|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796550 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 06:55 |
|
On Feb 29, 10:31 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <fqai87$r3... [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 ;)
Fine by me. Hell, I've never owned one.
Interesting tale: My daughter was a cute young 17-year-old when
another worker at the coffee shop decided to be chivalrous. He
volunteered to drive her car (well, my car) around to the door for her
so she could avoid the rain.
She gave him the keys, and he trotted out all manly-like... then
returned completely abashed. "I can't believe it. You drive STICK!"
He, of course, had no idea how to do that.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796552 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 07:01 |
|
On Mar 1, 12:43 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <f0d279a4-4880-4f49-aa7d-de7f61e99... [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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.
Except that I'm not asking for any special privilege to run red
lights. Nor to bike at night without lights. In fact, I'm not asking
for privilege to violate any rule of the road, nor to change them to
suit my preferences. I do just fine as is.
But, as I recall, there have been plenty of r.a.d. motorists calling
for speed limits raised to suit _their_ preferences. And the
elimination of stop signs _they_ don't like. Plus special clothing on
other road users, to suit _their_ motorist taste. And God forbid any
neighborhood should try to dissuade cut-through speeders!
Who is asking for privilege? It's certainly not me.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796553 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 07:03 |
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:37:40 -0600, russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>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?
I did that once to escape a menacing cager who became enraged when I
told him, and repeated at his request, "your truck is ugly". It was
a still stinking new red Escalade on those stupid low profile tires.
He made a couple U-turns and did some shouting but wouldn't get out
of his coffin. I kept a row of parked cars between us as I rode along
the sidewalk at less than walking pace. He was yelling out the
window and I smiled and kept insulting his vehicle. It was fun and
saved typing-for-trash.
He quit the game after a city dump truck blasted its horn on his
bumper. He was unnecessarily and wilfully delaying traffic, you see.
Anyway, in Vancouver BC, I know at least 3 cyclists who have been
ticketed for riding without a helmet and one who has been warned for
riding without lights.
Were you to piss off a cop, riding on a sidewalk without a bell,
helmet and lights could net you about $225.00 in fines.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796556 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 07:14 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <fqa9rt$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?
Nope. No officer who has witnessed my riding style has deemed it unlawful.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796558 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 07:19 |
|
In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d61c [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:43 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <f0d279a4-4880-4f49-aa7d-de7f61e99... [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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.
>
> Except that I'm not asking for any special privilege to run red
> lights. Nor to bike at night without lights. In fact, I'm not asking
> for privilege to violate any rule of the road, nor to change them to
> suit my preferences. I do just fine as is.
Others are, and you are picking up on it.
> But, as I recall, there have been plenty of r.a.d. motorists calling
> for speed limits raised to suit _their_ preferences.
I have never asked speed derestriction of all limited access highways
which is my preference. I've asked that speed limits be set according to
IL's law demanding compliance with the MUTCD, which is to set them by the
best known engineering method. Nobody else except for the speed kills
crowd has asked for their preferences to be the speed limit.
> And the elimination of stop signs _they_ don't like.
And those of us who use bicycles find those same signs MORE annoying
while bicycling. I favor the removal of speed-control stop signs from an
engineering and bicyclist point of view. From a driving point of view
they aren't even on the irritation radar unless they are extremely
frequent and then once I leave that area they fall off.
> Plus special clothing on other road users, to suit _their_ motorist
> taste.
No one said anything of the sort. What was said that all visibility
solutions were lacking. That is but one solution.
> And God forbid any neighborhood should try to dissuade cut-through
> speeders!
Entirely false. I told you how to solve that problem with out putting
hazards in the road. Of course you favor the non-solution of puting hazards
in the road which only displaces the problem to your neighbors on the
next street or increases speed between the hazards. That's not my fault.
You ask for special privilege of putting hazards in the road.
> Who is asking for privilege? It's certainly not me.
You picked up the typical privilege argument as shown in this news story:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5 986557
If you're not asking for it, maybe you should abstain from the argument.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796559 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 07:28 |
|
In article <b14d5522-b66f-4c15-a6b1-db2817f368fd [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
So you were posting in agreement with me.... yeah right... I'll believe
that was your intent when the federal reserve decides that nearly century
of mismanagement has been enough and disbands for the good of the nation
all of its own accord.
>> > [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.
The license to drive has ZERO to do with safety. Intially drivers
licensing didn't even have a test! Just pay the fee and here's a license.
It was about government collecting revenue and gaining power through a
licensing requirement.
It goes through the motions of safety these days but what it really has
become about is a back door ID system and turning common transportation
into a government granted privilege. REAL ID, etc and so forth.
The demand for bicyclists being licensed will eventually take hold. If we
see an huge upsurge in bicycling as the dollar declines in value sending
gasoline prices up you can bank on it.
> 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.
Driving milage and time exposure in automobiles greately eclipses bicycle
milage and time exposure too. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
Calculate it out and there isn't a very big difference. It's about equal
as I recall. Bicycles safer per unit time, cars per mile.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796560 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 07:40 |
|
In article <fqas92$rur$1 [at] news-int.gatech.edu>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <fqa9rt$lms$1 [at] news-int.gatech.edu>,
>> Paul M. Hobson <fobson [at] gatech.edu> wrote:
>>> I've never been ticketed/fined for a traffic violation on my bike
>>> despite the fact that police vehicles are everywhere in Atlanta (in my
>>> crappy part of town, at least).
>>
>> Ducked down a sidewalk when they gave chase, eh?
>
> Nope. No officer who has witnessed my riding style has deemed it unlawful.
Yet nearly a handful of cops deemed my vehicular bicycling unlawful.
Can't 'ride like a car', can't ride 'left of the white line' when there
is only three inches of pavement to the right of it, shouldn't be on the
roadway (after objecting to a motorist who brush passed me VERY close, a
fact admitted by the officer), I think that's it.. can't remember more than
three. Seems like there was fourth... probably was when the arsehole
motorist backed into me on purpose... but the cop was on my side that day.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796561 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 08:12 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <fqas92$rur$1 [at] news-int.gatech.edu>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <fqa9rt$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?
>> Nope. No officer who has witnessed my riding style has deemed it unlawful.
>
> Yet nearly a handful of cops deemed my vehicular bicycling unlawful.
>
> Can't 'ride like a car', can't ride 'left of the white line' when there
> is only three inches of pavement to the right of it, shouldn't be on the
> roadway (after objecting to a motorist who brush passed me VERY close, a
> fact admitted by the officer), I think that's it.. can't remember more than
> three. Seems like there was fourth... probably was when the arsehole
> motorist backed into me on purpose... but the cop was on my side that day.
