|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796356 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 03:00 |
|
On Feb 28, 7:55 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>
> Now that's just over the top Frank... really... motorists compliment?
> lol. I ride to the letter of the vehicle code. I signal. I used to ride
> with a rather bright generator light on older bicycles and have an even
> brighter battery powered one on my current bicycle... number of
> compliments I've gotten from motorists.... zero. Day or night. I've had them
> scream at me as they passed me on the left for blocking the road while I
> was signaling a left turn, but a compliment... come on.... that's just
> beyond belief. Unless maybe you're describing something that happened a
> number of decades ago.
The first lighting-related compliment would have been in about 1977,
when I was first getting into night commuting. It wasn't spontaneous;
I had my wife and (then) young son drive by me a few times in various
conditions, evaluating what my bike and lights looked like. My wife
drove, my son took notes. Those included things like "VERY bright"
and noted no deficiencies.
Next one I recall was probably in the mid-to-late1980s. A friend
drove past me in my neighborhood, then stopped down the road to talk
to me, to ask what was the "really bright light down by my rear
axle?" (It was a reflector.) He was very impressed.
Sometime in the late 1990s, I had the car driver make the "half mile
back" compliment, and again I think in the early 2000s, on the same
road, I had a Harley rider say something similar. I initiated the
conversation with the motorcyclist at a traffic light, to tell him
that one of his side marker lights on his saddlebags was loose,
hanging from a wire. That got him talking about my lights. Both of
those were on my night ride home from work, on an inner-city arterial.
Last couple compliments I remember weren't from motorists, and one
wasn't even my own bike. First, a few years ago I was testing out a
new generator headlight. My son was in town visiting, so I had him
look at it as I rode toward him on our residential street; then we
traded places. We both agreed it was impossible to miss.
The other was using the bike of a woman who showed up for one of the
night rides I led for our bike club. I took her bike, with its
smallish battery-powered headlight, and rode it down the road, then
back toward her so she could see what her own headlight looked like.
She was surprised and pleased by how prominent it really was at night.
I do recommend that cyclists test out their own lights and reflectors,
as I did with the help of my wife. I've organized similar things as
events for our bike club. They're informative and fun.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796357 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 03:03 |
|
On Feb 28, 7:55 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:08 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:59 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
> > > their primary duty - slowing down traffic. Thus, they are not
> > > indicated in any situation.
>
> > Odd. The neighborhood folks about 3 or 4 miles from here that had
> > them put in is, according to what I read, very satisfied with them.
> > They claim they've made a big improvement.
>
> > I can't say firsthand, since I don't live there. It's over the border
> > in a different municipality. But I don't see why the residents would
> > be mistaken.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Probably because if there is a parallel road without them, through
> traffic is now simply diverted onto the other road. They didn't slow
> anyone down, they just made them move to another road. I see that
> effect every morning on my commute - the obvious road for me to take
> has four or five of those gawdaful things on them, but I can avoid all
> but one by cutting through a neighborhood. I'll bet the people that
> live in the neighborhood just LOVE the increased traffic.
It's possible. The neighborhood in question gets used as a shortcut
between a couple arterials, by people trying to avoid traffic lights.
Most such shortcut drivers feel that saving a minute is more important
than the people who actually live on the streets they use as cut-
throughs.
But in my view, if that's how the speed humps work for them, that's
fine. I'm not a fan of cut-through drivers in any case.
Neighborhoods should be for neighbors, not for cut-throughs.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796358 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 03:13 |
|
Brian Huntley wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snipped claims that speed limits are routinely violated and are set
> too low]
>
>
>>85th percentile is a good place to start. Adjust from there if there
>>are non-obvious hazards.
>
>
> So, should stop signs also be adjusted to match the 85th percentile of
> compliance?
Completely irrelevant. Stop signs serve a valuable purpose and are
non-negotiable. Speed limits... well, really, if you assume that most
people are responsible, you shouldn't need them at all. (yes, I know,
that's a bit of a stretch, so I'm not going to seriously suggest that.
Even in Germany there are speed limits on all but a few stretches of
highway.)
>
> What's next? Tax laws?
>
Well, it would be a good time to reform our tax system. When the
average person spends several hundred dollars a year just paying a
professional to figure out their tax return, there's something wrong.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796377 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 07:10 |
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:49:49 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> regurgitated the SOS:
\
>> Motorists
>> already have assumed too much privilege.
>
>The laws of physics already grant a lot of privilege. It may not be
>fair, but it's true.
Yeah, "might makes right". Hollywood and Madison Ave. has driven that
image straight into the pea sized brains of too many pinheaded scud
jockeys. Unfortunately, post-crash survival has become the definition
of driving safety today. Protecting you idiots from yourselves has
been a great disservice to the species.
