|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796712 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:14 |
|
In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d61c [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
Don't be disingenuous; by your own testimony you work to reduce speed
limits and add traffic-impeding devices.
--
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 #796713 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:21 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <a95dcebd-680e-4bed-b531-17e0c30dc2c8 [at] x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> <frkrygow [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Hey, if you don't want to do it, don't do it; there's no law requiring
> it. But if, while wearing your dark, nonreflective clothing at
> night, walking down a traffic lane, a driver doesn't see
> you and runs you over, don't expect that your family will get much of
> a settlement.
>
Yep, juries are mostly composed of selfish cagers.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cross-posted Usenet thread today [message #796714 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:26 |
|
Jym Dyer wrote (in full):
> =x= But it sure wasn't this one.
> <_Jym_>
Got THAT right! LOL
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796715 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:27 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a reasonable expectation, if they are driving faster than
>>>>> the main flow and traffic isn't jammed up.
>>>>>
>>>> And how often does that apply to the right lane of an urban
>>>> interstate? Should people get out of the right (i.e. slow) lane to
>>>> let faster traffic by? Should not the faster traffic be passing on
>>>> the left?
>>>>
>>>>>> These people are invariably driving vehicles that cost 2 to 3
>>>>>> times the mean vehicle price.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Envy much?
>>>>>
>>>> No, people of a certain class believe that they have special
>>>> privileges that lower classes do not.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's only one or two seconds, they probably won't act like an
>>>>> asshole. If it's "as long as possible," well, people are human.
>>>>>
>>>> My experience is that they act like jerks if they have to slow down
>>>> say 5 mph for one of two seconds.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're as much of an asshole as anyone else on the road. Got it.
>>>>>
>>>> And you are one of the people that acts like a jerk? Got it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is where the thread denigrates to IKYABWAI, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Except in this instance, I *am* a courteous driver and you *are* the
>>> asshole.
>>>
>> Opinion stated as fact.
>
> Well, it may be my *opinion* that I am a courteous driver, but you have
> yet to accuse me of one discourteous behaviour that I actually exhibit.
>
No, according to your postings you think everyone should get the hell
our of YOUR road.
> You however have admitted to being an asshole on the road.
>
When did not giving into a bully turn into assholic behavior?
> One would think that someone (presumably) posting from a biking group
> would be a little more concerned about road safety and driving
> correctly, but I guess not.
>
Yes, someone zig-zagging through traffic at speeds significantly higher
then the general flow, cutting people off, and aggressively tailgating
is being a safe driver? And you are upset that someone does not speed up
to an unsafe speed to avoid delaying someone who behaves this way a
second or two?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796717 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:33 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <fqd2rs$77t$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph, but anyway... I just don't
>>> have anyone come out of nowhere up on to my bumper when I move out to
>>> pass. Sometimes it happens when I am cruising over to the right, but
>>> generally those folks are doing over 100mph.
>
>> Well, the large trucks often do not move faster than that due to traffic.
>
> Only when no one else is IME.
>
Well, in urban traffic the trucks generally move more slowly than the
cars, due to slow acceleration.
>>>> Well, I have found that being aggressively tailgated in the right lane
>>>> is a daily occurrence.
>>> I've had semi's a few feet off my bumper in the right lane. They don't
>>> flash however until after I've slowed because of their tailgating. And I
>>> can only think of one that flashed. Most use the airhorn or get even
>>> closer.
>
>> I have found plenty of people in smaller vehicles do the same thing -
>> many of them with HID lights (which generally indicates a more
>> expensive, newer vehicle).
>
> IME Tailgating yes, flashing... rarely.
>
>>> I was going my chosen speed in the right most lane. The question is, why
>>> were they in the middle and left lanes if they weren't passing anyone.
>
>> Well, they are ignorant or badly behaved for driving slower than traffic
>> in the middle and/or left lanes, but that does not excuse passing them
>> on the right.
>
> Excuse? Why does it have to be excused? It's not illegal and no way am I
> going to give some LLB control freak the power to sit in the left lane
> and force everyone else to go his chosen speed.
>
Illegal and wrong are two different things. Passing on the right is poor
behavior, and if the legislature had some sense in the matter, it would
be a moving violation (as would being a "left lane bandit"). Neither
behavior would be tolerated in a civilized country.
>>>> Yes, I have driven quite a bit in Chicagoland, and it is not unusual to
>>>> start to pass a truck on the left, and to be blocked from completing the
>>>> pass by a vehicle ahead. When this occurs it should be obvious to any
>>>> driver following me what is happening, so it is ridiculous for them to
>>>> aggressively tailgate in that instance. But yet it frequently happens.
>
>>> And I let them have my spot. Then I find a way around on the right and
>>> leave the asshat stuck there.
>
>> Passing on the right again?
>
> Perfectly legal under IL law. Again why do you want to empower LLBs? Are
> you one?
>
No, I spend as little time in the left lane as possible. But I will not
pass on the right, even if some jerk is following me at a distance of 5
feet.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796718 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:33 |
|
In article <fqc8740jnn [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> 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.
Or better, the trucker forgets you're there and moves on over.