Ya know, it's almost like cyclists, drivers, and police officers are all
different people could believe any number of things and act in any
number of ways. Crazy world, eh?
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796586 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 18:16 |
|
On Mar 1, 1:19 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d... [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm not asking for any special privilege to run red
> > lights. Nor to bike at night without lights. In fact, I'm not asking
> > for privilege to violate any rule of the road, nor to change them to
> > suit my preferences. I do just fine as is.
>
> Others are, and you are picking up on it.
I know "others" are. Mostly motorists, it seems.
> > But, as I recall, there have been plenty of r.a.d. motorists calling
> > for speed limits raised to suit _their_ preferences.
>
> I've asked that speed limits be set according to
> IL's law demanding compliance with the MUTCD, which is to set them by the
> best known engineering method....
Yes, as determined by _you_ - which, coincidentally, never means
lowering them. You are asking for changes in the law to suit you.
Including your favorite rationale doesn't change that fact.
> > And the elimination of stop signs _they_ don't like.
>
> I favor the removal of speed-control stop signs from an
> engineering and bicyclist point of view.
Again: You are asking for the changes to suit yourself. Your
rationale doesn't change that.
> > Plus special clothing on other road users, to suit _their_ motorist
> > taste.
>
> No one said anything of the sort.
Nate Nagel said "I don't see how any cyclist could say with a straight
face that he's somehow exempt from this same common-sense rule," that
is, to ride only when wearing certain colors. Ed Pirrero agreed. His
rationale was, essentially, "They sell vests; so vests _must_ help
safety; so you should wear a vest." (He doesn't seem to think that
standard applies to motorists, however.)
> > And God forbid any neighborhood should try to dissuade cut-through
> > speeders!
>
> Entirely false. I told you how to solve that problem with out putting
> hazards in the road. Of course you favor the non-solution of puting hazards
> in the road which only displaces the problem to your neighbors on the
> next street or increases speed between the hazards. That's not my fault.
:-) Yes, I remember. You disallow the solution that's been shown to
work perfectly about three miles from my house, by simply proclaiming
that it doesn't work.
But I guess that's not quite the same as you asking to change laws to
suit you. That's just asking that neighborhoods not solve their
traffic problems, because the solutions don't suit you. IOW, you're
asking for a different sort of privilege.
> > Who is asking for privilege? It's certainly not me.
>
> You picked up the typical privilege argument as shown in this news story:http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&am p;id=5986557
I'm sorry, Brent, but you're extremely confused. As that newscast
says, those racers "blow through traffic lights and ignore other
traffic laws." I'm specifically saying I _don't_ ask for those
things.
More accountability for motorists? That I ask for - but that's just
asking that they actually obey the laws. Specifically, "I didn't see
him (because he was wearing a clothing color I don't like)" should not
be a valid excuse. Instead, it should cause a person to lose his
license for negligence.
> If you're not asking for it, maybe you should abstain from the argument.
I'm asking for accountability, and adherence to laws. I'm asking that
motorists don't try to put further burdens on vulnerable road users.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796587 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 18:31 |
|
On Mar 1, 1:28 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <b14d5522-b66f-4c15-a6b1-db2817f36... [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> [BP:]
> The license to drive has ZERO to do with safety. Intially drivers
> licensing didn't even have a test! Just pay the fee and here's a license.
That's history, and libertarian whining. You can't pretend licensing
currently has zero to do with safety. Otherwise, why aren't 12-year-
olds given licenses? Why do egregious, repeated drunks eventually
lose their licenses - at least, occasionally? Why do they bother to
tally points on licenses?
> > 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.
>
> Driving milage and time exposure in automobiles greately eclipses bicycle
> milage and time exposure too. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
> Calculate it out and there isn't a very big difference. It's about equal
> as I recall. Bicycles safer per unit time, cars per mile.
<sigh> You've missed the most important distinction. Here it is
again: Bicyclists almost exclusively harm only themselves, in the rare
cases they cause any harm at all. Motorists harm others, by the tens
of thousands per year in the US. And society is, very logically, much
more concerned about harm a person imposes on others.
Your recollection of safety data is in fatalities to the operator, per
unit time or per unit mile. But if you were to find data on
fatalities of _others_ caused by cyclists, per time or per mile, it
would be literally hundreds of thousands of times smaller than
fatalities of others caused by motorists.
Unfortunately for our debate, you probably won't be able to find any
data on fatalities to others per hour of bicycling. That number is
simply too low to bother measuring.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796588 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 18:55 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:19 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d... [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
>>>Plus special clothing on other road users, to suit _their_ motorist
>>>taste.
>>
>>No one said anything of the sort.
>
>
> Nate Nagel said "I don't see how any cyclist could say with a straight
> face that he's somehow exempt from this same common-sense rule,"
yes, I said that.
> that
> is, to ride only when wearing certain colors.
No. I said, *IF THE CYCLIST IS NOT GOING TO USE LIGHTS AFTER DARK* he
should at least make some attempt to be conspicuous through clothing.
Surely you can't argue with the statement that cyclists have *some*
responsibility to make themselves visible?
Would you consider a bicyclist riding after dark, with his bike painted
flat black, and wearing camouflage to be a "responsible" cyclist? It's
an extreme example, yes, but not much *less* conspicuous than some
cyclists I encounter.
If you have lights and reflectors then yes, that should be sufficient.
However, it seems to be "uncool" to keep reflectors on your bike, and
some riders are just too damn cheap to buy lights apparently.
> I'm asking for accountability, and adherence to laws. I'm asking that
> motorists don't try to put further burdens on vulnerable road users.
So we at least agree on one thing.
How about the other road users not put further burdens on motorists?
Could you at least throw us a bone, here? We're not *trying* to hit
you, you know.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796589 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 18:58 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:28 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <b14d5522-b66f-4c15-a6b1-db2817f36... [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>[BP:]
>>The license to drive has ZERO to do with safety. Intially drivers
>>licensing didn't even have a test! Just pay the fee and here's a license.
>
>
> That's history, and libertarian whining. You can't pretend licensing
> currently has zero to do with safety. Otherwise, why aren't 12-year-
> olds given licenses? Why do egregious, repeated drunks eventually
> lose their licenses - at least, occasionally? Why do they bother to
> tally points on licenses?
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Driving milage and time exposure in automobiles greately eclipses bicycle
>>milage and time exposure too. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
>>Calculate it out and there isn't a very big difference. It's about equal
>>as I recall. Bicycles safer per unit time, cars per mile.