>
>> We don't need them to impose
>> dress regulations on the rest of us.
>
>Who is asking for dress regulations, Frank? Straw man, anyone?
uhhh, the premise of this thread is that an "intelligent bicyclist"
dresses like a flag person so you stunned fux don't "accidently" run
us down. The fact is you stunned fux regularly run down flag persons.
Personally, I'm usually burning a head light during the day too (hub
generators are great) and wearing a dayglo fluorescent hot pink
jacket or wind front jersey. Lane position contributes more to my
visibility and situational awareness contributes most to my safety.
I'm not counting on the jacket or lights to make much difference in
your behaviour but a judge might give me the benefit of doubt in
court if one of you stunned fux claims, "I didn't see him. He came
out of nowhere."
You stunned fux are predictable in both your tired justifications for
your obnoxious public behaviour and your presumed exclusive domain of
those same public places. As a tax paying bicyclist I'm getting tired
of subsidising you stunned fux.
I'm also tired of entertaining your same old r.a.d. crap in another
grid locked clusterfuk scud jockeys create for their own enjoyment.
I'm going lateral. Shove your logical fallacy and straw man BS.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796381 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 07:31 |
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:43:16 -0800 (PST), frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>On Feb 28, 6:40 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them.
>>
>> No. Ignoring idiotic stop signs (or speed limits) is the proper way
>> to get on with life despite the legislature.
>
>:-) So, tell us, Matthew, roughly how much time do you save in a
>typical week by proudly violating stop signs and speed limits? Please
>explain your estimates.
He'll forget to subtract the time he spent waiting for a parking spot
fifty feet closer to the door.
These are the same guys complaining about cyclists making their own
rules. They complain about cyclists delaying them yet forget all the
fender benders and resulting gawkers tie-ups that leave them idling
far longer.
They're envious of our ability to legally move through traffic when
they can't and really wish they could get away with some of the more
erratic moves they sometimes witness cyclists making.
>
>And what exactly have you accomplished with that great savings in
>time?
>
Had he saved any time he'd probably have squandered it shampooing his
pwitty wittle car.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796382 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 07:42 |
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:55:30 -0600,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <9b633e5a-d42b-41c5-81bb-4c7a1ac319d7 [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>> But let's get practical, Leo. The fact is, the very normal generator
>> headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike are
>> visible enough at night that I've gotten spontaneous compliments from
>> motorists. Actual quote, as accurate as I can remember it: "Your
>> lights are great! I could see you from half a mile back there!" From
>> half a mile back, nobody could possibly make out my clothing, no
>> matter what color it was.
>
>Now that's just over the top Frank... really... motorists compliment?
>lol. I ride to the letter of the vehicle code. I signal. I used to ride
>with a rather bright generator light on older bicycles and have an even
>brighter battery powered one on my current bicycle... number of
>compliments I've gotten from motorists.... zero. Day or night. I've had them
>scream at me as they passed me on the left for blocking the road while I
>was signaling a left turn, but a compliment... come on.... that's just
>beyond belief. Unless maybe you're describing something that happened a
>number of decades ago.
Two or three years ago I was approaching, uphill, a police car parked
on the wrong side of the street facing downhill. As I passed the cop
in the passenger seat said something like "Wow, good lights man".
Lighting was a simple 2.6 watt Union 70mm headlight and a single
white LED blinky mounted on the helmet. There was also a red blinky
and generator driven tail light behind.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cager today [message #796385 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 08:02 |
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:17:45 -0800 (PST), pdlamb [at] gmail.com wrote:
>On Feb 27, 12:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
><xeton2... [at] 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?
>
>He was driving a bright lime green small SUV and you couldn't miss
>them. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their car hunger
>orange?
I saw one last week.
He sold his beater Ford for $400 and bought a bike to get to his job
six kilometers away.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796390 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 11:05 |
|
In article <oogds3tsjiq1h235mmusoll0tombsjvth1 [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> writes:
> Your attempt to equate the two falls flat. A pedalcyclist is much more
> vulnerable in a typical collision than an unhelmeted car driver.
> Pedalcyclists also have the unfortunate habit of being INVISIBLE to
> car drivers even in broad daylight;
Invisibility is kewl. We "pedalcyclists" can turn
ourselves invisible, walk into a 24-hr convenience
store and undetectedly walk out again with a bag
of potato chips, a tub of bleu cheese dip, a pair
of cheap sunglasses, a coupla hoagies, a coupla
butter tarts, a Slurpee, a spray-can of Glade and
a copy of The Sporting News.
We can also infiltrate corporate Board meetings.
Anything can be invisible in broad daylight when
you're not looking.
> I certainly don't blame any of
> them for having extra lighting and reflectors.