--
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 #796719 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:35 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, when it's done at less than 5 feet it means you're blocking.
>>>>>
>>>> Even when there is a vehicle ahead that prevents one from going any
>>>> faster?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, then, the guy in *front* of you is an asshole. You should
>>> flash to pass to let him know that he's holding up the whole passing
>>> process.
>>>
>> And where is the justification for the person behind me to follow too
>> closely in that situation?
>
> You can't control the actions of others, and it is not your place to
> "punish" other drivers for their perceived slights, simply to do your
> part by yourself driving in a proper, courteous manner. What are you,
> four? "But MOOOOOMMMMMM... he was (doing x)" was never a justification
> for any assholish behavior, as far as I recall.
>
So you enjoy giving in to bullies. I do not. That is simple enough to
understand.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796720 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:37 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <fqd2vn$77t$3 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> Well, then, the guy in *front* of you is an asshole. You should flash
>>> to pass to let him know that he's holding up the whole passing process.
>>>
>> And where is the justification for the person behind me to follow too
>> closely in that situation?
>
> There generally isn't. But you should be doing something to correct the
> problem.
>
Such as what? Committing the equally bad offense of passing on the
right? Should I drive off onto the left-hand shoulder or into the median
to let the person behind by, so he/she can tailgate the slow person in
the left lane?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796722 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:39 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <fqc8740jnn [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> 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.
>
> Or better, the trucker forgets you're there and moves on over.
That would also take out the impatient bully behind me - that might be YOU!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796723 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 23:51 |
|
In article <51f3617d-5eec-4007-a848-a1595f6dc344 [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wow. I've specifically explained roughly a dozen times in this thread
>that I _do_ want cyclists to follow the rules of the road. How is it
>that you forget? How confused can you be?
How many mid-block stop signs do you think an average cyclist will
stop for?
>Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. Motorists kill
>40,000 "others" every year.
Liar. The majority of those killed are motorists.
--
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 #796726 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 00:26 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <dd4ec975-b4cb-47a9-840f-595a7b2e9... [at] u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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,
>>
>>Tiny dings my ass. You should have seen the big ass dent I mostly pushed
>>out of the fender of my grandmother's car where some kid on a bike ...
>
>
> Your horror story doesn't matter, Brent. As I said, the number of
> dented fenders caused by other cars absolutely overwhelms the tiny
> number caused by bicycles.
>
> You are so deep into your car worship that you've lost all sense of
> proportion.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
around here suck.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796727 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 00:27 |
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <fqc5ic1hd2 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Why do you assume the cyclist is the irresponsible stranger?
Because I don't know them and they're irresponsible. Duh.
> If life
> has so little value to you, do you also support summary execution of
> drivers found to be at fault in a crash?
I support strong penalties for vehicular manslaughter or homicide where
appropriate.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796728 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 00:28 |
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <fqc6uv1icg [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> You've already made your observation bias very clear. If you actually
> want to make a *scientific* observation, just camp out at one of the
> intersection you think the oh-so-bad cyclists are causing all the
> trouble at and record *all* the traffic over the course of a day (or,
> better, longer). My hypothesis is that you'll find cars cause each
> other far more trouble than cyclists.
>
If I didn't have a Real Job(tm) to go to, I'd do it, and wager money on
it. I'm sure I'm right.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796729 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 00:32 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a reasonable expectation, if they are driving faster than
>>>>>> the main flow and traffic isn't jammed up.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And how often does that apply to the right lane of an urban
>>>>> interstate? Should people get out of the right (i.e. slow) lane to
>>>>> let faster traffic by? Should not the faster traffic be passing on
>>>>> the left?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> These people are invariably driving vehicles that cost 2 to 3
>>>>>>> times the mean vehicle price.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Envy much?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, people of a certain class believe that they have special
>>>>> privileges that lower classes do not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's only one or two seconds, they probably won't act like an
>>>>>> asshole. If it's "as long as possible," well, people are human.
>>>>>>
>>>>> My experience is that they act like jerks if they have to slow down
>>>>> say 5 mph for one of two seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're as much of an asshole as anyone else on the road. Got it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And you are one of the people that acts like a jerk? Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this is where the thread denigrates to IKYABWAI, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Except in this instance, I *am* a courteous driver and you *are* the
>>>> asshole.
>>>>
>>> Opinion stated as fact.
>>
>>
>> Well, it may be my *opinion* that I am a courteous driver, but you
>> have yet to accuse me of one discourteous behaviour that I actually
>> exhibit.
>
> >
> No, according to your postings you think everyone should get the hell
> our of YOUR road.
>
No, I said slower traffic should yield to faster traffic. I am usually
"slower traffic." Where in the world did you get the idea this was all
about me? We're talking basic courtesy and first day behind the wheel
Driver's Ed stuff, here.
>> You however have admitted to being an asshole on the road.
>>
> When did not giving into a bully turn into assholic behavior?
Slowing down to "let someone stew" is definitely assaholic. Especially
when you can't possibly know what he's thinking; he may have no ill
intent toward you at all, just crept up a little closer than you'd like.