>
>
> <sigh> You've missed the most important distinction. Here it is
> again: Bicyclists almost exclusively harm only themselves, in the rare
> cases they cause any harm at all.
You mean in a bike-car collision ONLY the bike and cyclist is damaged?
Somehow I find that hard to believe.
> Motorists harm others, by the tens
> of thousands per year in the US. And society is, very logically, much
> more concerned about harm a person imposes on others.
>
> Your recollection of safety data is in fatalities to the operator, per
> unit time or per unit mile. But if you were to find data on
> fatalities of _others_ caused by cyclists, per time or per mile, it
> would be literally hundreds of thousands of times smaller than
> fatalities of others caused by motorists.
Again, the damage to my own property, the waste of my time, and the
potential legal liability is of FAR more concern to me than the life of
an irresponsible stranger. I guess I believe in personal responsibility
too much to waste my time caring.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796591 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 19:12 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:19 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d... [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
>>>But, as I recall, there have been plenty of r.a.d. motorists calling
>>>for speed limits raised to suit _their_ preferences.
>>
>>I've asked that speed limits be set according to
>>IL's law demanding compliance with the MUTCD, which is to set them by the
>>best known engineering method....
>
>
> Yes, as determined by _you_ - which, coincidentally, never means
> lowering them. You are asking for changes in the law to suit you.
> Including your favorite rationale doesn't change that fact.
>
Brent is the Federal Highway Administration?
also the Institute of Transportation Engineers report that "The
responses indicated that the 85thpercentile speed is the predominant
factor used when setting speed limits."
from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200105/ai_n8 953131/pg_1
now you can see from simple observation that these guidelines are not
followed in the real world, but the ITE did publish this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/ite-szg.html
key points, to those who will respond with "but other factors!"
3. The engineering study may include other factors such as:
a. Geometric features including: vertical and horizontal alignment,
and sight distance;
b. Roadside development;
c. Road and shoulder surface characteristics;
d. Pedestrian and bicycle activity;
e. Speed limits on adjoining highway segments:
f. Accident experience or potential.
However, *in no case should the speed limit be set below the 67th
percentile speed of free flowing vehicles.*
Notice the last sentence. (emphasis mine.)
however, sadly, it was never formally adopted despite appearing quite
reasonable and non-controversial:
http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation-warehousing/105817 4-1.html
Speed Zone Guidelines (RP-024): Submitted as a proposed ITE recommended
practice in 1993, this report addresses what criteria should be used to
establish the need and potential effectiveness of speed zones and the
appropriate speed limit if a speed zone is established. In the 12 years
since this was submitted as a proposed recommended practice, it has not
been possible to reach a consensus on its contents. As a consequence, it
has never been formally adopted as an ITE recommended practice.
Sounds to me like political pressure from IIHS, NHTSA et. al. but that
is pure speculation.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796592 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 19:19 |
|
In article <GsCdnfm8pJhn2VXanZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-F952AC.11245129022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc
> O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > 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.
I never excused poor behavior. If you actually read what you're
replying to, you'll see I directly called such people dicks. The
reality that there are assholes out there doesn't absolve *you* from the
responsibility of accounting for them (that whole "observe your world"
silliness I've been on about). If you can't see as well as you like, it
is far more reasonable to upgrade your equipment instead of expecting
the entire world to change for you.
> > 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 understand what that has to do with refuting my point. If
anything, it supports me. A driver doesn't expend any effort of their
own to move the vehicle, so conservation isn't much of a priority for
them and they should be coming to a full stop. Since simple observation
shows that cars are the ones making the majority of the rolling stops,
it doesn't make sense to fault a cyclist (who actually *does* physcially
drive their vehicle) for rolling a stop as well.
In fact, Mr. Physics, please support your interest in conservation by
actually working out at what speeds a 4000lb car rolling a stop sign has
the same kinetic energy and momentum as a 200lb cyclist just blowing
through a stop at 15mph.
> > 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.
I am again confused by why you think what you wrote has anything to do
with refuting my speed limit observations. I guess "Um no." is a lot
easier for you than thinking clearly and responding to the actual
discussion.
--
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 #796593 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 19:21 |
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <GsCdnfm8pJhn2VXanZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article
>><droleary.usenet-F952AC.11245129022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc
>>O'Leary wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> I never excused poor behavior. If you actually read what you're
> replying to, you'll see I directly called such people dicks. The
> reality that there are assholes out there doesn't absolve *you* from the
> responsibility of accounting for them (that whole "observe your world"
> silliness I've been on about). If you can't see as well as you like, it
> is far more reasonable to upgrade your equipment instead of expecting
> the entire world to change for you.
>
>
>>>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 understand what that has to do with refuting my point. If
> anything, it supports me. A driver doesn't expend any effort of their
> own to move the vehicle, so conservation isn't much of a priority for
> them and they should be coming to a full stop. Since simple observation
> shows that cars are the ones making the majority of the rolling stops,
My observation does not show that. Especially if you count instances as
instances per vehicle observed. For cars it's pretty low. For cyclists
it's 100%, in my experience.
> it doesn't make sense to fault a cyclist (who actually *does* physcially
> drive their vehicle) for rolling a stop as well.
There's a big difference between a "rolling stop" and simply blowing
through a stop sign. Many cyclists that I observe don't even try to
slow down for stop signs.
> In fact, Mr. Physics, please support your interest in conservation by
> actually working out at what speeds a 4000lb car rolling a stop sign has
> the same kinetic energy and momentum as a 200lb cyclist just blowing
> through a stop at 15mph.
Does it matter? If the car stops, as most do, I don't have to worry
about hitting it. If the cyclist doesn't, as most don't, I *do* have to
worry about hitting him.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796596 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 19:43 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> 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.
>
That is when you should lose your driver's license.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796600 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 20:43 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>
No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass should
complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as it is safe.
The driver of the faster third vehicle has the expectation that vehicles
will move over to the right lane as soon as it is safe, and should
maintain a safe following distance until that occurs. Pulling up two
feet of someone's bumper and flashing the "brights" in that situation is
just being an asshole. Try acting the same way in a pedestrian queue,
and you will rightfully get your ass kicked.
Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come up
behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country) and
tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is not of
correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but simply that
the "lesser" people get out of their road.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796602 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 20:52 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>
> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass
> should complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as
> it is safe. The driver of the faster third vehicle has the
> expectation that vehicles will move over to the right lane as soon as
> it is safe, and should maintain a safe following distance until that
> occurs. Pulling up two feet of someone's bumper and flashing the
> "brights" in that situation is just being an asshole. Try acting the
> same way in a pedestrian queue, and you will rightfully get your ass
> kicked.