I guess I /do/ have to mount roman candle launchers
to forward, aft, port & starboard on my bike.
Better keep yer windows rolled up.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796398 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 13:47 |
|
On Feb 27, 8:58=A0am, "ilaboo" <plen... [at] verizon.net> wrote:
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796399 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 13:57 |
|
On Feb 27, 2:15=A0pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
=2E
>
> .... 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. =A0It is
> observation of the behavior of cyclists that has shaped my opinions so
> that I probably appear to be anti-cyclist. =A0Basically, I just don't
> like the particular cyclists that I have to interact with on the
> roads.
>
> nate
The particular cyclists that you interact with are not 100% of all
cyclists. You grossly overstate your case. Instead of condemning one
group of road users as reckless scofflaws based solely on their choice
of vehicle, why not just say that the real problem is simply human
behavior? If they think they won't be penalized somehow for doing so,
most people will ignore any law/rule that inconveniences them.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796400 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 14:18 |
|
This morning I encountered a real winner.... I am waiting at a red
signal, I am signalling to turn left, at an intersection I drive through
and bike through rather often. Anyway, the light turns green and I start
moving and what do I see just as I start to enter the intersection? An
asshat on bicycle passing me ON THE LEFT and going straight. He's in the
lane for on coming traffic. Then he has the nerve to flip me off. He's
lucky it was me instead of the common drivers who don't even look, he
would have been hit by someone who wasn't looking. Some of the drivers
I've encountered while biking would probably purposely have just given
his rear wheel a love tap and sent him to the pavement and drove off.
Someone is going to hit this dufus sooner or later.
There is zero reason to pull that sort of stunt at this intersection.
None. I've biked through it hundreds if not thousands of times.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796402 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 14:30 |
|
Bob <hunrobe [at] aol.com> wrote in news:9ac0b6af-930b-49a1-820b-
4e89dec77f87 [at] 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 27, 2:15 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> .
>>
>> .... 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
>
> The particular cyclists that you interact with are not 100% of all
> cyclists.
Nor are they the miniscule fraction you folks seem to believe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796414 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 15:51 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <uiFxj.5216$O64.4347 [at] trndny03>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>
>>Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
>>if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
>>of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
>>factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
>>or collisions with other vehicles.
>
>
>>Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
>>alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
>
> You wouldn't be one of those pro bicycle helmet zealots too? Because
> those figures from the 'speed kills' and 'MADD' crowds you spout off are
> about as truthful as what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots. Actually
> IMO what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots is really more truthful.
> They don't massage their data and definitions nearly as much IME.
I don't wear a helmet and am against them as mandatory. If you
want to wear one go ahead. If not, that's your decision.
And your statistics on the issue come from...???
Such studies can be found authored at universities and colleges
and various state DOTs as well. Came across one from UK that
was quite similar in conclusions.
Do you have any study you can point me to about how MADD or the
"speed kills crowd" cook the books on this topic?
> Anyway, the whole point I'm making is one of consistancy. You really
> can't argue against the safety nazi stances when it comes to bicycling
> and then argue for them when it comes to driving and remain consistant
> IMO. It's just foolish. Either you accept that people can adjust to their
> environment or you don't. It doesn't matter if they are driving or
> biking.
If I'm riding unsafe on my bike, I kill myself. If I drive unsafe
in my car, I kill you.
I don't think reason dictates that if I feel I don't need bright
or reflective clothing when I ride my bike at night (a light *is*
required), that "for consistency", I can't claim motorists generally
drive too fast and speed limits and traffic control methods are
reasonable requirements for safe motoring.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796416 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 15:57 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:01 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!
>>
>>>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>>Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
>>>won't look like such a fool.
>>
>>Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
>>of survey or study or is this personal observation?
>
> Years of traffic research in many industrialized nations.
>
>>Drivers drive too fast!
>
> Asserting it again doesn't make it more true.
It's well enough documented that I shouldn't have to.
You might try actually reading some traffic research some
time.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796418 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 16:17 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <9Mzxj.23245$6t3.8269 [at] trndny07>,
> Stephen Harding <smharding16 [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
>>>has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
>>>yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>>>
>>>As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>>
>>I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>>
>>Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
>>aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
>>don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
>
> Straw man.
Hardly.
You don't like restrictions on your motoring because "they're
stupid", meaning I presume, that you're too good a driver to
get in an accident at such lowly speeds. Thus speeds are
"underposted".
Yet somehow, 40+K people manage to die on the nation's roadways
with who knows how many injured, AND, if we are to believe
these numbers haven't been cooked by MADD, a good portion of
these deaths happen within about 10 miles of home, on familiar
territory.
>>However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
>>traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
>>can be ignored under certain conditions.
>
> Then fix the traffic laws so strict obedience isn't just plain stupid.
By doing what, raising speed limits?