>> One would think that someone (presumably) posting from a biking group
>> would be a little more concerned about road safety and driving
>> correctly, but I guess not.
>>
> Yes, someone zig-zagging through traffic at speeds significantly higher
> then the general flow, cutting people off, and aggressively tailgating
> is being a safe driver?
Where did I advocate any of that? Please post cites.
> And you are upset that someone does not speed up
> to an unsafe speed to avoid delaying someone who behaves this way a
> second or two?
I am upset that you admit to slowing down to apparently teach other
drivers a lesson. Grow the fuck up already.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796737 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 02:06 |
|
In article <fqfd3f0lh9 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> writes:
>> Your horror story doesn't matter, Brent. As I said, the number of
>> dented fenders caused by other cars absolutely overwhelms the tiny
>> number caused by bicycles.
>>
>> You are so deep into your car worship that you've lost all sense of
>> proportion.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
> do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
> around here suck.
Your local cyclists are probably also some of your
local drivers. Same attitudes, just a different
medium (vehicle type) with which to express them.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796749 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:33 |
|
In article <df9b6e5a-5e4d-4a56-bb3f-1963060184ce [at] u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <dd4ec975-b4cb-47a9-840f-595a7b2e9... [at] u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > 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,
>>
>> Tiny dings my ass. You should have seen the big ass dent I mostly pushed
>> out of the fender of my grandmother's car where some kid on a bike ...
>
> Your horror story doesn't matter, Brent. As I said, the number of
> dented fenders caused by other cars absolutely overwhelms the tiny
> number caused by bicycles.
>
> You are so deep into your car worship that you've lost all sense of
> proportion.
Frank, stop being an asshole. I didn't say it was a horror story,
although my grandmother was rather concerned about the kid. Anyway, it
was to point out the fact that bicycles can do a lot more damage to car
than you think they can.
As far as car worship... it's a Ford Tempo (a low optioned one at that) for
crying out loud.... do you feel stupid now? I hope so.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796750 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:34 |
|
In article <063afda9-3835-4070-a5a9-90994d650d11 [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:36 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <e0b9bcce-1eaa-4b7e-a7ae-0f46b8d79... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > risk to anyone else but motorists. For one simple example, I'm sure
>> > that nearly 100% of motorists speed through school zones.
>>
>> I drive through two school zones every day on my commute to and from
>> work. I take different routes each way, two different schools. I don't
>> speed in either of them. However in the one on the way home I am
>> tailgated, usually by the parents heading to the school to pick up their
>> precious little snowflake.
>>
>> > But it
>> > would take extreme callousness to say we should let them drive through
>> > those zones as fast as 85% want to.
>>
>> You have no understanding of the 85th percentile method ...
>
> I'd dispute that in detail if it were worthwhile to dispute. The
> point is, you are always asking that speed limits be raised. That's
> typical motorist behavior, seeking ever more privileges.
I want safer conditions for my bicycling and my driving. How is that a
special privilege?
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796751 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:36 |
|
In article <8eByj.783$Td2.208 [at] trndny08>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I didn't say anything about clothing. What is inconsistant about your
>> view is that you adopt the 'speed kills' nonsense but not the nonsense of
>> the helmet zealots. In other words you can make your own safety choices
>> just fine but everyone else are morons that need to be controlled.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
>
> Because I'm laissez faire on bicycle helmet use, to maintain
> consistency I should therefor believe traffic should be left
> to regulate itself? Or at least speed limits should be left
> to individual standards?
You are willing to trust the individual in one instance but not another.
><sigh>
> OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control.
No. I am very much for strict right of way rules. Nice strawman attempt
however.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796754 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:45 |
|
In article <a29e6c03-ba91-4a52-995a-dab11e8f997e [at] 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> If you feel that way, I suggest you contact the one guy in that video
> who was actually making that argument and go argue with him. Don't
> bother _me_ about his argument; I've already stated repeatedly that I
> disagree with him.
You are spewing the same crap about motorist privilege and that
bicyclists don't hurt anyone to excuse bicycle riders ignoring right of
way rules. Just because he's stronger about it than you makes no
difference, it's the same crap.
>> > The consistent factor is this: You don't want to be delayed when
>> > you're driving.
>> I told you before frank, it doesn't bother me so much when I am driving.
>> It bothers me when I am BIKING.
> Hmm. I don't recall you ever complaining about that in a thread that
> didn't include rec.autos.driving. I wonder why.
I haven't followed the bicycle news groups for years frank. I got sick
you and the other assholes, and yes, I probably did complain about it,
but I believe I stopped following the bicycle newsgroups last century so
you'll have to go digging. It's always been my stance on speed control
stop signs, they are more annoying on bicycle.
My car doesn't get tired. I do. After a long hard ride it's a pain to
stop and then punch back up to 20+mph every few hundred feet.
>> > humps. Your predictions of gouged pavement, broken car parts, etc.
>> > have not come true, AFAIK. Stop whining. Slow down.
>>
>> Your sample of one doesn't coung.
> Well, it counts for the people that live there! The racer-boys aren't
> so happy, but the resident's don't care about them.
