 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet hunter orange? SFB spewed: >He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't >miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet >hunter orange? Why don't you paint, "Highway killing machine," on that beater of yours. OBTW, I don't wear a helmet when bicycling. Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj > He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't > miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet > hunter orange? My wife made me a waterproof-breathable blaze orange cover for my helmet. Not only increases visibility, but also keeps me warm in the cold and dry in the rain. I ride a rail-trail through hunting areas.  Signature------------------------------------------------------- "Every day is Saturday when you're retired." Bob Burns Mill Hall PA (email is a spamtrap) > cold and dry in the rain. I ride a rail-trail through hunting areas. suicidal--good hunters look for objects that are parallel to the ground such as a deers back there are a lot of hunters out there who in actuality want the chance to kill the ultimate mammal--humans and of course get away with it nb--i hunted literally every am--worked on resevations with open season all the time now i no longer hunt/fish hth peter > there are a lot of hunters out there who in actuality want the chance to > kill the ultimate mammal--humans and of course get away with it Neither commonsense nor the numbers of deaths associated with hunting accidents support this theory unless by "a lot" you mean an incredibly small percentage. Regards, Bob Hunt >> there are a lot of hunters out there who in actuality want the chance to >> kill the ultimate mammal--humans and of course get away with it > > Neither commonsense nor the numbers of deaths associated with hunting > accidents support this theory unless by "a lot" you mean an incredibly > small percentage. Well, "ilaboo" must meet a lot of hunters riding his bicycle around New York City. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful On Feb 27, 1:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't > miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet > hunter orange? If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try slowing down and paying more attention. - Frank Krygowski On Feb 27, 10:58 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 27, 1:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski Yes, all of the cyclists in my area are responsible and never, ever do stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or non-reflective clothing. (snort) If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had death wishes (in addition to the above, I actually saw a cyclist at least slow down - not stop, just slow - for a stop sign the other day. It was noteworthy because that was the first time I'd seen that happen in months,) you might have a point, but my general impression of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing the rules of the road. It is only a matter of time before one of these idiots ends up getting flattened by a car, and I'm sad to say that my sympathy will be with the driver of the car. nate > On Feb 27, 10:58 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or > non-reflective clothing. (snort) Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should be respected. But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and should not be. > If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had > death wishes ... you might have a point, but my general impression > of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and > I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing > the rules of the road. I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good reason. For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist. Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please. How many cyclists kill themselves by their mistakes? Only about 700 American cyclists die per year, total. That's a tiny number compared to most other causes of death. The per-hour risk is also low. And at least half those fatalities are caused by motorist mistakes, not cyclist mistakes. - Frank Krygowski On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 27, 10:58 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should > be respected. Agreed. > But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and > should not be. Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy for anything that might happen to you. > > If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had > > death wishes ... you might have a point, but my general impression [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good > reason. Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me. > For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from > one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll > right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is > hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist. 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please. Mostly cyclists kill themselves. But my car will still be damaged. > How many cyclists kill themselves by their mistakes? Only about 700 > American cyclists die per year, total. That's a tiny number compared > to most other causes of death. The per-hour risk is also low. And at > least half those fatalities are caused by motorist mistakes, not > cyclist mistakes. I don't believe that at all, as as I've stated, bicyclists seem to think themselves completely exempt from the rules of the road and quite a few rules of common sense, as well. I'm not anti-cyclist as a principle; I actually enjoy riding. It is observation of the behavior of cyclists that has shaped my opinions so that I probably appear to be anti-cyclist. Basically, I just don't like the particular cyclists that I have to interact with on the roads. nate [snip] > Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, > or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit > something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a > lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly > violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me. [snip] > 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. Both of your 100%s are 100% BS. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Both of your 100%s are 100% BS. Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't. You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road. Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving. nate >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > nate Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong. I stand by *my* statement. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong. > I stand by *my* statement. So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt that. nate >>>> [snip] >>>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > nate No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do illegal things, and that is clearly false. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do illegal > things, and that is clearly false. I said "my observations are 100%." That is a 100% true statement. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > nate This has dragged on long enough so I will concede that I overstated the situation a *bit.* Your initial statements are reproduced above exactly as they appeared in your original message. Granted, you did state initially that, "Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly violate the rules of the road," and my calling that 100% BS was out of line (although I really doubt that *every* bicyclist you have ever seen has done as you suggest). However, you followed that later with the statement that, "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs." Clearly, you are not in a position to judge what 100% of bicyclists do, even in your local area, and you did not limit that comment to apply only to your observations. One for you, one for me. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>>>> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel Nate, By admitting to riding you are part of these 100% and must be blowing stops and the such. Why are you bitching >> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt >> that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do >illegal things, and that is clearly false. There's enough laws out there that it's a good bet 100% of bicyclists who have been bicycling more than some small time period have done illegal things. For those regularly doing illegal things, 100% is way too high. I'm sure it's no higher than 99.99%. Perhaps even as low as 99%. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt >>> that. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > For those regularly doing illegal things, 100% is way too high. I'm > sure it's no higher than 99.99%. Perhaps even as low as 99%. That's true about everyone in the US of A. There are so many ticky-tacky laws that by the latest news stories more than 1% of the population is behind bars. "Larry Farrell" wrote: Both of your 100%s are 100% BS. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Probably closeer to 95%.> > 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. I don't. I take the lane and stop at them. For some reason motorists don't like this very much. Although it's amusing when they try to pass me before the stop sign (to cut me off and slam on the brakes I guess) and end up stuck in the oncoming lane at the stop sign. >> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. > >I don't. I don't, either. SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" > Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, > or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit > something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a > lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly > violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me. [...] > 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. Where on earth do you live? How much viewing time are we talking about with this observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time? Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently large, I would have to predict a significant number of the 700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming you are in the US)! SMH >> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, >> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Where on earth do you live? Falls Church, VA > How much viewing time are we talking about with this > observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time? I've lived here for over a year. I see anywhere from 1-5 cyclists every morning, and often a few more in the evening. > Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently > large, I would have to predict a significant number of the > 700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their > end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming > you are in the US)! I'm honestly surprised that more don't. Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark, wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the road to get around parked cars.) Now the other cyclist that I saw was wearing a reflective vest, so he gets props for that, but making a left turn a little closer to oncoming traffic than I would have considered prudent kinda negates that. The only conclusion I can draw is that either a) cyclists are idiots or b) the act of getting on a bicycle causes one to become an idiot. Of course, it's not *just* cyclists - just that it seems that they are more universally idiotic. Within the same two mile drive home from the Metro station, I also saw a motorcycle cop pull a U-turn and immediately make a left turn onto Leesburg Pike and I seriously thought he was going to run straight into a pedestrian; I slowed in case I would end up having to stop give a statement/help if I could. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark, > wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he > did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very > narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the > road to get around parked cars.) It is possible that he had one of those crappy bicycle headlights. If he was in range of your vehicle's headlamps, the light from them would easily overpower the bicycle light. My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars :) >> Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark, >> wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one > time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars :) No, he had no headlight at all. At one point I passed him and checked my rearview, I could just barely see a figure on a bike. I'm really not sure how he could see when there wasn't a car behind him or approaching. