>> other guy is going to do.....etc,etc,etc.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> E.P.

I guess you overlooked(or ignored) some of the comments your fellow
bicyclists have made here recently.Or you're in denial.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

gcmschemist@gmail.com - 28 Aug 2005 00:59 GMT
> > At least this one is partially true.  Whether you are a ped or on a
> > bike, if you don't exercize your rights, people will begin to assume
> > you have none, no matter what the law says.  A great example of this is
> > Larry Bud's attitude.
>
> Actually,a WISE person chooses their battles.

That's exactly right.  You don't try and assert your ped rights at
midnight, while wearing dark clothes un an unlighted, uncontrolled
crosswalk.  That's not very bright.

But not *all* situations are like that - there's a continuum between
"no visible cars" and the scenario above.

> >> and they can always tell what the
> >> other guy is going to do.....etc,etc,etc.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I guess you overlooked(or ignored) some of the comments your fellow
> bicyclists have made here recently.Or you're in denial.

Go ahead and quote where *anyone* said that they could always tell what
the other guy was going to do.

You can't, because you're making it up.

E.P.
Alex Rodriguez - 25 Aug 2005 18:35 GMT
>I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a 2500+
>lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.
>By this,I mean that people expect the MV's to yield to them even though the
>people could pause and step out after the MV has passed by. These
>days,especially with the young "adults",they think the law makes them
>immune to traffic.

At the speeds the car should be traveling when encountering a person crossing
at a cross walk, there should be no problem stopping.  Also, it is stupid
for a pedestrian to cede the right of way to a car turning.  It just makes
some idiot drivers think that it is their right, and not just a courtesy.
-------------
Alex
Jim Yanik - 26 Aug 2005 00:25 GMT
>>I believe it's far easier to stop a walking human body than to stop a
>>2500+ lb vehicle travelling at far greater speeds.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> right, and not just a courtesy. -------------
> Alex

I believe the pedestrian is still required to wait until it's safe to
cross,not step out and depend on the MVs to stop. It's only common sense.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Bernard Farquart - 26 Aug 2005 02:34 GMT
> Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in

>> At the speeds the car should be traveling when encountering a person
>> crossing at a cross walk, there should be no problem stopping.  Also,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I believe the pedestrian is still required to wait until it's safe to
> cross,not step out and depend on the MVs to stop. It's only common sense.
In some states (like mine, WA) if the ped has the light, or if he is
in a marked crosswalk, there is no "wait" requirement, he has the
right of way. that's it.

Bernard
Jim Yanik - 26 Aug 2005 04:23 GMT
>> Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Bernard

So,that means they can step out when you are only 15 feet away from them(no
crossing light,just crosswalk),and you are required to panic-brake to stop
for them?
Sorry,I don't think so.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

fbloogyudsr - 26 Aug 2005 04:54 GMT
> "Bernard Farquart" <bernardfarquart@removehotmail.com> wrote
>>> Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> for them?
> Sorry,I don't think so.

You're right; I believe that they recently clarified some pedestrian ROW
issues:  note 2), below.

RCW 46.61.235
Crosswalks.

(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to
allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or
marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane
of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which
it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all
traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the
entire width of a one-way roadway.
(2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of
safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is
so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply under the conditions
stated in RCW 46.61.240(2).
(4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the
roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not
overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.
The Real Bev - 26 Aug 2005 06:21 GMT
> >> Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> for them?
> Sorry,I don't think so.

I would guess that you're required to give it the old college try.  I don't
think saying "Well, I didn't think I could stop in time so I just went ahead
and hit him" in court would get you off.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev    
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince
parasites that they are victims."          --Thomas Sowell

gcmschemist@gmail.com - 26 Aug 2005 05:32 GMT
> In some states (like mine, WA) if the ped has the light, or if he is
> in a marked crosswalk, there is no "wait" requirement, he has the
> right of way. that's it.

Not exactly - if the walk signal is at "don't walk", he/she may not
cross, even in a marked crosswalk.

Change your "or" to an "and" and then you're OK.

But wait - it's more complicated.  Intersections are presupposed to
have "implied crosswalks" where peds may cross.

WA is a funny state about peds.  It used to be in SEA that folks
generally obeyed the crosswalk signals.  Is that still true?

E.P.
fbloogyudsr - 26 Aug 2005 06:05 GMT
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote
> WA is a funny state about peds.  It used to be in SEA that folks
> generally obeyed the crosswalk signals.  Is that still true?

In general, yes, although I'd say it's less so now than 20 years ago.
Jaywalking at mid-block is also very rare.

A couple of months ago we were walking back from Safeco Field,
and a couple of yahoos jaywalked at Dearborn & 4th - quite a
dangerous thing to do since there's a median that hides cars
and the speed is about 40-45.  Just as they got to the other side,
a motorcycle cop rolls up, pulls them over and ticketed them.

Floyd
Brent P - 23 Aug 2005 19:02 GMT
> U are asking for a trip to the hospital if you are stepping out into the street
> with something else there that hasn't already stopped, and relying on the _law_
> to keep you safe.

Who's relying on the law?