National traffic accidents dropped quite significantly with the
implementation of the 55 mph interstate speed limit in the 70's
and 80's.
Just more cooked data I guess.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796420 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 16:28 |
|
In article <8_Uxj.4$oy2.3 [at] trndny07>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <uiFxj.5216$O64.4347 [at] trndny03>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
>>>if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
>>>of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
>>>factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
>>>or collisions with other vehicles.
>>
>>
>>>Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
>>>alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
>>
>> You wouldn't be one of those pro bicycle helmet zealots too? Because
>> those figures from the 'speed kills' and 'MADD' crowds you spout off are
>> about as truthful as what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots. Actually
>> IMO what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots is really more truthful.
>> They don't massage their data and definitions nearly as much IME.
>
> I don't wear a helmet and am against them as mandatory. If you
> want to wear one go ahead. If not, that's your decision.
So you're entirely inconsistant.
> And your statistics on the issue come from...???
> Such studies can be found authored at universities and colleges
> and various state DOTs as well. Came across one from UK that
> was quite similar in conclusions.
>
> Do you have any study you can point me to about how MADD or the
> "speed kills crowd" cook the books on this topic?
It's been gone over at length. search the archive. A few highlights.
A collision is alcohol related if a sober driver runs a red light and
hits a driver who had consumed even a small amount of alcohol who had the
right of way and had done nothing wrong.
A collision is speed related if was caused by a driver going 10mph on a
interstate in clear and perfect weather. A collsion is often
considered speed related if any vehicle involved was moving at the time
of the crash.
>> Anyway, the whole point I'm making is one of consistancy. You really
>> can't argue against the safety nazi stances when it comes to bicycling
>> and then argue for them when it comes to driving and remain consistant
>> IMO. It's just foolish. Either you accept that people can adjust to their
>> environment or you don't. It doesn't matter if they are driving or
>> biking.
> If I'm riding unsafe on my bike, I kill myself. If I drive unsafe
> in my car, I kill you.
Motorists kill themselves all the time. Your statement above is just
nonsense aimed to gather special privilege. Like the idiot in the abc
report on the 'alleycats'.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5 986557
> I don't think reason dictates that if I feel I don't need bright
> or reflective clothing when I ride my bike at night (a light *is*
> required), that "for consistency", I can't claim motorists generally
> drive too fast and speed limits and traffic control methods are
> reasonable requirements for safe motoring.
I didn't say anything about clothing. What is inconsistant about your
view is that you adopt the 'speed kills' nonsense but not the nonsense of
the helmet zealots. In other words you can make your own safety choices
just fine but everyone else are morons that need to be controlled.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796421 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 16:28 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:57=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 1:01 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! =A0
>
> >>>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> >>>Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> >>>won't look like such a fool.
>
> >>Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
> >>of survey or study or is this personal observation?
>
> > Years of traffic research in many industrialized nations.
>
> >>Drivers drive too fast! =A0
>
> > Asserting it again doesn't make it more true.
>
> It's well enough documented that I shouldn't have to.
Yes, you should. You've made a BS assertion and have been called on
it. Repeating your same BS assertion over and over again doesn't add
any credibility. From where I'm reading it's just the opposite, it
makes your case weaker with every baseless repetition.
> You might try actually reading some traffic research some
> time.
It appears to me they've done more research and have a stronger
position than you. Perhaps you should do a little more research
yourself, and provide cites if you find anything worthwhile that
supports your baseless assertions.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796424 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 17:09 |
|
N8N wrote:
> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796430 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:17 |
|
"Paul M. Hobson" <fobson [at] gatech.edu> wrote in
news:fq9aog$b2d$1 [at] news-int.gatech.edu:
> N8N wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>>> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>
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"??
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796431 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:24 |
|
In article <NL2dneKR1tjAvlranZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc
> O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <fq55li01j55 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
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
> > 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. 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.
--
My 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796432 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:36 |
|
On Feb 28, 10:10=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:49:49 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> regurgitated the SOS:
[points resting on logical fallacies deleted]
I guess when you lack logic and reason, your arguments amount to
nothing.
You can be as anonymously offensive as you like - courage on the
internet is cheap. But on the roads, cars are king. It's not fair,
it's not law, but that's the unfortunate reality.
See, Anon, I used to commute by bike. But then, cell-phone-toting
soccer moms nearly crushed me three times one day, and now I only ride
on dirt trails in the woods.
I'd rather ride bike. But it's not wise.
Your insults to automobiles and their occupants is sadly amusing, sort
of like watching Don Quixote rail at imaginary dragons. I suppose
that somewhere, sometime long ago, you had a cogent point to offer.
Too bad about your current condition...