Well, maybe when one of them dies because of the issue ambulances have
with speed humps their thoughts will change.
>> > Excellent! Another success - reducing motor vehicle traffic!
>> I won't bike there either, Frank. And guess what, less sales tax
>> revenue requires more property tax revenue.
> Sales tax generated in a residential neighborhood? :-) Once you get
> going, you're pretty funny!
Oh, it's not a real town then... it has no businesses near by... I see. I
guess I am spoiled by the walking nature of much of the chicago area
where the businesses are located on the outside of the residential
areas so one can walk out to the businesses. I'm sorry you live in such a
horrid area where the businesses are miles from the homes. Sorry, I just
assumed they were within walking distance of the residences... given your
hate of the automobile I just figured you lived in such a place where you
could walk to stores, banks, etc. My mistake.
> Slow down and think, Brent.
I dunno... I can walk to stores from both homes I have.....
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796757 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:51 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-C81515.11315102032008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <b7GdnY4lNrfXIFTanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> upgrade my equipement? WTF are you babbling about? Both my car and my
>> bicycle exceed the requirements.
>
> What requirements? Legal requirements might be a baseline, but if
> you're bitching about not being able to see other cyclists and/or
> pedestrians then you clearly need something more.
Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't bitching about seeing
properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.
>> 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.
> When did *I* ever say a bike couldn't kill? When did I ever say running
> a red light isn't worrisome? You have some serious reading
> comprehension issues.
This whole thread is apparently a bunch of militant bicyclists (and I
thought I was a militant bicyclist, guess I was wrong) who are defending
all sorts of poor bicycle riding with excuses.
I'll know the bicycle newsgroups have fallen when you people start
defending on and off sidewalk riding.
>> >> 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.
> Just because it is "everyday physics" has nothing to do with learning
> the rules of the road.
You stated they learned the rolling stop from car drivers.... *sigh* pick
something and stick with it.
> As I stated, but you so neatly clipped, car
> drivers aren't burdened by the physics of accelerating their massive
> vehicles, so they should have learned to stop all the time. We see
> mommy and daddy doing it so much that, by the time we get bikes, we do
> it too, with the slight added bonus that we get less tired.
I guess you've never driven a manual transmission car or in snow. Take a
car with RWD and a front mounted engine. Put 3 inches of snow on the
ground. Now come to complete stop and compare that to just barely rolling
with regards to getting going again.
>> > 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.
>
> So, what, unwilling to do a little simple math? It's particularly funny
> that you're backpedaling from *your* argument that it's an issue of
> physics.
I never made any such argument. You must be entirely daft. I stated that
the 'rolling stop' is something that doesn't have to be learned from
another person, it's natural. That's not a physics argument. DUh.
> I'm quite willing to have the law changed to take into account
> the kinetic energy or momentum of *any* vehicle that doesn't come to a
> complete stop. I know that doesn't support your silly desire to blow
> through stops in your car, but it's certainly more fair than your
> misguided notion that bikes are the scourge of road physics.
You're just being an idiot, probably on purpose. I have no energy for
this stupidity of yours.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796758 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:57 |
|
In article <51f3617d-5eec-4007-a848-a1595f6dc344 [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <87a75f5f-b334-4c2d-9ed4-f0f7633d8... [at] h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, 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. 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.
>>
>> > Again, the rest of even our car-crazy American society understands
>> > this perfectly, and thus imposes more restrictions on motorists than
>> > cyclists. It takes an extremely car-crazy motorhead to fail to
>> > understand these facts.
>>
>> What is this babble supposed to be frank? An argument for bicyclists not
>> needing to follow the rules of the road?
>
> Wow. I've specifically explained roughly a dozen times in this thread
> that I _do_ want cyclists to follow the rules of the road. How is it
> that you forget? How confused can you be?
Your words don't match Frank. You say you want bicyclists to follow the
rules of the road and then you go babbling on and on about why it doesn't
matter if they follow the rules of the road. Which is it Frank? You sound
like the woman who wants a nice guy but then falls for a jerk all the
time. You say you want bicyclists to follow the rules of the road and
then make excuses ('they won't kill anyone but themselves') for all the
jerks on two wheels that don't.
>> > Brent, which do you want to talk about? Rates? Fine. Your argument
>> > is even weaker than talking about total numbers. Cyclist-caused
>> > fatalities are vanishingly rare. If divided by cycling miles, the
>> > result would be infinitesmal.
>> Cyclist caused fatalities? I see you have a very warped view. I guess you
>> don't count a bicyclist running a red signal and getting killed as
>> cyclist caused? It's cyclist caused.
> Wow! Read the top paragraph once again. Read it slowly, out loud.
> Read it three times. And take notes. Perhaps _then_ you'll retain it
> long enough to generate coherent thought.
I understand it. You have a warped idea of 'cyclist caused'.
> Here's the kernel, yet again: "Society is, very logically, much more
> concerned about harm a person imposes on others."
This society? Not really. This sceity is concerned about money and
power. If you have money and power you can harm anyone you want for the
most part.