> Never rely on someone else doing something for your safety.  If something is
> coming, and I can't get across the street before it gets there if it doesn't
> slow or stop, I don't enter the street.  I _expect_ this sh.t. Remember
> driver's ed - expect the unexpected?  This is it...

At some point you have to learn to stand up for yourself.

It's a function of frustration. I reached that point years ago. Scott is
just getting to that point. Eventually you stop putting up with it.

If people didn't put up with it in mass, things would be much better.
Instead 'just let them do it' is being taught which only increases the
numbers of selfish a.sholes and their sense of entitlement.
Dave Head - 24 Aug 2005 02:03 GMT
>> U are asking for a trip to the hospital if you are stepping out into the street
>> with something else there that hasn't already stopped, and relying on the _law_
>> to keep you safe.
>
>Who's relying on the law?

Anyone that steps out into traffic and expects someone else to stop just
because it's the law.

>> Never rely on someone else doing something for your safety.  If something is
>> coming, and I can't get across the street before it gets there if it doesn't
>> slow or stop, I don't enter the street.  I _expect_ this sh.t. Remember
>> driver's ed - expect the unexpected?  This is it...
>
>At some point you have to learn to stand up for yourself.

Its not the gunfight at the OK corral, its survival in traffic.  Screw up when
you're at that big a disadvantage and you're going to bleed.

>It's a function of frustration. I reached that point years ago. Scott is
>just getting to that point. Eventually you stop putting up with it.

I'm 58, actaully ran out of patience about 1979 or so and don't have any more,
but that doesn't mean I'm going to give some pinhead the opportunity to run me
over for any reason whatsoever.

>If people didn't put up with it in mass, things would be much better.

No, they'd be much worse - there would be pedestrians all over the place with
chalk lines drawn around them, and inattentive or agressive drivers going to
jail for a long time.  Everybody loses.

>Instead 'just let them do it' is being taught which only increases the
>numbers of selfish a.sholes and their sense of entitlement.

It may just be a case of incompetence on the driver's part. I'm not willing to
bleed for that.

Dave Head
Brent P - 24 Aug 2005 06:48 GMT
>>Who's relying on the law?
>
> Anyone that steps out into traffic and expects someone else to stop just
> because it's the law.

That isn't anyone here.

>>> Never rely on someone else doing something for your safety.  If something is
>>> coming, and I can't get across the street before it gets there if it doesn't
>>> slow or stop, I don't enter the street.  I _expect_ this sh.t. Remember
>>> driver's ed - expect the unexpected?  This is it...

>>At some point you have to learn to stand up for yourself.

> Its not the gunfight at the OK corral, its survival in traffic.  Screw up when
> you're at that big a disadvantage and you're going to bleed.

Everyone has to live in your fear envolope.

>>It's a function of frustration. I reached that point years ago. Scott is
>>just getting to that point. Eventually you stop putting up with it.

> I'm 58, actaully ran out of patience about 1979 or so and don't have any more,
> but that doesn't mean I'm going to give some pinhead the opportunity to run me
> over for any reason whatsoever.

No one is telling you to.

>>If people didn't put up with it in mass, things would be much better.

> No, they'd be much worse - there would be pedestrians all over the place with
> chalk lines drawn around them, and inattentive or agressive drivers going to
> jail for a long time.  Everybody loses.

Bullshit. I spend enough time bicycling to know that assertively taking
my place and not backing down at the slightest threat from a driver makes
me safer. Backing down sends a signal of weakness, and that's when I've
gotten hurt. Because they kept pushing for more and there was no where
left for me to retreat. By holding my ground I have my escape to the last
possible moment. If I have to use it I still have it to use when push
comes to shove.

>>Instead 'just let them do it' is being taught which only increases the
>>numbers of selfish a.sholes and their sense of entitlement.

> It may just be a case of incompetence on the driver's part. I'm not willing to
> bleed for that.

It's easy to tell one from the other.
brink - 24 Aug 2005 02:02 GMT
>>Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
>>noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> _law_
> to keep you safe.

so if scott is crossing in a crosswalk, already in the street, and somebody
rolls up on him, he should run back to where he started?

brink
Dave Head - 24 Aug 2005 10:01 GMT
>>>Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
>>>noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>so if scott is crossing in a crosswalk, already in the street, and somebody
>rolls up on him, he should run back to where he started?

No, I'm saying Scott should look down the street and make sure that there are
no cars approaching that could possibly roll up on him while he's in the
crosswalk.  The idea is not to be in a position that if someone else screws up,
you die.

DPH

>brink
Jim Yanik - 24 Aug 2005 16:09 GMT
>>>>Since I started walking to/from the train station every day, I've
>>>>noticed just how many a.shole drivers there are out there on the
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>>brink

It's commonly called CYA.

cover -your- a.s.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

MidnightDad - 23 Aug 2005 17:24 GMT
I slapped the back of someone's car three times as they nearly ran me
over while pulling out of a parking space backwards and not looking.  I
used a open hand and it made quite a noise.  They pulled forward
quickly and gave me a dirty look.  I'll take a dirty look over a tire
tread any day.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.