Passing at a speed such that you don't pass a truck within the space of
a few seconds is also just as assaholic. Pulling out to pass when you
can see (or ought to be able to see) that a following vehicle will catch
up to you before you can move back to the right is assaholic as well.
>
> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come
> up behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country)
> and tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is
> not of correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but
> simply that the "lesser" people get out of their road.
Have never seen that. Of course, it's rare that I see someone actually
understanding the concept of "drive right, pass left" either.
But in any case, you have admitted to *slowing down* in the process of
passing a truck because a following driver offended you somehow. That
ought to be illegal... oh wait, it is.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796603 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:08 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>>
>> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
>> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass
>> should complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as
>> it is safe. The driver of the faster third vehicle has the
>> expectation that vehicles will move over to the right lane as soon as
>> it is safe, and should maintain a safe following distance until that
>> occurs. Pulling up two feet of someone's bumper and flashing the
>> "brights" in that situation is just being an asshole. Try acting the
>> same way in a pedestrian queue, and you will rightfully get your ass
>> kicked.
>
> Passing at a speed such that you don't pass a truck within the space of
> a few seconds is also just as assaholic. Pulling out to pass when you
> can see (or ought to be able to see) that a following vehicle will catch
> up to you before you can move back to the right is assaholic as well.
>
In driving on urban freeways, there are never huge gaps in traffic
(except for very early morning hours), and it is not possible to judge
the speed of vehicle that is coming up by zig-zagging through other
vehicles, since the sight-line is screened. (Low traffic rural freeways
are a different matter). Should one speed up to an unreasonable speed
just to potentially accommodate some jerk driving over his ability? Even
if they were initially going 70 mph and you were passing at 70 mph, they
would speed up to tailgate on purpose.
>> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come
>> up behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country)
>> and tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is
>> not of correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but
>> simply that the "lesser" people get out of their road.
>
> Have never seen that. Of course, it's rare that I see someone actually
> understanding the concept of "drive right, pass left" either.
>
Do you ever drive in US urban areas? If one does nothing more than stay
in the right lane at a safe following distance from the vehicle ahead,
these assholes will get pissed off at you for not moving into the middle
lane so they can squeeze by traffic on the right.
> But in any case, you have admitted to *slowing down* in the process of
> passing a truck because a following driver offended you somehow. That
> ought to be illegal... oh wait, it is.
>
It ought to be illegal to use a vehicle in such an offensive and
aggressive manner. Wave a gun (an item of similar potential danger)
around, and you will get hauled off to jail. Why should people be
allowed to act the same way just because they spent $50K+ on a vehicle?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796604 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:08 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> But in any case, you have admitted to *slowing down* in the process of
>> passing a truck because a following driver offended you somehow. That
>> ought to be illegal... oh wait, it is.
>>
> It ought to be illegal to use a vehicle in such an offensive and
> aggressive manner.
Yes, I agree, deliberately blocking traffic is offensive and aggressive.
Your driver's license, please?
nate
(seriously. start driving like a reasonable person or stay the fuck off
the road. There's enough assholes on the road already.)
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796605 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:13 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>> But in any case, you have admitted to *slowing down* in the process of
>>> passing a truck because a following driver offended you somehow.
>>> That ought to be illegal... oh wait, it is.
>>>
>> It ought to be illegal to use a vehicle in such an offensive and
>> aggressive manner.
>
> Yes, I agree, deliberately blocking traffic is offensive and aggressive.
> Your driver's license, please?
>
> nate
>
> (seriously. start driving like a reasonable person or stay the fuck off
> the road. There's enough assholes on the road already.)
>
So are you one of those people who weaves back and forth through traffic
thinking everyone should get the hell out of their way? That is who you
are defending here.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796606 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:14 |
|
In article <bdf045fd-628b-4080-ac8e-6e195171d0c3 [at] 41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:19 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d... [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> > I'm not asking for any special privilege to run red
>> > lights. Nor to bike at night without lights. In fact, I'm not asking
>> > for privilege to violate any rule of the road, nor to change them to
>> > suit my preferences. I do just fine as is.
>>
>> Others are, and you are picking up on it.
>
> I know "others" are. Mostly motorists, it seems.
Obviously you didn't watch the news report I pointed you to. Here's a
summary. Bicycle racer gets hit running a red signal. Interviewed people
saying that cars do the damage and bicycle riders should be special.
>> > But, as I recall, there have been plenty of r.a.d. motorists calling
>> > for speed limits raised to suit _their_ preferences.
>> I've asked that speed limits be set according to
>> IL's law demanding compliance with the MUTCD, which is to set them by the
>> best known engineering method....
> Yes, as determined by _you_ - which, coincidentally, never means
> lowering them. You are asking for changes in the law to suit you.
> Including your favorite rationale doesn't change that fact.
Determined by me? Not at all... the 85th percentile method was determined
to be the best known engineering practice and codified into the MUTCD and
law long before I was even driving, probably before I was born.
>> > And the elimination of stop signs _they_ don't like.
>> I favor the removal of speed-control stop signs from an
>> engineering and bicyclist point of view.
> Again: You are asking for the changes to suit yourself. Your
> rationale doesn't change that.
I suppose you like stopping every couple hundred feet on a bicycle. If
you do, you're quite odd.
>> > Plus special clothing on other road users, to suit _their_ motorist
>> > taste.
>> No one said anything of the sort.
> Nate Nagel said "I don't see how any cyclist could say with a straight
> face that he's somehow exempt from this same common-sense rule," that
> is, to ride only when wearing certain colors. Ed Pirrero agreed. His
> rationale was, essentially, "They sell vests; so vests _must_ help
> safety; so you should wear a vest." (He doesn't seem to think that
> standard applies to motorists, however.)
That's not calling for a legal requirement. Duh. I usually wear white shirt
when I bike at night. It just seems sensible to do that. I'm not calling
for a law for it.
>> > And God forbid any neighborhood should try to dissuade cut-through
>> > speeders!
>> Entirely false. I told you how to solve that problem with out putting
>> hazards in the road. Of course you favor the non-solution of puting hazards
>> in the road which only displaces the problem to your neighbors on the
>> next street or increases speed between the hazards. That's not my fault.
>:-) Yes, I remember. You disallow the solution that's been shown to
> work perfectly about three miles from my house, by simply proclaiming
> that it doesn't work.