> If you kill yourself by eating into gross obesity, doing drugs, bungee
> jumping using a rubber band, driving your car sideways off a canyon
> curve, or riding your bike through a red light into a busy four-lane,
> that's one thing. It's your own stupidity.
This society is filled with laws to protect people from themselves. I
think you missed the last few decades.
> If you kill others by driving your car through a crowded pedestrian
> crosswalk, or ignoring a red light, or driving too fast for
> conditions, that's another thing entirely.
> Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. Motorists kill
> 40,000 "others" every year. If you can't understand the distinction,
> you're not worth further communication.
'it's ok to be a jerk on a bicycle because you'll only kill yourself and
that's not cyclist caused'
> Likewise, if you can't retain what's been said for a span of five or
> six posts, you're not worth further communication.
Can't take what you dish out Frank? Figured as much. And hell I only gave
you a little of what you've been spewing at me and others.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796759 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:59 |
|
In article <XBCyj.1641$4D2.203 [at] trndny06>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <ec26d7fb-850a-43d7-9088-a5526f3c6ef2 [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>If I do that, then find I'm looking at a radar gun, will the patrolman
>>>accept my excuse that I had to speed way up to save the tailgater a
>>>few seconds?
>>
>> When I am affraid of the revenuers I don't pass to go a couple mph
>> faster. You're so anti-speed anyway, why don't you just drive slower and
>> stay in the right lane?
> First, I don't feel the need to answer to someone's impatience by
> accelerating to higher speed than I want to go just so that person
> astern of me won't be inconvenienced.
Typical Me, first, fuck you behavior.
> As long as I'm doing the speed limit or beyond, the guy astern will
> just have to wait and all the horn blowing and flashing of lights
> (and wailing and gnashing of teeth) isn't gonna get him by me any
> faster. He can (and that ilk probably will) flip me off as he passes.
Me first fuck you behavior on your part. You have to be an asshole, cut
in front and slow someone else down because of your own sign number
morality.
> But I'm finding your suggestion above becoming more and more useful.
> Here in MA (and other high volume interstate states), people largely
> park themselves in the left lane, often not going any faster than
> those in the middle or right lanes. They're afraid (I presume) of
> being "stranded" in a rightward lane going "too slow", so they just
> park themselves in the left (passing) lane instead, bullying the
> person ahead of them to move on, while ignoring the person behind
> them doing the same).
>
> I found I can do 62-65 mph with cruise control set in the right
> lane and rarely have to be concerned with coasting, resume, on, off
> changes to the control. *Everyone* is passing me and I experience
> less stress in dealing with the idiots playing speed games.
>
> The only problems with the right lane are exit and in particular,
> entry ramps that will have traffic temporarily going slower.
If you're a true believer in your speed faith, just stay right.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796760 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:57 |
|
In article <LuKdnXIeEegJ7FbanZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) writes:
>> You are so deep into your car worship that you've lost all sense of
>> proportion.
>
> Frank, stop being an asshole. I didn't say it was a horror story,
> although my grandmother was rather concerned about the kid. Anyway, it
> was to point out the fact that bicycles can do a lot more damage to car
> than you think they can.
So can a well-hurled can of Campbell's cream-of-whatever soup.
Yeah, your precious cars are so fragile and delicate and
lightweight. Eggshells. How dare pedestrians allow themselves
to get hit by you and ruin your windshield, and get blood all
over your monocoque car bodies? You drivers are so vulnerable,
and the rest of us street/road users must be beholden to yez,
'cuz we dare not damage your paint.
Poor, poor, pitiful you.
Drivers can hit all kinds of stuff, and blame the stuff they
hit for the damage they suffer. 'Specially when claiming
for insurance (if the damage exceeds their deductible.)
Not that that ever happens.
Heh.
I'm so glad I'm not one of you.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796762 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 05:11 |
|
In article <973e7f48-8389-487a-be23-e1917911b1f1 [at] k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:14 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <ec26d7fb-850a-43d7-9088-a5526f3c6... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 1, 3:36 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > So, to describe something that's happened to me countless times:
>>
>> > Truck in the right lane going less than the speed limit. I see this
>> > from far back. At the appropriate time, I signal and move to the left
>> > lane. I'm on cruise control.
>>
>> > In some cases, there has been another motorist in front of me, going
>> > more slowly than I, but still passing the truck. In other cases, it
>> > was clear in front, but (again) I'm on cruise.
>>
>> > Now a very fast driver, typically in either an SUV or a large pickup,
>> > comes up from way behind. He doesn't bother to slow until he's right
>> > behind me, and he remains right behind me, usually about ten feet
>> > back. We're doing perhaps 65 mph.
>> > If there is a driver in front of me, what am I supposed to do?
>>
>> The guy in front of you and you are micro passing.
>
> So "micro passing" is defined as passing more slowly than the racer-
> boy behind me likes, eh?
It's defined as passing with a very small speed diferentional. For
instance, two speed governed semis. One's governor is at 65.5mph and the
other's is at 67.3mph. The one that can go 67.3 mph pulls out to pass the
slower one. That's micro passing. That's what your cruise control passes
are.