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796433 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:40 |
|
On Feb 28, 5:41=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:49 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 4:36 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht... [at] worldnet.att.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > But let's get practical, Leo. =A0The fact is, the very normal generato=
r
> > > headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike ...
>
> > You consider this normal, huh?
>
> I'm sorry, Ed. =A0I meant "normal" as in "equipment which satisfies the
> law, but does not greatly exceed the laws requirements."
Uhh, the word for that is "legal". "Normal" has a different meaning.
Nice try, tho'.
> If you read back in the thread, you'll see that I have already stated
> that I believe cyclists should meet the lighting requirements of the
> laws.
I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. It's a red herring,
however.
> =A0And when responding to Leo, I made it quite clear that IF one
> meets the requirements of laws, the color of clothing makes no
> significant difference.
An assertion without proof.
> If you didn't understand that, go back and read it all again. =A0Perhaps
> while taking careful notes.
Your condescension doesn't make you smart, Frank. Nothing can do
that.
Your comments to Leo are beside the point. Nate's contention is the
one you are trying to rebut.
Maybe you should review your notes as to whom your discussing what
with?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796434 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:46 |
|
On Feb 28, 12:17=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:37 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
> >>There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
> >>close scrutiny. =A0Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
>
> > This is not one of those things. =A0It is Frank being an asshole at a
> > distance.
>
> >>Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
> >>we know.
>
> > The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
> > infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.
>
> > Don't be an idiot.
>
> But one doesn't even really know that is true.
Simple physics dictates the truth.
> The ultimate point is that reflective clothing on bicyclists
> is not a requirement for individuals engaging in the activity
> at night.
And not ONE person is suggesting it should be.
> =A0It may be helpful...
THAT is the point that seems to be sailing over your head.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796435 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:46 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-F952AC.11245129022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <NL2dneKR1tjAvlranZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc
>> O'Leary wrote:
>> > In article <fq55li01j55 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>> > Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796436 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:50 |
|
In article <pZydnUyYWICw1VranZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>,
russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> Your relative sloth and vulnerability do not grant you moral
> superiority. Nor visibility.
You are right on the second count, but wrong on the first count.
Because everyone is at first a pedestrian, you *must* acknowledge and
take responsibility for their "sloth and vulnerability" when you add a
more dangerous vehicle to the mix. It is *your* burden to light for
safety while driving, not the pedestrians or the cyclists. Note,
however, that the cyclist does have a burden of their own to light for
their safety and that of pedestrians. There is unquestionably a benefit
in lighting not just "to see" but "to be seen", but you don't get to
bitch and moan about the lack of "to be seen" simply because your "to
see" is inadequate.
--
My 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796437 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 18:53 |
|
In article <a98c88a8-0c29-4cbe-a6f1-fe5a4bd947ca [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> But on the roads, cars are king. It's not fair,
> it's not law, but that's the unfortunate reality.
Depends on how much the driver values the car's paint job :)
> See, Anon, I used to commute by bike. But then, cell-phone-toting
> soccer moms nearly crushed me three times one day, and now I only ride
> on dirt trails in the woods.
My reaction is to ride more on the roads when drivers decide they want to
scare me off the roads. Although at least you have dirt trails... dirt
keeps the idiots away. I would choose a dirt trail path over a road if it
went the same direction without a huge milage penalty. Paved paths... too
many idiots out there except early in the morning or at night.
> I'd rather ride bike. But it's not wise.
Bah. Bicycling isn't dangerous even with the soccer moms.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796448 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 20:28 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:53=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <a98c88a8-0c29-4cbe-a6f1-fe5a4bd94... [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > But on the roads, cars are king. =A0It's not fair,
> > it's not law, but that's the unfortunate reality.
>
> Depends on how much the driver values the car's paint job :)
>
> > See, Anon, I used to commute by bike. =A0But then, cell-phone-toting
> > soccer moms nearly crushed me three times one day, and now I only ride
> > on dirt trails in the woods.
>
> My reaction is to ride more on the roads when drivers decide they want to
> scare me off the roads.
I'd love to assume folks do it out of malice . But these women had no
clue. They were completely oblivious.
> =A0Although at least you have dirt trails... dirt
> keeps the idiots away.
More than that, it's bicycling for bicycling's sake. Mountain biking
has no Point A -> Point B value, so all you're doing it for is the
pleasure of being outdoors on a bike.
>
> > I'd rather ride bike. =A0But it's not wise.
>
> Bah. Bicycling isn't dangerous even with the soccer moms.
Unfortunately, I cannot afford to gamble, even when the risk is low.
I have a family that counts on me, and being creamed by some
inattentive motorist is not on the agenda, especially when they just
have to utter the magic phrase to limit liability.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796450 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 20:45 |
|
In article <d4ce515a-b026-4878-9e59-7b7dd3fadda7 [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 29, 9:53 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <a98c88a8-0c29-4cbe-a6f1-fe5a4bd94... [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > But on the roads, cars are king. It's not fair,
>> > it's not law, but that's the unfortunate reality.
