|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796477 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 00:24 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> 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.
>
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
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796480 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 00:34 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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
>
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.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796481 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 00:45 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> 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.
>
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
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796482 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 01:00 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.
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
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796483 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 01:08 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
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
> 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!
Nope, we're not on the same page at all.
Bicyclists have NO rights that motorists don't also have.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796484 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 01:31 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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 asshole 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
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796486 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 01:44 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> 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 asshole 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.
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 ass, 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
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796493 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 02:00 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> 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 asshole 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.
>
> 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 ass, 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
>
Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an asshole. On the road, I vocally
implore other cyclists to not ride like assholes. 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!
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796494 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 02:13 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 asshole 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.
>>
>>
>> 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 ass, 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
>>
>
> Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an asshole. On the road, I vocally
> implore other cyclists to not ride like assholes. 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.
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
> 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!
Nice arrogance.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796495 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 02:19 |
|
"Paul M. Hobson" <fobson [at] gatech.edu> wrote in
news:fqa4qs$3ke$1 [at] news-int2.gatech.edu:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> 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.
>
I believe you misuse the term "right of way".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796496 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 02:20 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote in
news:fqa8ud01681 [at] news2.newsguy.com:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> 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 asshole 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.
>
> 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 ass, 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
>
I agree.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796502 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:01 |
|
In article <69472df3-6c23-4ba6-bca3-3982ec9fadc8 [at] e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<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.
Hmm. Considering only my commute (which I stagger to avoid traffic),
and considering only the time on the highway, I'd say about 20 miles
per day at 75 instead of 55 would be about right, so about 30 minutes
a week, minimum by violating the speed limit. The intangibles, of
course, are much greater.
>And what exactly have you accomplished with that great savings in
>time?
That should be obvious -- I respond to idiots and trolls here.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796503 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:04 |
|
In article <a29c702a-119e-4e80-adbf-c0e1ab43d284 [at] e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Brian Huntley <brian_huntley [at] hotmail.com> 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?
>
>What's next? Tax laws?
Yeah, what is this nonsense about laws being made with the consent of
the governed? Laws are for telling the governed what to do!
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796504 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:05 |
|
Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:58 am, "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.
>
Well, "ilaboo" must meet a lot of hunters riding his bicycle around New
York City.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796505 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:13 |
|
In article <smVxj.11$Td2.8 [at] trndny08>,
Stephen Harding <smharding16 [at] msn.com> wrote:
>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".
Like I said, "straw man". The "I presume" is a dead giveaway.
>> Then fix the traffic laws so strict obedience isn't just plain stupid.
>
>By doing what, raising speed limits?
There's a start.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796506 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:14 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> ...
> Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an asshole. On the road, I vocally
> implore other cyclists to not ride like assholes. 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.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796507 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:15 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> [...]
>> I can expect to not be randomly hit while JRA.
>
> JRA?
> [...]
Just Riding Along.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796510 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:25 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-93B794.11502829022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet [at] 1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>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.
Physical weakness is not moral superiority.
>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.
Your "argument" that "everyone is at first a pedestrian" has zero
applicability to cyclists, not that it haad any in the first place.
It is not my burden as a driver to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are
visible, beyond having my own headlights operational; if they care to
travel on a road without their own lighting and/or reflectors, to the
extent that they are not visible to me until it is too late to avoid a
collision, it is because they shirked their own duties.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796511 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:26 |
|
In article <83574624-0b41-4212-b713-b0998209f074 [at] 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
If you follow r.a.d you'll see that people including myself post about
asshat drivers. everyone combined it's about one a day in the group.
asshat bicyclists get posted about a few times a year... so your attempt
at a 'point' here falls flat.
> 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.
I've done similar and been called nasty things for it too here on
usenet....
> Overall point? There are idiots on the roads. They operate all sorts
> of vehicles.
Gee frank, could you go count the posts that I said the same thing in
this thread alone?
> And of course, the ones in the biggest vehicles do the
> most damage.
I'm sorry, size doesn't grant special privilege.
> Don't paint other groups with a broader brush than your own.