<Frank's usual insulting boy-racer language snipped>
The funny thing about drivers like you've described yourself to be is
they get really pissed off if someone forces them out of their cruise
control.
>> Given your
>> description even if there was no one in front of you, you'd be doing just
>> about the same thing. You both should turn off the cruise control and
>> pass properly. Do it and get it done with.
> Another way I should change my legal behavior, and start breaking the
> law by speeding, to give yet more privilege to yet another impatient
> motorist?
Another impatient motorist... interesting choice of words. Yes, you are
an impatient motorist Frank. You decide that you cannot wait to pass and
pull your cruise control ass out in front of someone else who was just
cruising along at his chosen speed and force them to slow down because
you are impaitent and can't wait or deactivate your cruise control.
I get it now, because of your own impatience, you assume that everyone
driving faster than you is more impatient. That everyone who uses the
flash to pass to tell you to stop being an asshole holding up traffic
must be 'impatient'. That's unlikely the case.
> You really are a spoiled brat behind the wheel.
That would be yourself. Your brattish and childish 'but I'm doing the
speed limit' cry. You're also spoiled and used to getting your way over
others so how dare they not like jamming on the brakes when you cut over
and begin your cruise control pass.
> You need to learn to just obey the laws, and be satisfied when others
> do the same.
I obey them far more than you. Plus I understand that driving the speed
limit or less in the left most lane of limited access highway in the USA
is considered assholish. But you still seem to think that the laws come
from the devine, from deities on earth and must be obeyed without
question.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796763 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 05:12 |
|
In article <7265865b-1c02-4f9b-9efd-9ae702b0c878 [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <fqd056$rs... [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>> >>
>> > Well, if the truck is driving 55 mph in the middle or right lane, the
>> > person passing the truck is driving 65 or 70 mph, and you were driving
>> > 85 or 90 mph, you could be well back when they started to pass the truck
>> > at a reasonable rate and still catch up to them.
>>
>> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...
>
> Up hills.
>
> (Sheesh.)
Not any of the hills around here.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796764 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 05:24 |
|
In article <fqfa0c$hgv$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Brent P? wrote:
>> In article <fqd2rs$77t$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph, but anyway... I just don't
>>>> have anyone come out of nowhere up on to my bumper when I move out to
>>>> pass. Sometimes it happens when I am cruising over to the right, but
>>>> generally those folks are doing over 100mph.
>>
>>> Well, the large trucks often do not move faster than that due to traffic.
>>
>> Only when no one else is IME.
> Well, in urban traffic the trucks generally move more slowly than the
> cars, due to slow acceleration.
More slowly yes, 55mph or slower... when everyone else is. Then again I
live in an area where even the semis occasionally use the shoulder as a
passing lane.
>>> Well, they are ignorant or badly behaved for driving slower than traffic
>>> in the middle and/or left lanes, but that does not excuse passing them
>>> on the right.
>>
>> Excuse? Why does it have to be excused? It's not illegal and no way am I
>> going to give some LLB control freak the power to sit in the left lane
>> and force everyone else to go his chosen speed.
> Illegal and wrong are two different things. Passing on the right is poor
> behavior, and if the legislature had some sense in the matter, it would
> be a moving violation (as would being a "left lane bandit"). Neither
> behavior would be tolerated in a civilized country.
If the legislature cared about proper traffic flow it would have the keep
right except to pass law even stronger and ENFORCED at least as much as
'speeding'. Instead what you are telling me, is that when I am driving
along at my chosen speed in the right most lane, that I should brake and
slow down because I catch up to some asshat driving slower in one of the
lanes to my left? That is rather assinine and would only be endorced by
someone trying to make a usenet score or a complete passing lane blocking
control freak asshole. Which one are you?
Do you really want to empower someone going much slower than you want to
go blocking the whole road up legally by just choosing the left lane?
>>> Passing on the right again?
>>
>> Perfectly legal under IL law. Again why do you want to empower LLBs? Are
>> you one?
> No, I spend as little time in the left lane as possible. But I will not
> pass on the right, even if some jerk is following me at a distance of 5
> feet.
So when you are cruising along minding your own buisness and come across
some asshat LLBing, blocking the left lane, or any lane to your left, you
just brake or otherwise slow down so you won't pass him? Holy crap... do
you know what sort of chaos you are part of the cause of behind you?
You're enabling the left lane blocker to create a moving road block.
Vehicles clumping up behind you.... even people going no faster than you
are getting caught in the clump. (remember, you slowed down not to pass
the LLB) No wonder you get flashed in the right lane. You're a total
asshole to people behind you. Someone who was happy to stay behind you
going the same speed you were going will get pissed off when you find
someone in the left lane to match speeds with and block up the road. He's
going to see that move as something done on purpose and totally assholish.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796765 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 05:28 |
|
In article <fqfa6p$hgv$3 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <fqd2vn$77t$3 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, then, the guy in *front* of you is an asshole. You should flash
>>>> to pass to let him know that he's holding up the whole passing process.
>>>>
>>> And where is the justification for the person behind me to follow too
>>> closely in that situation?
>>
>> There generally isn't. But you should be doing something to correct the
>> problem.