>>
>> Depends on how much the driver values the car's paint job :)
>>
>> > See, Anon, I used to commute by bike. But then, cell-phone-toting
>> > soccer moms nearly crushed me three times one day, and now I only ride
>> > on dirt trails in the woods.
>>
>> My reaction is to ride more on the roads when drivers decide they want to
>> scare me off the roads.
>
> I'd love to assume folks do it out of malice . But these women had no
> clue. They were completely oblivious.
I don't assume... the honking as they come up from behind, the yelling
'get off the road', or the extended finger, or the sudden acceleration
tend to be clues... :)
The completely oblivious... staying further left cured most of them and
gave me somewhere to go for the rest.
>> Although at least you have dirt trails... dirt
>> keeps the idiots away.
> More than that, it's bicycling for bicycling's sake. Mountain biking
> has no Point A -> Point B value, so all you're doing it for is the
> pleasure of being outdoors on a bike.
I still like to actually go somewhere I ride just to ride. doing laps in
circles just bores me. I try not to take the same route back as well. So
if I use trails it will be for one direction but not the other.
There is a series of forest preserve trails that are mostly dirt and not
considered bicycle friendly for most people. I like riding them because I
can go a long way in more or less one direction. Problem is I've had a
lot of bad luck riding them with regards to break downs. Seems it's
always on those trails that I have spoke break or the time I got a flat
and then the valve broke on my spare tube.... just nonsense like that.
2 out of 3 times it will happen on those trails for some reason... all I
can say is it must be ghosts or a curse or something ;) The trails aren't
any rougher than I've encountered elsewhere and I never hit anything
worse than the potholes I've hit on the road. Wonder if there's an
indian burial ground or something in those woods ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796452 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 20:54 |
|
On Feb 29, 11:09=A0am, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob... [at] gatech.edu> wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
> > wrote:
> >> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> >> =A0Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Ok then. =A0Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't eve=
n
> >>> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that migh=
t
> >>> be visible?
> >> Why should they have to? =A0They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> >> moving at high velocities. =A0
>
> > Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for
> > you?
>
> Bad analogy. =A0Pedestrians don't have a right of way on railroad tracks.
> =A0 Cyclists and peds on a public road do have the right of way. =A0Try ag=
ain.
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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796453 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 20:54 |
|
On Feb 29, 12:17=A0pm, Jim Yanik <jya... [at] abuse.gov> wrote:
> "Paul M. Hobson" <fob... [at] gatech.edu> wrote innews:fq9aog$b2d$1 [at] news-int.ga=
tech.edu:
>
>
>
>
>
> > N8N wrote:
> >> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> >>> =A0Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Ok then. =A0Why 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? =A0They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> >>> moving at high velocities. =A0
>
> >> Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for
> >> you?
>
> > Bad analogy. =A0Pedestrians don't have a right of way on railroad
> > tracks.
> > =A0 Cyclists and peds on a public road do have the right of way. =A0Try
> > =A0 again.
>
> > \\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"??
Some guy named Paul. I'll take the word of my state's motor vehicle
code over "some guy named Paul" any day.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796454 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 20:56 |
|
On Feb 29, 2:54=A0pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 11:09=A0am, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob... [at] gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > N8N wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> > >> =A0Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> Ok then. =A0Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't e=
ven
> > >>> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that mi=
ght
> > >>> be visible?
> > >> Why should they have to? =A0They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> > >> moving at high velocities. =A0
>
> > > Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for
> > > you?
>
> > Bad analogy. =A0Pedestrians don't have a right of way on railroad tracks=
..
> > =A0 Cyclists and peds on a public road do have the right of way. =A0Try =
again.
>
> Peds do, cyclists don't (other than the same ones that cars do.) =A0If
> you act like a vehicle, you *are* a vehicle, at least as far as the
> law is concerned.
>
> 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 (=A7 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a
vehicle while operated on the highway.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796455 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 21:01 |
|
On Feb 29, 10:17=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > In article <9Mzxj.23245$6t3.8269 [at] trndny07>,
> > Stephen Harding =A0<smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> >>>The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. =A0If =
one
> >>>has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to=
> >>>yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>
> >>>As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>
> >>I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>
> >>Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
> >>aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
> >>don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
>
> > Straw man.
>
> Hardly.
>
> You don't like restrictions on your motoring because "they're
> stupid", meaning I presume, that you're too good a driver to
> get in an accident at such lowly speeds. =A0Thus speeds are
> "underposted".