I didn't. Try paying attention. As far as 'my own' which would that be
Frank? motorists or bicyclists? I do both. Did you miss where I stated I
have biked through that particular intersection hundreds if not thousands
of times? That intersection is part of a couple of my regular bicycling
routes.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796512 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:37 |
|
In article <fqa9rt$lms$1 [at] news-int.gatech.edu>,
Paul M. Hobson <fobson [at] gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>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?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796513 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:38 |
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> 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.
>
It is a priori that a bicyclist is superior to a pedestrian.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796514 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:39 |
|
In article <bd71dd46-93e8-4591-b297-1449132c48ea [at] e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796515 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 03:43 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> ...
>> Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an asshole. On the road, I vocally
>> implore other cyclists to not ride like assholes. 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.
>
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
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796517 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:03 |
|
On Feb 27, 4:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Larry Farrell wrote:
> > N8N wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, Larry Farrell <farrl... [at] isu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> N8N wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, Larry Farrell <farrl... [at] isu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> N8N wrote:
> >>>>> [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.
>
> >>>> 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
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
> >> that.
>
> >> nate
>
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796519 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:08 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Nate, darlin', I *don't* ride like an asshole. On the road, I
>>> vocally implore other cyclists to not ride like assholes. 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.
>>
>
> 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
> 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)
>
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/>.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796520 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:12 |
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> What's going on in those tinted-windowed cars
> anyway, that the occupants of which fear discovery?
> Coitus? Drug deals? Nose-picking?
>
Here in da 'hood, all the bros have tinted windows.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796523 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:23 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> [...]
> 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.
> [...]
Transporting children to an organized sporting event by motor vehicle
should be illegal.
All vehicles with automatic transmissions should have a mandatory mobile
phone jammer that operates any time the vehicle is not in park.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796525 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:31 |
|
In article <fqai87$r3j$4 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> All vehicles with automatic transmissions should have a mandatory mobile
> phone jammer that operates any time the vehicle is not in park.
Could we just find a way to ban the automatic transmission? It's clearly
the root of all automotive evil in the world ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796527 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:36 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> [...]
> Second, the stop sign is at a T intersection, and visibility isn't
> particularly good, due to shrubbery.[...]
The shrubbery should be arranged with one slightly higher so you get the
two-level effect with a little path running down the middle.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796532 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:47 |
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>> and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>> an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>
>> nate
>
> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
Humping is supposed to occur at 5 mph or less, which is why the
retarders that make that horrible screeching sound are used.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796534 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:51 |
|
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> [...]
> Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
> over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
> semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
> your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you try
> to pass the semis.
> [...]
That is when you take as long as possible to pass the truck.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796535 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 04:54 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <pan.2008.02.28.15.32.05.464809 [at] invalid.nospam>, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>>> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
>>> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
>>> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
>>> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
>
>> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
>> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
>> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
>> and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
>
> That's nice. it's about as effective as pounding sand in these parts and
> many others. BTW, I don't ignore stop signs, I am only stating what the
> results of misusing stop signs is.
>
> Speed control stop signs are especially annoying when biking. I am far
> more annoyed by them when bicycling than driving. on the order of several
> times more if I am at the end of a long ride.
>
>> Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them. One hopes that
>> lesson will be learned by way of an expensive ticket, rather than by way
>> of an injury "accident".
>
>> - Lots of semis. (which usually can't climb Tennessee hills at the speed
>> limit)
>> - Two-lane Interstates. (which means either you follow the slow semis in
>> the right-hand lane, or you pass them in the left)
>> - Too many motorists who believe they're *entitled* to drive as fast as
>> they want.
>
> Interesting... that list puts you as the subject of that famous George
> Carlin bit about driving.
>
>> Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
>> over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
>> semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
>> your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you try
>> to pass the semis.
>
> Pass, get back right... why is that so difficult for most people?
>
>> Now that they've learned the speed limit can be ignored with impunity,
>> (sometimes...) they're branching out. To running stop signs & lights.
>> (not only speed-control stop signs) To ignoring oncoming traffic when
>> pulling out from driveways and sideroads. To passing in no-passing zones
>> - and even no-traffic zones.
>
> Maybe the speed limits should have made sense in the first place. See
> that's the problem with law that's based only on authority, eventually
> you get laws that don't make sense and people lose respect for
> similiar laws, even ones that make sense, because of it.