They don't 'work perfectly', far from it.
> But I guess that's not quite the same as you asking to change laws to
> suit you. That's just asking that neighborhoods not solve their
> traffic problems, because the solutions don't suit you. IOW, you're
> asking for a different sort of privilege.
Lol you really stretch things frank. Go ahead, let towns turn their roads
into an SUV proving ground. I just won't go there, shop there, etc just
like I do with chicago's stupid permit parking. It's saying they don't
want economic activity from outsiders. So be it. It's their loss in the
end.
>> > Who is asking for privilege? It's certainly not me.
>> You picked up the typical privilege argument as shown in this news story:http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&am p;id=5986557
> I'm sorry, Brent, but you're extremely confused. As that newscast
> says, those racers "blow through traffic lights and ignore other
> traffic laws." I'm specifically saying I _don't_ ask for those
> things.
Yet you pick up their core argument... 'cars kill, not bikes'
>> If you're not asking for it, maybe you should abstain from the argument.
> I'm asking for accountability, and adherence to laws. I'm asking that
> motorists don't try to put further burdens on vulnerable road users.
You mean like obeying the vehicle code? Silly me. I already obey the
vehicle code when I ride frank.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796607 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:24 |
|
In article <26f0ea16-2978-4800-ab20-8ebc2a949476 [at] q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:28 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <b14d5522-b66f-4c15-a6b1-db2817f36... [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [BP:]
>> The license to drive has ZERO to do with safety. Intially drivers
>> licensing didn't even have a test! Just pay the fee and here's a license.
>
> That's history, and libertarian whining. You can't pretend licensing
> currently has zero to do with safety. Otherwise, why aren't 12-year-
> olds given licenses? Why do egregious, repeated drunks eventually
> lose their licenses - at least, occasionally? Why do they bother to
> tally points on licenses?
The safety angle is for show. Licensing wasn't about safety initially and
it isn't now. NH is planning to supend the DL's of people who get lost in
the woods while HIKING. Some states pull a DL for not paying child
support. Drunks losing their DL? well, hell that's from the work of the
MADD neo-prohibitionists. (MADD's founder left and calls them
prohibitionists) Points? Lol... states and local towns give all sorts of
outs if you just PAY them. The only way someone loses their license these
days is because they didn't pay government or the law system enough cash.
Haven't you noticed that it's generally POOR people that lose their DL.
The ones that cannot hire lawyers and can't pay the fines?
the guy who intentionally backed his audi into me paid a fine and paid
his lawyer. He's still driving.
>> > 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.
>> Driving milage and time exposure in automobiles greately eclipses bicycle
>> milage and time exposure too. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
>> Calculate it out and there isn't a very big difference. It's about equal
>> as I recall. Bicycles safer per unit time, cars per mile.
><sigh> You've missed the most important distinction. Here it is
> again: Bicyclists almost exclusively harm only themselves, in the rare
> cases they cause any harm at all. Motorists harm others, by the tens
> of thousands per year in the US. And society is, very logically, much
> more concerned about harm a person imposes on others.
Your arguement for being special. I guess those peds that have been
killed by being hit by bicycle riders don't count. One of those was in
the news in chicago a few years back. Someone got up off a bench stepped
on to the bike trail right in front of a rider.
> Your recollection of safety data is in fatalities to the operator, per
> unit time or per unit mile. But if you were to find data on
> fatalities of _others_ caused by cyclists, per time or per mile, it
> would be literally hundreds of thousands of times smaller than
> fatalities of others caused by motorists.
No it's total fatalities. And here you go again with totals. Rates are
what is important not totals.
> Unfortunately for our debate, you probably won't be able to find any
> data on fatalities to others per hour of bicycling. That number is
> simply too low to bother measuring.
And probably wrongly recorded when a bicycle rider violates the vehicle
code and the driver avoiding him hits someone else.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796608 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:29 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> But in any case, you have admitted to *slowing down* in the process of
>>>> passing a truck because a following driver offended you somehow.
>>>> That ought to be illegal... oh wait, it is.
>>>>
>>> It ought to be illegal to use a vehicle in such an offensive and
>>> aggressive manner.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree, deliberately blocking traffic is offensive and
>> aggressive. Your driver's license, please?
>>
>> nate
>>
>> (seriously. start driving like a reasonable person or stay the fuck
>> off the road. There's enough assholes on the road already.)
>>
> So are you one of those people who weaves back and forth through traffic
> thinking everyone should get the hell out of their way? That is who you
> are defending here.
>
No, I'm one of those people who simply expects others to follow the
rules of the road. I'm actually one of the slower drivers in my area,
not that it really matters. People are going to drive at speeds
different from one another; that's a fact of life and you can't do
anything about it. What you *can* do is be courteous and accomodating,
so everyone gets where they're going with a minimum of hassle and
frustration.
It's not up to you to make a judgement call as to the reasonableness of
another vehicle operator's speed. If you misjudge and inadvertantly
hold someone up for a few seconds while passing, that's an honest
mistake. But if you deliberately hold them up, that's
"passive-aggressive driving" in my book and just as unacceptable as
tailgating, cutting someone off, etc.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796609 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:32 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-34E216.12193301032008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <GsCdnfm8pJhn2VXanZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <droleary.usenet-F952AC.11245129022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc
>> O'Leary wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> I never excused poor behavior. If you actually read what you're
> replying to, you'll see I directly called such people dicks. The
> reality that there are assholes out there doesn't absolve *you* from the
> responsibility of accounting for them (that whole "observe your world"
> silliness I've been on about). If you can't see as well as you like, it
> is far more reasonable to upgrade your equipment instead of expecting
> the entire world to change for you.
upgrade my equipement? WTF are you babbling about? Both my car and my
bicycle exceed the requirements.
When you are bringing up the 'cars kill people, bikes don't' argument
it's presented to say, don't worry about those red light running
bicyclists, they won't hurt anyone. That's what it is there for. I am
getting tired of doging these asshats driving or biking.
>> > 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 understand what that has to do with refuting my point.
You said they learned it from drivers. I am saying it's part of normal
everyday physics and is not a behavior learned from anyone else. Most
people figure it out for themselves.
> In fact, Mr. Physics, please support your interest in conservation by
> actually working out at what speeds a 4000lb car rolling a stop sign has
> the same kinetic energy and momentum as a 200lb cyclist just blowing
> through a stop at 15mph.
A car driver could say that it is ok for him to run stop signs because a
40,000lb semi will cause more damage in a crash. It's a silly argument.