>
> Yet somehow, 40+K people manage to die on the nation's roadways
> with who knows how many injured, AND, if we are to believe
> these numbers haven't been cooked by MADD, a good portion of
> these deaths happen within about 10 miles of home, on familiar
> territory.
>
a) if you believe that MADD never cooks numbers, I have a bridge to
sell you. They are a group with an agenda, not an organization known
for statistical rigor.
b) do you really think that all those deaths are due to speed? I
don't. I think a very small fraction of them are. The majority are
due to inattention and lack of due care.
> >>However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
> >>traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
> >>can be ignored under certain conditions.
>
> > Then fix the traffic laws so strict obedience isn't just plain stupid.
>
> By doing what, raising speed limits?
>
> National traffic accidents dropped quite significantly with the
> implementation of the 55 mph interstate speed limit in the 70's
> and 80's.
Cite, please? I'm not aware of any change in the fatality rate that
is statistically significant (it's been falling and continues to fall
at a steady rate since the stats were first kept) and in addition, the
criteria used to count fatalities changed at just about teh same time
as teh speed limit, so direct comparisons of pre-NMSL and NMSL stats
are somewhat invalid (not that there's anything much to see, even if
you assume that the adjusted numbers are correct.) In addition,
*after* the repeal of the NMSL, there again was no significant
deviation from the trend, and in that case, there is no issue with the
incompatibility of data.
>
> Just more cooked data I guess.
Like your assertion above?
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796456 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 21:02 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:57=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 1:01 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! =A0
>
> >>>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> >>>Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> >>>won't look like such a fool.
>
> >>Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
> >>of survey or study or is this personal observation?
>
> > Years of traffic research in many industrialized nations.
>
> >>Drivers drive too fast! =A0
>
> > Asserting it again doesn't make it more true.
>
> It's well enough documented that I shouldn't have to.
>
It is not documented at all.
> You might try actually reading some traffic research some
> time.
I recommend the same to you.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796459 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 21:38 |
|
On Feb 29, 11:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <d4ce515a-b026-4878-9e59-7b7dd3fad... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 9:53 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <a98c88a8-0c29-4cbe-a6f1-fe5a4bd94... [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > But on the roads, cars are king. It's not fair,
> >> > it's not law, but that's the unfortunate reality.
>
> >> Depends on how much the driver values the car's paint job :)
>
> >> > See, Anon, I used to commute by bike. But then, cell-phone-toting
> >> > soccer moms nearly crushed me three times one day, and now I only ride
> >> > on dirt trails in the woods.
>
> >> My reaction is to ride more on the roads when drivers decide they want to
> >> scare me off the roads.
>
> > I'd love to assume folks do it out of malice . But these women had no
> > clue. They were completely oblivious.
>
> I don't assume... the honking as they come up from behind, the yelling
> 'get off the road', or the extended finger, or the sudden acceleration
> tend to be clues... :)
Luckily (or unluckily), I only ever had to deal with one of those.
You know the kind I mean, the kind that quote made-up road laws, such
as "bicycles must stay within 16 inches of the right curb at all
times," folks.
I've met them outside of bicycling, but only one while actually
riding. Laying down my bike and walking over to his truck seemed to
make him lose sight of the red light in front of him, so he just took
off before I could discuss it with him. Shame, too - I could have
told him about left turns and the like.
> The completely oblivious... staying further left cured most of them and
> gave me somewhere to go for the rest.
That didn't help me at all. Two left-turns across my path and one
sudden right-hook from an adjacent lane.
> >> Although at least you have dirt trails... dirt
> >> keeps the idiots away.
> > More than that, it's bicycling for bicycling's sake. Mountain biking
> > has no Point A -> Point B value, so all you're doing it for is the
> > pleasure of being outdoors on a bike.
>
> I still like to actually go somewhere I ride just to ride. doing laps in
> circles just bores me. I try not to take the same route back as well. So
> if I use trails it will be for one direction but not the other.
This is a very difficult goal if the trails to be ridden are not
within riding distance of your home, or there is nothing else to do
but ride trails.
I would suggest that most bike trips are loops. You start at home,
then end there. Mountain biking can be destination biking too, if by
destination you mean a lake or a waterfall or some such. But you
still get to ride back to the car. And I agree, it's nice to have a
loop, rather than an out-and-back.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796463 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 21:56 |
|
In article <a4d9f159-5de9-4a09-95e0-14cdbc73dd4c [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> I would suggest that most bike trips are loops. You start at home,
> then end there. Mountain biking can be destination biking too, if by
> destination you mean a lake or a waterfall or some such. But you
> still get to ride back to the car. And I agree, it's nice to have a
> loop, rather than an out-and-back.