>
>> (worst case: last winter, guy on I-24 so convinced he was entitled to go
>> 90mph he passed me *on the right-hand shoulder*, *at an exit*, the day
>> after a snowstorm, when the shoulder *had frequent patches of ice & snow*.
>> He couldn't wait ten seconds for the other guy to finish passing me.
>
> That may be shocking for you, but that's everyday driving in c(r)ook
> county, IL.
> [...]
I think the suburbanites in DuPage and Lake Counties are worse.
Of course, they are all FIBS. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796540 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 05:05 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <fqai87$r3j$4 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> All vehicles with automatic transmissions should have a mandatory mobile
>> phone jammer that operates any time the vehicle is not in park.
>
> Could we just find a way to ban the automatic transmission? It's clearly
> the root of all automotive evil in the world ;)
> [...]
I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic transmission, so I would
be fine with the ban.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796542 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 05:27 |
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003 [at] REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in
news:fqajrk$456$2 [at] registered.motzarella.org:
> Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>> [...]
>> Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than
>> 10 over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for
>> slow semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two
>> feet off your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in
>> front as you try to pass the semis.
>> [...]
> That is when you take as long as possible to pass the truck.
>
nothing like being an ASSHOLE LLB.
the longer you stay near the semi,the less safe you are.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796543 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:29 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:01 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <69472df3-6c23-4ba6-bca3-3982ec9fa... [at] e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <frkry... [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.
>
> Hmm. Considering only my commute (which I stagger to avoid traffic),
> and considering only the time on the highway, I'd say about 20 miles
> per day at 75 instead of 55 would be about right, so about 30 minutes
> a week, minimum by violating the speed limit. The intangibles, of
> course, are much greater.
>
> >And what exactly have you accomplished with that great savings in
> >time?
>
> That should be obvious -- I respond to idiots and trolls here.
And to people who exhibit a lot better judgment and class than you, of
course.
But I thought you might be saving the world with your tremendous time
savings. Certainly, most scofflaw drivers act as if they're that
important!
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796544 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:32 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:13 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <smVxj.11$Td2.8 [at] trndny08>,
> Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >> Then fix the traffic laws so strict obedience isn't just plain stupid.
>
> >By doing what, raising speed limits?
>
> There's a start.
Yep. Hell, if Matthew hadn't been hampered by speed limit signs, he'd
have probably given us lasting world peace by now! ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796545 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:36 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:25 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
>
>
> It is not my burden as a driver to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are
> visible, beyond having my own headlights operational; if they care to
> travel on a road without their own lighting and/or reflectors, to the
> extent that they are not visible to me until it is too late to avoid a
> collision, it is because they shirked their own duties.
When I'm walking, it's my _duty_ to kowtow to drivers by carrying a
light or reflector?
If you can point to the law that states that "duty", you'll look a bit
less like an arrogant jerk.
I think the odds are low, though.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796546 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:40 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:26 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <83574624-0b41-4212-b713-b0998209f... [at] 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> If you follow r.a.d you'll see that people including myself post about
> asshat drivers.
I hope that includes the arrogant ones who expect pedestrians to carry
lights for their convenience!
Calm down, Brent. I just thought it useful to show that for every
scofflaw cyclist, there's at _least_ one scofflaw motorist. We both
know they're out there. And we know who does the most damage.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796548 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:43 |
|
In article <f0d279a4-4880-4f49-aa7d-de7f61e99481 [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Calm down, Brent. I just thought it useful to show that for every
> scofflaw cyclist, there's at _least_ one scofflaw motorist. We both
> know they're out there. And we know who does the most damage.
The trying to argue for special privilege based on damage potentional is
counterproductive. It's like a car driver asking to run red lights
because semi trucks do more damage.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796549 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:49 |
|
On Feb 29, 9:39 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] 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 bike.
Serious injury to oneself is one thing - and is extremely rare in
bicycling anyway. Serious injury to others is quite another thing.
There are about 40,000 motorist-caused fatalities per year in
America. That number absolutely eclipses the bicyclist-caused
fatalities.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Tue Jan 6 05:43:24 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.36455 Sekunden |