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, >>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Falls Church, VA OK. Suburbia on steroids. Not certain I'd want to bike commute in that area although I was quite surprise last summer how bike friendly DC was! >> How much viewing time are we talking about with this >> observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time? > > I've lived here for over a year. I see anywhere from 1-5 cyclists every > morning, and often a few more in the evening. Maybe it's the same incompetent/irresponsible group you see over and over. My bike commute involves 10-11 miles each way with perhaps 8-10 lights along the primary route. I doubt there is a day that goes by without *at least* one *blatant* running of a red light by a motorist. I'm talking the light is red and cars with the green have to wait for the jerk to pass through before going. The motorists passing through the light as it turns red are too numerous to bother counting. >> Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently >> large, I would have to predict a significant number of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > turn a little closer to oncoming traffic than I would have considered > prudent kinda negates that. Statistically, bicyclists involved in accidents with cars don't get run down from behind. It's most likely the bicyclist running a light, being on the wrong side of the road or riding at night without adequate lighting that does him in. Not certain what you mean by the cyclist making a left turn "a little closer to oncoming traffic" means. That he was too far to the left in the lane or crossed in front of oncoming traffic with insufficient distance from traffic (cutting them off)? If too far to the left side of the road, the bicyclist may have been trying too hard to accommodate the motor traffic behind him. I sometimes do this myself, moving to the near center of the road to make a left turn rather than being farther to the right, just so I give cars behind me more clearance to get around me. I think too often, motorists feel a bicyclist should ride in a fashion that causes motorists no inconvenience. That means be on the very edge of the roadside, with pedals scraping the curbing. The safe way is to actually "take the lane" which too many motorists feel is "in your face" bicycling. It's really not meant to be. > The only conclusion I can draw is that either a) cyclists are idiots or > b) the act of getting on a bicycle causes one to become an idiot. Interestingly, I have found this to be the case for motorists (and I myself am a motorist who drives a big V-8, 4WD 1/2 ton Dodge pickup)! I *personally know* people who are fine, intelligent and considerate who become absolute jerks behind the wheel of their motor vehicles. People will happily hop in front of a line of waiting cars because they don't want to wait, but would never think of doing such a thing (perhaps out of physical self-preservation) on foot, say for a line outside a restaurant or theatre. But they'll do it in their automobiles! The list of selfish or irresponsible behaviors I have seen performed by motorists is substantial. My general belief in the goodness of humanity leads me to believe that most of these "automobile jerks" are in fact pretty fine people outside their car. > Of course, it's not *just* cyclists - just that it seems that they are > more universally idiotic. Within the same two mile drive home from the > Metro station, I also saw a motorcycle cop pull a U-turn and immediately > make a left turn onto Leesburg Pike and I seriously thought he was going > to run straight into a pedestrian; I slowed in case I would end up > having to stop give a statement/help if I could. Well we all have our bad days. SMH > On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy > for anything that might happen to you. Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors. (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how they're dressed should not matter. > > I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against > > motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit > something. I'm still inconvenienced... Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move. > 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. Wrong. > > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to > > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We > > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in > > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please. > > Mostly cyclists kill themselves. Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to find, because the problem is too small to bother with.) > But my car will still be damaged. :-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves around! - Frank Krygowski >>On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how > they're dressed should not matter. It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors. If I can't reasonably be expected to see them while I'm standing still, I'm certainly not going to see them from my car either. I'm sick of the attitude that the cyclist is always right and the motorist is always wrong. I knew at a very young age if I were going to be walking along a street at night that I should be wearing something that would be easily visible to motorists, or else carrying a light. I don't see how any cyclist could say with a straight face that he's somehow exempt from this same common-sense rule. >>>I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against >>>motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged > his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move. Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period. Most recently just a couple months ago on Dolley Madison, a busy multi-lane road, at the intersection with Anderson Road and the I-66 ramp. Which is just stupidity to begin with; you'd have to have balls of brass to ride a bike on Dolley Madison, especially when there's a much more suitable parallel road less than half a mile away. >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. > > Wrong. Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right. >>>Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to >>>post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > :-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves > around! It does to me. If you're going to be a stupid a.shole, fine, but don't be surprised or offended when people call you a stupid a.shole. And if you cause damage to me or my property due to your own carelessness and disregard for the law, I don't give a sh.t if you're on life support, I still will have no sympathy for you and will sue for the damages you rightfully owe me (not aimed directly at you, but at the dipshit cyclists I share the road with.