>>
> Such as what? Committing the equally bad offense of passing on the
> right?
Passing on the right 'equally bad'? Drive much in the USA?
> Should I drive off onto the left-hand shoulder or into the median
> to let the person behind by, so he/she can tailgate the slow person in
> the left lane?
You can start by trying to wake up the asshole in front of you with your
car's flash-to-pass feature.
Considering that you apparently don't find LLBing assholish and aren't
willing to pass said LLBs on the right, I can only conclude you are a
passive aggressive asshole who wishes to bottle up the road and control
everyone else's speed. The LLB and a little twisted logic about the
horrors of 'passing on the right' and in your own mind you are able to
accomplish the goal of controling the speed of the road and not see
yourself as the asshole.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796769 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 06:05 |
|
In article <LuKdnWweEeig71banZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) writes:
> In article <8eByj.783$Td2.208 [at] trndny08>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't say anything about clothing. What is inconsistant about your
>>> view is that you adopt the 'speed kills' nonsense but not the nonsense of
>>> the helmet zealots. In other words you can make your own safety choices
>>> just fine but everyone else are morons that need to be controlled.
>>
>> What on earth are you talking about?
>>
>> Because I'm laissez faire on bicycle helmet use, to maintain
>> consistency I should therefor believe traffic should be left
>> to regulate itself? Or at least speed limits should be left
>> to individual standards?
>
> You are willing to trust the individual in one instance but not another.
>
>><sigh>
>
>> OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control.
>
> No. I am very much for strict right of way rules. Nice strawman attempt
> however.
Brent, you strike me as a reasonable, sociable, likeable
and respectable guy,
and so does Stephen.
Just tell me you don't wanna step on people's toes.
Maybe occasionally go a li'l beyond formal courtesy
and go into being friendly-like to others. /Like/
people. I know you already do. We all do.
There's too much gripin' about each other, and not
enough acknowledging of each other.
I'm just a communistically-home-educated, non-observant
guy who has learned the value of getting together with
human society. I celebrate the great things people can
do together & co-operatively & empathically.
Stephen seems to be somewhat Conservative, but he also
celebrates the great things people can do together &
co-operatively & empathically.
So do you.
I guess we're all on the same page, more or less.
We could put that to work. As long as we put
stoopid idealoguery behind us, and replace it
with true conversation & interchange of thoughts.
Whadda concept!
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cross-posted Usenet thread today [message #796770 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 06:10 |
|
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:10 -0800, Jym Dyer <jym [at] econet.org> wrote:
>=x= But it sure wasn't this one.
> <_Jym_>
Saturday I witnessed amazingly docile driver behaviour. Only one horn
blast from a bus warning a yokel about to pull in front of it. That
was for at least eight minutes while a busted scud entirely blocked
the left-turn lane at a busy intersection with lots of people behind
it wanting to turn left.
Can you imagine the cacophony if one bicyclist tied up traffic for
that long? They'd possibly even be assaulted if they farted around
with their chain through maybe fifteen signal sequences before
clearing the lane. I stopped counting after six figuring a cyclist
would have been pureed by then.
I'm not making this up. I have 3 witnesses who were also amazed by
the civility of it all. One is a Teamster* and there was his buddy
looking to buy a cheap car to replace the last one. Myself and
another <r.b.m> poster** couldn't help but cracking on alternate
definitions of "car hunting" - bag limits, seasons, armament, etc.
How many <r.a.d> posters remember those daily delays, inconveniences
and annoyances before complaining about a cyclist delaying or
inconveniencing them for significantly _less_ time? Any?
The annoyance factor seems to be greater though so these yapping
brats harp on that. Their vehement hostility and palpable envy can be
clearly read, or in most cases deciphered from the broken English, in
the comment section of any media featuring transportation articles
with bicycles.
It probably has a lot to do with their unresolved childhood issues.
* He's also the most aggressive, raging asshole driver I've ever had
the horror of riding with. Thankfully he doesn't do Usenet. It
already has enough jerks.
** I was glad to see for relief of a burden carried since last year.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796772 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 06:22 |
|
In article <iusfqf.rc1.ln [at] vcn.bc.ca>, Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <LuKdnXIeEegJ7FbanZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) writes:
>
>>> You are so deep into your car worship that you've lost all sense of
>>> proportion.
>>
>> Frank, stop being an asshole. I didn't say it was a horror story,
>> although my grandmother was rather concerned about the kid. Anyway, it
>> was to point out the fact that bicycles can do a lot more damage to car
>> than you think they can.
>
> So can a well-hurled can of Campbell's cream-of-whatever soup.
Said can-o-soup would also f'up my bicycle.
> Yeah, your precious cars are so fragile and delicate and
> lightweight. Eggshells. How dare pedestrians allow themselves
> to get hit by you and ruin your windshield, and get blood all
> over your monocoque car bodies? You drivers are so vulnerable,
> and the rest of us street/road users must be beholden to yez,
> 'cuz we dare not damage your paint.
> Poor, poor, pitiful you.