>> > 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.
> I am again confused by why you think what you wrote has anything to do
> with refuting my speed limit observations. I guess "Um no." is a lot
> easier for you than thinking clearly and responding to the actual
> discussion.
You lacking the background knowledge isn't my problem
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796610 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:36 |
|
In article <fqcbk6$ua4$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>
> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass should
> complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as it is safe.
> The driver of the faster third vehicle has the expectation that vehicles
> will move over to the right lane as soon as it is safe, and should
> maintain a safe following distance until that occurs. Pulling up two
> feet of someone's bumper and flashing the "brights" in that situation is
> just being an asshole. Try acting the same way in a pedestrian queue,
> and you will rightfully get your ass kicked.
>
> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come up
> behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country) and
> tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is not of
> correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but simply that
> the "lesser" people get out of their road.
Try passing properly. I never have that happen to me and here's why... I
pass and get it over with. Especially with a truck. Sitting along side a
truck passing it with a tiny speed differential is dangerous. It's
saying, 'let's sit here next to big truck to maximize our chances of
being impacted by tire blowing out, cargo falling off, etc'. Once I
passed a truck quickly and then heard something behind me. A piece of
a steel part or hold down or something had fallen off the truck and
landed in the road behind me. People have been crushed by steel coils
falling off flat bed trucks. You don't sit there along side of them
taking minutes to complete a simple pass.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796613 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:47 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <26f0ea16-2978-4800-ab20-8ebc2a949476 [at] q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 1:28 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>> In article <b14d5522-b66f-4c15-a6b1-db2817f36... [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [BP:]
>>> The license to drive has ZERO to do with safety. Intially drivers
>>> licensing didn't even have a test! Just pay the fee and here's a license.
>> That's history, and libertarian whining. You can't pretend licensing
>> currently has zero to do with safety. Otherwise, why aren't 12-year-
>> olds given licenses? Why do egregious, repeated drunks eventually
>> lose their licenses - at least, occasionally? Why do they bother to
>> tally points on licenses?
>
> The safety angle is for show. Licensing wasn't about safety initially and
> it isn't now. NH is planning to supend the DL's of people who get lost in
> the woods while HIKING. Some states pull a DL for not paying child
> support. Drunks losing their DL? well, hell that's from the work of the
> MADD neo-prohibitionists. (MADD's founder left and calls them
> prohibitionists) Points? Lol... states and local towns give all sorts of
> outs if you just PAY them. The only way someone loses their license these
> days is because they didn't pay government or the law system enough cash.
> Haven't you noticed that it's generally POOR people that lose their DL.
> The ones that cannot hire lawyers and can't pay the fines?[...]
One of the primary reasons for suspended driver's licenses around here
is unpaid parking tickets.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796614 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:54 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> But in any case, you have admitted to *slowing down* in the process of
>>>>> passing a truck because a following driver offended you somehow.
>>>>> That ought to be illegal... oh wait, it is.
>>>>>
>>>> It ought to be illegal to use a vehicle in such an offensive and
>>>> aggressive manner.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree, deliberately blocking traffic is offensive and
>>> aggressive. Your driver's license, please?
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>> (seriously. start driving like a reasonable person or stay the fuck
>>> off the road. There's enough assholes on the road already.)
>>>
>> So are you one of those people who weaves back and forth through
>> traffic thinking everyone should get the hell out of their way? That
>> is who you are defending here.
>>
>
> No, I'm one of those people who simply expects others to follow the
> rules of the road. I'm actually one of the slower drivers in my area,
> not that it really matters. People are going to drive at speeds
> different from one another; that's a fact of life and you can't do
> anything about it. What you *can* do is be courteous and accomodating,
> so everyone gets where they're going with a minimum of hassle and
> frustration.
>
Well, I am referring to driver's whose expectation is that everyone else
get the hell out of their way. These people are invariably driving
vehicles that cost 2 to 3 times the mean vehicle price.
> It's not up to you to make a judgement call as to the reasonableness of
> another vehicle operator's speed. If you misjudge and inadvertantly
> hold someone up for a few seconds while passing, that's an honest
> mistake.
>
If it is a honest mistake, does that allow for the driver being delayed
one or two seconds the right to act like an asshole?
> But if you deliberately hold them up, that's
> "passive-aggressive driving" in my book and just as unacceptable as
> tailgating, cutting someone off, etc.
>
When someone else acts like an asshole first without provocation, should
one give in and let the MFFY bastards win? In the passing the semi-truck
situation, if the third driver stays back a couple of vehicle lengths, I
will speed up and return to the right lane as soon as possible. If they
try to intimidate me off the road, to hell with them. They can sit and stew.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796615 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 21:59 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <fqcbk6$ua4$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>>
>> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
>> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass should
>> complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as it is safe.
>> The driver of the faster third vehicle has the expectation that vehicles
>> will move over to the right lane as soon as it is safe, and should
>> maintain a safe following distance until that occurs. Pulling up two
>> feet of someone's bumper and flashing the "brights" in that situation is
>> just being an asshole. Try acting the same way in a pedestrian queue,
>> and you will rightfully get your ass kicked.
>>
>> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come up
>> behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country) and
>> tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is not of
>> correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but simply that
>> the "lesser" people get out of their road.
>
> Try passing properly. I never have that happen to me and here's why... I
> pass and get it over with. Especially with a truck. Sitting along side a
> truck passing it with a tiny speed differential is dangerous. It's
> saying, 'let's sit here next to big truck to maximize our chances of
> being impacted by tire blowing out, cargo falling off, etc'. Once I
> passed a truck quickly and then heard something behind me. A piece of
> a steel part or hold down or something had fallen off the truck and
> landed in the road behind me. People have been crushed by steel coils
> falling off flat bed trucks. You don't sit there along side of them
> taking minutes to complete a simple pass.
>
Generally I agree. However, if when a change into the left lane to pass,
and someone who is zig-zagging through traffic pulls up two feet behind
me and starts flashing their high-beams, they are just behaving like
jerks and I will not accommodate them.
Tell the person in front of you in a pedestrian queue to "get the fuck
out of the road" and see what reaction you get.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796616 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 22:18 |
|
In article <fqcg2o$kka$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Brent P? wrote:
>> In article <fqcbk6$ua4$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>>>
>>> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
>>> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass should
>>> complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as it is safe.