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors. Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts! It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require lights, and never require clothing. There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you! > >> If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, > >>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of > the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period. Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine, and from all the people I know. I suspect that's because yours includes a large measure of fantasy. But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do fine. > >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. > > > Wrong. > > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right. Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not clear, find someone who can explain it to you. > >>But my car will still be damaged. > > > :-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves > > around! > > It does to me. What a small, simple world you inhabit! - Frank Krygowski >>frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you! Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might be visible? Is that better? >>>>If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal, >>>>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine, > and from all the people I know. Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't. > I suspect that's because yours > includes a large measure of fantasy. I suspect you're an a.shole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions. > But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can > check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do > fine. You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.) Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy. >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not > clear, find someone who can explain it to you. I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now. >>>>But my car will still be damaged. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What a small, simple world you inhabit! Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then. You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right? Most people will value the integrity of their own posessions over the well being of a negligent stranger. They just don't care to say it in public. I'm not particularly ashamed of my view; my greatest concern is simply avoiding collecting one of these idiots. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even > make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might > be visible? Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles moving at high velocities. When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses. > Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't. What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number of actions that promote traffic flow. > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from > my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy. Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving. > I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my > observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have > yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a > year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually > obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now. Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason. Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting out. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <fq55li01...@news2.newsguy.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles > moving at high velocities. Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for you? > When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for > other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that > even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired > drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses. When you conceal yourself, you lose all reason to expect motorists to yield to you. Just like if you do something unexpected like blow a stop sign in front of a motorist that has the right of way. > > Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't. > > What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet > said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world > around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number > of actions that promote traffic flow. Well, if it were cyclists only blowing stop signs when no traffic was around it wouldn't be an issue, kind of a tree falling in a forest situation. But when they do it in front of a vehicle that's already stopped and presumably preparing to proceed (or actually in the act of proceeding) through the intersection, that's something else entirely. > > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually > > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like > you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving. As bad as the drivers are, I can't say with 100% certainty that if I follow a driver for a couple blocks that I WILL observe him violate one or more traffic laws. I *can* say that about cyclists. > > I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my > > observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting > out. I think that they just flagrantly violate the law. Their reasons for doing so are of no concern to me; what *is* of concern to me is the fact that I apparently need to be extra-vigilant as their actions are for the most part unpredictable, and in the areas where I expect to see cyclists I also have to be extra-vigilant because they are hard to see due to not having the required safety equipment. nate > On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for > you? Bad analogy. Pedestrians don't have a right of way on railroad tracks. Cyclists and peds on a public road do have the right of way. Try again. \\paul >> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > \\paul one can be "right" and still be dead. It's not very smart to step out in front of a semi and expect it to stop for you. It's FAR easier to stop a 200lb human than a 4000lb auto. who says cyclists have the "right of way"?? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > who says cyclists have the "right of way"?? Some guy named Paul. I'll take the word of my state's motor vehicle code over "some guy named Paul" any day. nate > > On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bad analogy. Pedestrians don't have a right of way on railroad tracks. > Cyclists and peds on a public road do have the right of way. Try again. Peds do, cyclists don't (other than the same ones that cars do.) If you act like a vehicle, you *are* a vehicle, at least as far as the law is concerned. nate > > > On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > nate http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-100 "Bicycle" means a device propelled solely by human power, upon which a person may ride either on or astride a regular seat attached thereto, having two or more wheels in tandem, including children's bicycles, except a toy vehicle intended for use by young children. For purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a vehicle while operated on the highway. >>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a > vehicle while operated on the highway. OK, so bikes do have a right to the road. Glad we're on the same page. \\paul SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > OK, so bikes do have a right to the road. Glad we're on the same page. I don't think so, unless your original post was not meant to imply that motorists *must* yield to bicyclists, which is how it came across (as in most states, the general rule of thumb is "always yield to pedestrians.") In reality, who must yield to whom depends on various laws, and neither the bicyclist nor the motorist has any special rights of way. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > nate Nate, This really isn't that hard. If I'm riding down the road, and a car is behind me and approaching, the car has to yield to me and pass in a manner that is safe. It cannot simply plow through me as if I was not there. If caught, that driver would probably be subject to several legal infractions. Thus, cyclists have a right of way. If I was a car, the rules would be no different. Thus, bikes, rolling cages, and pedestrians all have a right of way on public roads. SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>>>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary >>>>>>> <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Thus, bikes, rolling cages, and pedestrians all have a right of way on > public roads. Bikes and cars must follow similar rules of the road. A cyclist does not have the right of way at a four way stop unless a motorist would have had the same right of way in his place. A pedestrian is a special case; he can step out in front of traffic and legally expect traffic to stop for him (although sometimes not in practice.) A bicyclist has this expectation neither practically nor legally. Additionally, a motorist driving at night without lights would be cited for either an equipment violation or failure to use lights after dark (or both) and rightfully so. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary >>>>>>>> <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > not have the right of way at a four way stop unless a motorist would > have had the same right of way in his place. See, we are on the same page! > A pedestrian is a special > case; he can step out in front of traffic and legally expect traffic to > stop for him (although sometimes not in practice.) A bicyclist has this > expectation neither practically nor legally. I can expect to not be randomly hit while JRA. > Additionally, a motorist driving at night without lights would be cited > for either an equipment violation or failure to use lights after dark > (or both) and rightfully so. Depending on the jurisdiction, so would a cyclist. Happens quite often the Atlanta area. Let's bring this back to where it started: A pedestrian running in front of a train is very different than a cyclist riding on the road. The pedestrian, car, or bike never has the right of way on a railroad line. In fact, I'll hazard a guess and say it could easily be considered trespassing to hang out on a railroad track (especially if you're up to no good). Bikes and pedestrians all have *rights* and responsibilities on the road. The rolling cages you seem to love so dearly merely have *privileges* and responsibilities. Cars #2! \\paul SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary >>>>>>>>> <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > I can expect to not be randomly hit while JRA. JRA? >> Additionally, a motorist driving at night without lights would be >> cited for either an equipment violation or failure to use lights after >> dark (or both) and rightfully so. > > Depending on the jurisdiction, so would a cyclist. Happens quite often > the Atlanta area. send some of your cops up our way then. > Let's bring this back to where it started: > A pedestrian running in front of a train is very different than a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > road. The rolling cages you seem to love so dearly merely have > *privileges* and responsibilities. Cars #2! Nope, we're not on the same page at all. Bicyclists have NO rights that motorists don't also have. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Nope, we're not on the same page at all. > > Bicyclists have NO rights that motorists don't also have. Oh? In most states, cars must be registered and insured in order to be legally operated by a *licensed* driver on public roads. By doing so, you agree to adhere to the rules of the road. That, my friend, is a privilege, *not* a right. Failure to operate any vehicle in a safe manner can result in fines due to the state or city. Be a large enough a.shole in a car, and they'll take your privilege to operate a motor vehicle (i.e., your license, insurance, etc) away from you. That can't happen to cyclists and pedestrians. Fine us all you want for our infractions, we have inalienable rights to the roads, just like guns, speech, fair trial, all that jazz. Like I said, cars #2! \\paul SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >> Nope, we're not on the same page at all. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > inalienable rights to the roads, just like guns, speech, fair trial, all > that jazz. yeah, you just bleed when you ride like an a-hole. and then blame the poor motorist that you cut off. Obviously we probably *should* license cyclists, based on your attitude that you'll keep breaking the law so long as all you have to worry about are fines. I've heard enough. I guess it's true. every cyclist in this thread has been a complete arrogant holier-than-thou a.s, making up special privileges for themselves that are not codified into law. So my observations of riding behavior on the road probably *IS* representative. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>> Nope, we're not on the same page at all. >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > nate Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an a.shole. On the road, I vocally implore other cyclists to not ride like a.sholes. But why should we license cyclists? They emit no polluting gases or particulate matter. They cause no wear and tear on the road, and yet their property taxes subsidize the roads for lazy freeloaders like yourself. I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my crappy part of town, at least). One of the reasons I love cycling is that it's so economical compared to motorized transport. Insurance payments, like rent, is just money down the toilet. So no, I won't just keep paying fines. Instead, I do everything I can to avoid them. At the same time, I'll buzz by traffic and get home by bike in 35 minutes on surface streets instead of 1 hour by car on the highway. Enjoy your cage, I know I won't! SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>>> Nope, we're not on the same page at all. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > They cause no wear and tear on the road, and yet their property taxes > subsidize the roads for lazy freeloaders like yourself. because they are DANGEROUS. No, they can't kill me, but they can kill themselves by their actions, and if I'm involved, I'll have all sorts of legal issues on my hands. I'm sick and tired of "sharing" the road with arrogant, negligent cyclists who ride exactly as most of the internet tough guys in this thread claim that drivers drive. Cutting people off, not yielding the right of way when legally required to do so, blowing stop signs, etc. That's the complaint that started this whole thread. (that, and not taking any care whatsoever to be conspicuous at night.) I don't ever have to utter what people sneeringly refer to as "the magic words" and have them be the truth. I don't want to be involved in anyone's death or injury no matter how much they brought it on themselves. And I certainly don't want to be legally held responsible for something I couldn't reasonably have prevented. > I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike > despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my > crappy part of town, at least). Good for you. I see cyclists and motorists both who sorely deserve tickets every day, and I have to assume that they're not receiving them on a regular basis otherwise they'd be changing their behavior. A far higher percentage of cyclists than motorists, IME. You may actually *be* a good, law-abiding cyclist, I don't know, but I don't think the lack of tickets is anything to write home about. Matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen a police officer interacting with a cyclist, except during the aftermath of a crash. > One of the reasons I love cycling is > that it's so economical compared to motorized transport. Insurance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Enjoy your cage, I know I won't! Nice arrogance. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > ... > Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an a.shole. On the road, I vocally > implore other cyclists to not ride like a.sholes. But why should we > license cyclists? They emit no polluting gases or particulate matter.[...] The polluting gases part is generally not true, although the amount of VOCs and CO2 a cyclist emits is less than an automobile. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> ... >> Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an a.shole. On the road, I vocally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The polluting gases part is generally not true, although the amount of > VOCs and CO2 a cyclist emits is less than an automobile. Oh, you. Tom c'mon now. Let's compare the orders of magnitude CO2 emitted by a cyclist, an automobile, and the driver inside the car. According to Prairie and Duate in /Biogeosciences/ (Vol. 10, #38), the average human exhales about 251 g of CO2 daily. We'll give that to the cagers. Let's double it for the the cyclists -- call it 500 g CO2/day (a gross overestimation, it seems). Average commute time is 26 minutes to go 16 miles[1]. For simplicity, let's be generous and give the cagers 32 mpg. So that's one gallons of gas per day, not including trips to Best Buy to get the latest foreign made gadget shipped over here by diesel freighter. Ok, where were we? Oh yeah. One gallon of gas puts out 2400 g CO2 [2]. So, that puts us here: Cyclist: 500 g CO2/day (overestimated) Car+Driver: 2650 g CO2/day (underestimated) \\paul [1]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&page=1 [2]http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>> ... >>> Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an a.shole. On the road, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oh, you. Tom c'mon now. Let's compare the orders of magnitude CO2 > emitted by a cyclist, an automobile, and the driver inside the car. What fun would Usenet be without being pedantic. Being pedantic is part of the qualification for obtaining a PE. ;) > According to Prairie and Duate in /Biogeosciences/ (Vol. 10, #38), the > average human exhales about 251 g of CO2 daily. We'll give that to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cyclist: 500 g CO2/day (overestimated) > Car+Driver: 2650 g CO2/day (underestimated) If you had had a former roommate who ate copious amounts of Ray's Chili [1], you would not have neglected to mention hominid VOC emissions. [1] <http://www.rayschilli.com/shop/>. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike >despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my >crappy part of town, at least). Ducked down a sidewalk when they gave chase, eh? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike >>despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my >>crappy part of town, at least). > >Ducked down a sidewalk when they gave chase, eh? I did that once to escape a menacing cager who became enraged when I told him, and repeated at his request, "your truck is ugly". It was a still stinking new red Escalade on those stupid low profile tires. He made a couple U-turns and did some shouting but wouldn't get out of his coffin. I kept a row of parked cars between us as I rode along the sidewalk at less than walking pace. He was yelling out the window and I smiled and kept insulting his vehicle. It was fun and saved typing-for-trash. He quit the game after a city dump truck blasted its horn on his bumper. He was unnecessarily and wilfully delaying traffic, you see. Anyway, in Vancouver BC, I know at least 3 cyclists who have been ticketed for riding without a helmet and one who has been warned for riding without lights. Were you to piss off a cop, riding on a sidewalk without a bell, helmet and lights could net you about $225.00 in fines. Signaturezk >> I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike >> despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my >> crappy part of town, at least). > > Ducked down a sidewalk when they gave chase, eh? Nope. No officer who has witnessed my riding style has deemed it unlawful. SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>> I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike >>> despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. No officer who has witnessed my riding style has deemed it unlawful. Yet nearly a handful of cops deemed my vehicular bicycling unlawful. Can't 'ride like a car', can't ride 'left of the white line' when there is only three inches of pavement to the right of it, shouldn't be on the roadway (after objecting to a motorist who brush passed me VERY close, a fact admitted by the officer), I think that's it.. can't remember more than three. Seems like there was fourth... probably was when the arsehole motorist backed into me on purpose... but the cop was on my side that day. >>>> I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike >>>> despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > three. Seems like there was fourth... probably was when the arsehole > motorist backed into me on purpose... but the cop was on my side that day. Ya know, it's almost like cyclists, drivers, and police officers are all different people could believe any number of things and act in any number of ways. Crazy world, eh? \\paul SignaturePaul M. Hobson .:change the f to ph to reply:. >>> Nope, we're not on the same page at all. >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > nate I agree. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> [...] >> I can expect to not be randomly hit while JRA. > > JRA? > [...] Just Riding Along. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary >>>>>>> <droleary.use...@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Thus, bikes, rolling cages, and pedestrians all have a right of way on > public roads. I believe you misuse the term "right of way". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even >> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might >> be visible? > > Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles > moving at high velocities. The AMISH slow-moving horse-drawn carts have to have a large reflective triangle.Why should slow-moving bicycles be any different? If slow bikes want to mix in with the heavier and FASTER automotive traffic(a really dumb idea),then they shouldn't complain about things to make THEM safer. > When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for > other cyclists and pedestrians. Well,Whoop-de-do! If you were smart,you'd respect heavier faster autos,as they can cause you a lot more grief. > Or are you going so far as to say that > even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired > drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses. license bicyclists. Then take away THEIRS when they don't follow the road laws. >> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't. > > What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet > said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world > around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number > of actions that promote traffic flow. A bicycle in auto traffic does NOT "promote traffic flow". It makes it worse. >> You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually >> attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely >> unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the >> cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. That oughta be a clue as to mixing bikes and motor vehicles on the roads. >> Due to the >> presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like > you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving. AH,without knowing the facts,you automatically *assume* it's the fault of the auto. >> I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my >> observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting > out. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even >> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired > drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses. So maybe they don't crash into me when I am bicycling too? How's that for a reason? I get tired of playing chicken with unlighted wrong ways on the street and dodging red light runners. The annoyance caused by poor bicycle riders is much greater when I am riding than when I am driving. >> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't. > What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet > said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world > around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number > of actions that promote traffic flow. And yet, let me guess, you expect drivers to obey the number on the painted steet metal sign and not use their brains to figure out the world around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs under the same conditions that you go through them under too.... > In article > <droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > street and dodging red light runners. The annoyance caused by poor > bicycle riders is much greater when I am riding than when I am driving. And? Those people are dicks, pure and simple, regardless of fact they're on a bike. I never wrote in support of anyone ignoring other people. So as much as you might not like a spaced out pedestrian or ignorant cyclists, it's far better for you that they're not exhibiting that same behavior behind a more dangerous vehicle. > > What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet > > said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs > under the same conditions that you go through them under too.... No. Don't pretend that getting behind the wheel suddenly makes a person responsible. If anything, cyclists learn the rolling stop from all the cars. I don't expect drivers to obey speed limits either because, as I said, I actually observe the world around me and see that they don't. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org >> In article >> <droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ignorant cyclists, it's far better for you that they're not exhibiting > that same behavior behind a more dangerous vehicle. Their incompetence can still result in my death if I am bicycling. Dead is dead. And I am tired of hearing this idiotcy to excuse poor behavior and demand special treatment because they do less damage when they cause a crash. That's no excuse. >> > What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet >> > said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world >> > around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number >> > of actions that promote traffic flow. >> And yet, let me guess, you expect drivers to obey the number on the >> painted steet metal sign and not use their brains to figure out the world >> around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs >> under the same conditions that you go through them under too.... > No. Don't pretend that getting behind the wheel suddenly makes a person > responsible. I didn't. Others are pretending that just getting on a bicycle makes people responsible and reasonable while behind the wheel they are not. That's nonsense. > If anything, cyclists learn the rolling stop from all the > cars. Um no. It's called conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. > I don't expect drivers to obey speed limits either because, as I > said, I actually observe the world around me and see that they don't. Um no. If I suddenly became unobservant behind the wheel of a car I would have taken out one bicycle rider today. What sort of asshat on a bicycle goes into the oncoming lane to pass a car signaling a left turn? The same kind of asshat who when driving enters the oncoming lane and passes a bicyclist on the left when the bicyclist is signaling left turn, that's what kind. A clueless unobservant driver is just the same on two wheels too. On Feb 29, 12:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > If I suddenly became unobservant behind the wheel of a car I would > have taken out one bicycle rider today. What sort of asshat on a bicycle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A clueless unobservant driver is just the same on two wheels too. Well, perhaps, but perhaps not. When one bicycles, the road and traffic environment tends to be much tougher to ignore. It tends to make one pay attention. When one drives, there are all sorts of distractions - the cell phone in your left ear, the Big Mac dripping on your lap, the talk show nazi raising your blood pressure on the radio, or the CD that needs changing, or the in-screen navigation system, etc etc. I think the typical problem with bicyclists is that they haven't learned that they're supposed to obey the rules of the road. I think the typical problems with motorists are a) they haven't learned that they're supposed to obey the rules of the road, b) they think they're important enough that nobody or nothing may dare add even ten seconds to their travel time, and c) they can't tell the difference between the driver's seat of a car and a Barcalounger. And, of course, d): that when they screw up, they have a much higher probability of killing someone other than themselves. About 40,000 per year. - Frank Krygowski > On Feb 29, 12:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, perhaps, but perhaps not. I just got through a post where you chastise me wrongly saying that an ignorant MFFY types are the same no matter what vehicle they use and now this..... Seriously try to be a little less biased. > When one bicycles, the road and traffic environment tends to be much > tougher to ignore. It tends to make one pay attention. To someone _WITH_ a clue. Have you seen how these 'ride once a year' types out and about? 'clueless soccer mom in a minivan' comes to mind as ma, pa, and junior ride about in a cluster of cluelessness with their foam hats strapped to their heads. > When one drives, there are all sorts of distractions - the cell phone > in your left ear, the Big Mac dripping on your lap, the talk show nazi > raising your blood pressure on the radio, or the CD that needs > changing, or the in-screen navigation system, etc etc. You've never seen a bicycle rider on a cell phone or with headphones on? I have, quite a number of times. > I think the typical problem with bicyclists is that they haven't > learned that they're supposed to obey the rules of the road. These are the same people that drive by their own made up version of the vehicle code much of time IMO. > I think the typical problems with motorists are a) they haven't > learned that they're supposed to obey the rules of the road, b) they > think they're important enough that nobody or nothing may dare add > even ten seconds to their travel time, and c) they can't tell the > difference between the driver's seat of a car and a Barcalounger. Yet, with many red light running etc bicycle riders argue they argue all sorts of priority reasons for bicycle riders, that they are more important or morally superior. In fact you start one of those below: > And, of course, d): that when they screw up, they have a much higher > probability of killing someone other than themselves. About 40,000 > per year. Arguing vehicle size is just nonsense. The bicyclist always loses this argument on the effective side. On Feb 29, 9:39 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > I just got through a post where you chastise me wrongly saying that an > ignorant MFFY types are the same no matter what vehicle they use and now > this..... Seriously try to be a little less biased. Seriously, Brent, try not to misread. I didn't chastise you in that post. Your complaint about a rogue bicyclist was just too similar to my recent experience with a rogue motorist to ignore. I didn't say you were wrong; I merely showed that the tables are often turned. > > [fk:] And, of course, when motorists screw up, they have a much higher > > probability of killing someone other than themselves. About 40,000 > > per year. > > Arguing vehicle size is just nonsense. The bicyclist always loses this > argument on the effective side. That part of the argument is a very practical one. It's why society requires a license to drive, but not to ride a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message