What I mean by no destination is a loop set up inside a forest preserve
or park that is like doing laps on race track. It gets old fast. The
concept is to drive the bike there, ride a few laps, drive home. It beats
a treadmill, but that's about it.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796464 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 22:04 |
|
On Feb 29, 3:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <a4d9f159-5de9-4a09-95e0-14cdbc73d... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.c=
om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > I would suggest that most bike trips are loops. =A0You start at home,
> > then end there. =A0Mountain biking can be destination biking too, if by
> > destination you mean a lake or a waterfall or some such. =A0But you
> > still get to ride back to the car. =A0And I agree, it's nice to have a
> > loop, rather than an out-and-back.
>
> What I mean by no destination is a loop set up inside a forest preserve
> or park that is like doing laps on race track. It gets old fast. The
> concept is to drive the bike there, ride a few laps, drive home. It beats
> a treadmill, but that's about it.
You need better trails. I can't picture anyone calling the
singletrack I ride boring. The fireroads, sure but never the
singletrack. Especially the gnarly stuff.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796470 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 23:27 |
|
On Feb 29, 8:18 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> This morning I encountered a real winner.... I am waiting at a red
> signal, I am signalling to turn left, at an intersection I drive through
> and bike through rather often. Anyway, the light turns green and I start
> moving and what do I see just as I start to enter the intersection? An
> asshat on bicycle passing me ON THE LEFT and going straight. He's in the
> lane for on coming traffic. Then he has the nerve to flip me off. He's
> lucky it was me instead of the common drivers who don't even look, he
> would have been hit by someone who wasn't looking. Some of the drivers
> I've encountered while biking would probably purposely have just given
> his rear wheel a love tap and sent him to the pavement and drove off.
> Someone is going to hit this dufus sooner or later.
>
> There is zero reason to pull that sort of stunt at this intersection.
> None. I've biked through it hundreds if not thousands of times.
And Wednesday night, driving home on the snowy roads, I waited for a
traffic light to go through its all-red phase, then turn green. I
started to make my left turn onto the four-lane road, then realized
the car coming from my right was NOT going to even slow down for the
long-red light. He came through at over 30 mph, I estimate. He could
have easily stopped 50 feet before the intersection, had he chosen to,
slippery roads and all.
I saw him coming and didn't hit him, of course. I didn't completely
stop, however. I slowed enough so that my right front fender was sort
of pointed at his driver-side door as he went through. My intent was
to show that he could easily have been hit.
There were actually four people in that car. I wondered what the
other three said about the incident. Of course, it could be they were
all similarly brain dead.
Overall point? There are idiots on the roads. They operate all sorts
of vehicles. And of course, the ones in the biggest vehicles do the
most damage. Don't paint other groups with a broader brush than your
own.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796472 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 23:44 |
|
On Feb 29, 12:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] 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
> 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.
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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796474 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 00:05 |
|
On Feb 29, 12:40 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:41 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 7:49 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 4:36 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht... [at] worldnet.att.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > But let's get practical, Leo. The fact is, the very normal generator
> > > > headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike ...
>
> > > You consider this normal, huh?
>
> > I'm sorry, Ed. I meant "normal" as in "equipment which satisfies the
> > law, but does not greatly exceed the laws requirements."
>
> Uhh, the word for that is "legal". "Normal" has a different meaning.
An aircraft landing light on a bicycle is probably legal - meaning,
AFAIK there is no upper limit on lumen count for bikes. So I was
looking for a word to express the concept of meeting the letter of the
law in a normal way. That was to make it clear that it doesn't
require super-bright lights to make funny clothes unnecessary.
I gather that you didn't understand that. But that's OK. I'm
patient. There are always some people who need extra explanation.
> > And when responding to Leo, I made it quite clear that IF one
> > meets the requirements of laws, the color of clothing makes no
> > significant difference.
>
> An assertion without proof.
As I said, I have around here at least one paper (I think two) on this
subject. But you've already claimed "pedantry" any time I try to
introduce accurate facts. I assume you'd hate citations even worse!
>
> Maybe you should review your notes as to whom your discussing what
> with?
Let me see...
Hmm. By my notes, I see I was discussing with you the desirability of
extra safety equipment for motorists. You know, the safety vest, the
safety tool kit, the safety back-up kit, etc. sold by J. C. Whitney.
The kind of things that (according to you) _must_ help, otherwise they
wouldn't be sold!
By my notes, you still haven't explained why bicyclists should use
whatever "must help," but motorists - especially you - don't need to!
Does it have something to do with 700 American cyclists dying each
year, but only 40,000 American motorists dying each year?
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796475 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 00:19 |
|
N8N wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:54 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 11:09 am, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob... [at] gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> N8N wrote:
>>>> On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>> 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
>
> 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.
OK, so bikes do have a right to the road. Glad we're on the same page.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Tue Jan 6 09:21:01 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.29993 Sekunden |