>>> The driver of the faster third vehicle has the expectation that vehicles
>>> will move over to the right lane as soon as it is safe, and should
>>> maintain a safe following distance until that occurs. Pulling up two
>>> feet of someone's bumper and flashing the "brights" in that situation is
>>> just being an asshole. Try acting the same way in a pedestrian queue,
>>> and you will rightfully get your ass kicked.
>>>
>>> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come up
>>> behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country) and
>>> tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is not of
>>> correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but simply that
>>> the "lesser" people get out of their road.
>>
>> Try passing properly. I never have that happen to me and here's why... I
>> pass and get it over with. Especially with a truck. Sitting along side a
>> truck passing it with a tiny speed differential is dangerous. It's
>> saying, 'let's sit here next to big truck to maximize our chances of
>> being impacted by tire blowing out, cargo falling off, etc'. Once I
>> passed a truck quickly and then heard something behind me. A piece of
>> a steel part or hold down or something had fallen off the truck and
>> landed in the road behind me. People have been crushed by steel coils
>> falling off flat bed trucks. You don't sit there along side of them
>> taking minutes to complete a simple pass.
>>
> Generally I agree. However, if when a change into the left lane to pass,
> and someone who is zig-zagging through traffic pulls up two feet behind
> me and starts flashing their high-beams, they are just behaving like
> jerks and I will not accommodate them.
When I see someone blocking the passing lane from way back, like a 1/4
mile I start with the left turn signal. Then at about an 1/8 mile I flash
the fog lamps. at about half that the flash-to-pass. If they've ignored
all that, then it's not me who is the asshole. By the time I get to flash
to pass there has been an opening for them to move right for some time
and they have just refused to do so.
> Tell the person in front of you in a pedestrian queue to "get the fuck
> out of the road" and see what reaction you get.
Flash-to-pass means 'you're blocking the passing lane, please move right
like you are supposed to'. The problem is the news media and others think
it means 'get the fuck off the road'. It doesn't.
The pedestrian equal to flash to pass, would be 'excuse me, could you
move to the right' or at the very worst, a polite 'coming through!' as
one would see in a busy resturant kitchen scene or something.
Sadly due to decades of 'speed kills' and more recently 'road rage'
nonsense, flashing the high beams taught many people wrongly that it is
an aggressive bullying signal. It just isn't and never was. It's
communication no different than a turn signal. Although a long dash of a
the high beams does indicate that the driver sending the signal considers
the other one to be an asshole.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796619 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 22:29 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <fqcg2o$kka$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Brent P? wrote:
>>> In article <fqcbk6$ua4$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>>>>
>>>> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
>>>> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass should
>>>> complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as it is safe.
>>>> The driver of the faster third vehicle has the expectation that vehicles
>>>> will move over to the right lane as soon as it is safe, and should
>>>> maintain a safe following distance until that occurs. Pulling up two
>>>> feet of someone's bumper and flashing the "brights" in that situation is
>>>> just being an asshole. Try acting the same way in a pedestrian queue,
>>>> and you will rightfully get your ass kicked.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come up
>>>> behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country) and
>>>> tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is not of
>>>> correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but simply that
>>>> the "lesser" people get out of their road.
>>> Try passing properly. I never have that happen to me and here's why... I
>>> pass and get it over with. Especially with a truck. Sitting along side a
>>> truck passing it with a tiny speed differential is dangerous. It's
>>> saying, 'let's sit here next to big truck to maximize our chances of
>>> being impacted by tire blowing out, cargo falling off, etc'. Once I
>>> passed a truck quickly and then heard something behind me. A piece of
>>> a steel part or hold down or something had fallen off the truck and
>>> landed in the road behind me. People have been crushed by steel coils
>>> falling off flat bed trucks. You don't sit there along side of them
>>> taking minutes to complete a simple pass.
>>>
>> Generally I agree. However, if when a change into the left lane to pass,
>> and someone who is zig-zagging through traffic pulls up two feet behind
>> me and starts flashing their high-beams, they are just behaving like
>> jerks and I will not accommodate them.
>
> When I see someone blocking the passing lane from way back, like a 1/4
> mile I start with the left turn signal. Then at about an 1/8 mile I flash
> the fog lamps. at about half that the flash-to-pass. If they've ignored
> all that, then it's not me who is the asshole. By the time I get to flash
> to pass there has been an opening for them to move right for some time
> and they have just refused to do so.
>
Do you do it if they passing a semi-truck at a speed at least 10 mph
faster than the truck and before they could physically get back to the
right lane?
>> Tell the person in front of you in a pedestrian queue to "get the fuck
>> out of the road" and see what reaction you get.
>
> Flash-to-pass means 'you're blocking the passing lane, please move right
> like you are supposed to'. The problem is the news media and others think
> it means 'get the fuck off the road'. It doesn't.
>
So when I am in the right lane and someone pulls right up behind me and
flashes the high-beams several times, what does it mean? That I should
get off the road completely? And why do only the drivers of large and/or
expensive vehicles do so?
> The pedestrian equal to flash to pass, would be 'excuse me, could you
> move to the right' or at the very worst, a polite 'coming through!' as
> one would see in a busy resturant kitchen scene or something.
>
> Sadly due to decades of 'speed kills' and more recently 'road rage'
> nonsense, flashing the high beams taught many people wrongly that it is
> an aggressive bullying signal. It just isn't and never was. It's
> communication no different than a turn signal. Although a long dash of a
> the high beams does indicate that the driver sending the signal considers
> the other one to be an asshole.
>
There is a difference between a "flash-to-pass" from a distance, and
when it is done from less than 5 feet in an inappropriate situation.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796620 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 23:02 |
|
In article <fqchsh$stm$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Brent P? wrote:
>> In article <fqcg2o$kka$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Brent P? wrote:
>>>> In article <fqcbk6$ua4$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is when you should lose your driver's license.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, if someone is in the act of already passing the truck when the
>>>>> faster third vehicle catches up, the driver who started the pass should
>>>>> complete the pass and pull back to the right lane as soon as it is safe.
>>>>> The driver of the faster third vehicle has the expectation that vehicles
>>>>> will move over to the right lane as soon as it is safe, and should
>>>>> maintain a safe following distance until that occurs. Pulling up two
>>>>> feet of someone's bumper and flashing the "brights" in that situation is
>>>>> just being an asshole. Try acting the same way in a pedestrian queue,
>>>>> and you will rightfully get your ass kicked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, these drivers are often the same assholes that will come up
>>>>> behind someone in the RIGHT LANE (in a right-hand drive country) and
>>>>> tailgate at 2 feet with their "brights" on. Their expectation is not of
>>>>> correct behavior (as would be expected in say Germany), but simply that
>>>>> the "lesser" people get out of their road.
>>>> Try passing properly. I never have that happen to me and here's why... I
>>>> pass and get it over with. Especially with a truck. Sitting along side a
>>>> truck passing it with a tiny speed differential is dangerous. It's
>>>> saying, 'let's sit here next to big truck to maximize our chances of
>>>> being impacted by tire blowing out, cargo falling off, etc'. Once I
>>>> passed a truck quickly and then heard something behind me. A piece of
>>>> a steel part or hold down or something had fallen off the truck and
>>>> landed in the road behind me. People have been crushed by steel coils
>>>> falling off flat bed trucks. You don't sit there along side of them
>>>> taking minutes to complete a simple pass.
>>>>
>>> Generally I agree. However, if when a change into the left lane to pass,
>>> and someone who is zig-zagging through traffic pulls up two feet behind
>>> me and starts flashing their high-beams, they are just behaving like
>>> jerks and I will not accommodate them.
>>
>> When I see someone blocking the passing lane from way back, like a 1/4
>> mile I start with the left turn signal. Then at about an 1/8 mile I flash
>> the fog lamps. at about half that the flash-to-pass. If they've ignored
>> all that, then it's not me who is the asshole. By the time I get to flash
>> to pass there has been an opening for them to move right for some time
>> and they have just refused to do so.
> Do you do it if they passing a semi-truck at a speed at least 10 mph
> faster than the truck and before they could physically get back to the
> right lane?
Why should it take them long enough to pass a single semi for me to even
get close to them?
>>> Tell the person in front of you in a pedestrian queue to "get the fuck
>>> out of the road" and see what reaction you get.
>> Flash-to-pass means 'you're blocking the passing lane, please move right
>> like you are supposed to'. The problem is the news media and others think
>> it means 'get the fuck off the road'. It doesn't.
> So when I am in the right lane and someone pulls right up behind me and
> flashes the high-beams several times, what does it mean? That I should
> get off the road completely? And why do only the drivers of large and/or
> expensive vehicles do so?
I can count on one hand the number of asshats that have flashed me in the
right lane. And that was because they were tailgating me so I
took my foot off the accelerator to slow to the posted minimum and then
they flashed the highbeams. It's the right lane and there is no
expectation of going anywhere else.
There have been a couple instances where I have flashed someone in the
right lane but those were people who cut me off. I would be traveling in
the right lane and some slower driver would wait to the last possible
second and then cut over to the right without a signal forcing me to
brake to avoid him. The flash was an attempt to wake them up, but they knew
what they were doing, they just didn't want someone getting by their
rolling road block. These are the typical 'none-shall-pass'
passive-aggressive types out there.
>> The pedestrian equal to flash to pass, would be 'excuse me, could you
>> move to the right' or at the very worst, a polite 'coming through!' as
>> one would see in a busy resturant kitchen scene or something.
>> Sadly due to decades of 'speed kills' and more recently 'road rage'
>> nonsense, flashing the high beams taught many people wrongly that it is
>> an aggressive bullying signal. It just isn't and never was. It's
>> communication no different than a turn signal. Although a long dash of a
>> the high beams does indicate that the driver sending the signal considers
>> the other one to be an asshole.
>
> There is a difference between a "flash-to-pass" from a distance, and
> when it is done from less than 5 feet in an inappropriate situation.
What are you babbling about? I don't understand how you people have this
problem with people flashing you and you claim to be driving correctly
and not blocking up passing lanes. I practice a strict keep right except
to pass and pass swiftly and it just doesn't happen to me. And it's not
like I am driving in bu-fu either, I am driving urban/suburban
expressways in and around chicago. Sometimes I drive faster than most,
sometimes I drive slower than most. I just don't have this problem. I
pass, I get it over with, I move right. Usually the person coming up
behind me doesn't even get within the length of a semi of me. If I am
trapped some asshats will get too close, but that's because I am blocked
by the driver in front of me.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796621 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 23:07 |
|
On Mar 1, 12:55 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 1:19 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> > Nate Nagel said "I don't see how any cyclist could say with a straight
> > face that he's somehow exempt from this same common-sense rule,"
>
> yes, I said that.
>
> > that
> > is, to ride only when wearing certain colors.
>
> No. I said, *IF THE CYCLIST IS NOT GOING TO USE LIGHTS AFTER DARK* he
> should at least make some attempt to be conspicuous through clothing.
If you'll allow any color of clothing on a properly lit cyclist, then
we're in complete agreement on this issue. I've already said (more
than once) that cyclists must be made to use lights.
The same is not true of pedestrians, however. Instead, motorists (and
cyclists) should understand that pedestrians may be around, and should
have enough lights, and low enough speeds, to avoid them, no matter
what they wear.
>
> > I'm asking for accountability, and adherence to laws. I'm asking that
> > motorists don't try to put further burdens on vulnerable road users.
>
> So we at least agree on one thing.
>
> How about the other road users not put further burdens on motorists?
> Could you at least throw us a bone, here? We're not *trying* to hit
> you, you know.
Sorry, Nate, but I believe we've thrown far too many bones to
motorists in the past 100 years. We've already re-designed most of
America so you can't walk to the store, or even (in many cases) from
one store to another that's adjacent. We've gutted public
transportation, we've all but eliminated long distance trains, we've
spent fortunes subsidizing motoring. Motorists now complain if a trip
takes anything less than its theoretical minimum time. They need to
grow some patience.
Walking is THE fundamental means of transport. Pedestrians have given
up too much already. And bicycles already have sufficient
regulations; the existing ones just need to be taught and enforced.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796622 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 23:16 |
|
On Mar 1, 12:58 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > <sigh> You've missed the most important distinction. Here it is
> > again: Bicyclists almost exclusively harm only themselves, in the rare
> > cases they cause any harm at all.
>
> You mean in a bike-car collision ONLY the bike and cyclist is damaged?
> Somehow I find that hard to believe.
If you want to compare total damages by cyclists vs motorists, you
can't propose adding in only the tiny car dings caused by bicyclists,
Nate. You'll have to add in all the millions of dented body panels
caused by other motorists. Then we could also add damages to
buildings, street signs, utility poles, and all the rest.
IOW, we could start looking for estimates of total non-medical damage
caused by drivers, per year, in the US. But it seems obvious it's not
going to do your argument any good. There is absolutely no way
cyclists do anything like the damage that motorists do.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796623 ] |
Sat, 01 March 2008 23:18 |
|
|
On Mar 1, 1:12 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote: | |
|