*yawn* don't you get tired of this shit you spew? really... is that all
you got? This demonizing and insulting language. It's really old and
stale. Get a real argument to make.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796774 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 07:33 |
|
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:45:33 -0600,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> Sales tax generated in a residential neighborhood? :-) Once you get
>> going, you're pretty funny!
>
>Oh, it's not a real town then... it has no businesses near by... I see. I
>guess I am spoiled by the walking nature of much of the chicago area
>where the businesses are located on the outside of the residential
>areas so one can walk out to the businesses. I'm sorry you live in such a
>horrid area where the businesses are miles from the homes. Sorry, I just
>assumed they were within walking distance of the residences... given your
>hate of the automobile I just figured you lived in such a place where you
>could walk to stores, banks, etc. My mistake.
>
From my home to a shopping area with many services it's a distance of
one mile. Restaurants, pizza, organic grocer, barber, cobbler, deli,
less than a half mile. Countless times I've seen people from my block
shopping and carrying home, in their cars, what I can carry easily on
my bike - say three bags of groceries. I've even done it on crutches.
They're mostly younger than me but could stand to be in better shape.
When we leave and arrive at the same times I have to smile.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796792 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 15:31 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <8eByj.783$Td2.208 [at] trndny08>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I didn't say anything about clothing. What is inconsistant about your
>>>view is that you adopt the 'speed kills' nonsense but not the nonsense of
>>>the helmet zealots. In other words you can make your own safety choices
>>>just fine but everyone else are morons that need to be controlled.
>>
>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>
>>Because I'm laissez faire on bicycle helmet use, to maintain
>>consistency I should therefor believe traffic should be left
>>to regulate itself? Or at least speed limits should be left
>>to individual standards?
>
>
> You are willing to trust the individual in one instance but not another.
>
>
>><sigh>
>
>
>>OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control.
>
>
> No. I am very much for strict right of way rules. Nice strawman attempt
> however.
And apparently unregulated speed, which is a form of
traffic control.
Get your story straight.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796795 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 15:40 |
|
In article <rZTyj.3487$W%2.1070 [at] trndny04>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <8eByj.783$Td2.208 [at] trndny08>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I didn't say anything about clothing. What is inconsistant about your
>>>>view is that you adopt the 'speed kills' nonsense but not the nonsense of
>>>>the helmet zealots. In other words you can make your own safety choices
>>>>just fine but everyone else are morons that need to be controlled.
>>>
>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>
>>>Because I'm laissez faire on bicycle helmet use, to maintain
>>>consistency I should therefor believe traffic should be left
>>>to regulate itself? Or at least speed limits should be left
>>>to individual standards?
>>
>>
>> You are willing to trust the individual in one instance but not another.
>>
>>
>>><sigh>
>>
>>
>>>OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control.
>>
>>
>> No. I am very much for strict right of way rules. Nice strawman attempt
>> however.
>
> And apparently unregulated speed, which is a form of
> traffic control.
I want speed limits set properly and lane discipline to be the priority.
Nothing 'unregulated' about it. The condition we have today is chaos
compared to what I propose. What I propose is orderly and safe limited
access highways unlike today's cluster f*ck of drivers scatttered
willy-nilly all over the road in different lanes.
Now maybe you've got your words screwed up and think that speed
desrestriction on limited access highways is the same as unregulated. It's
not.
> Get your story straight.
I have, you just fail to understand it not knowing any background
material and quite obviously being conditioned to having the government
make decisions for you.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796797 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 15:50 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <XBCyj.1641$4D2.203 [at] trndny06>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ec26d7fb-850a-43d7-9088-a5526f3c6ef2 [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I do that, then find I'm looking at a radar gun, will the patrolman
>>>>accept my excuse that I had to speed way up to save the tailgater a
>>>>few seconds?
>>>
>>>When I am affraid of the revenuers I don't pass to go a couple mph
>>>faster. You're so anti-speed anyway, why don't you just drive slower and
>>>stay in the right lane?
>
>
>>First, I don't feel the need to answer to someone's impatience by
>>accelerating to higher speed than I want to go just so that person
>>astern of me won't be inconvenienced.
>
> Typical Me, first, fuck you behavior.
"I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
<honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
What class of behavior is that?
>>As long as I'm doing the speed limit or beyond, the guy astern will
>>just have to wait and all the horn blowing and flashing of lights
>>(and wailing and gnashing of teeth) isn't gonna get him by me any
>>faster. He can (and that ilk probably will) flip me off as he passes.
>
> Me first fuck you behavior on your part. You have to be an asshole, cut
> in front and slow someone else down because of your own sign number
> morality.
Don't make stuff up! I didn't cut in front of anyone. I'm
passing someone going slower than I was and I'm doing the speed
limit or more likely 2-5 mph better. I'm not accelerating to
minimize the "inconvenience" of knuckleheads, apparently such as
yourself, who feel speed limits don't apply to them.
You need to stay on your own private roadway. You don't have
the understanding to actually deal with driving a public road.
>>But I'm finding your suggestion above becoming more and more useful.
>
>>Here in MA (and other high volume interstate states), people largely
>>park themselves in the left lane, often not going any faster than
>>those in the middle or right lanes. They're afraid (I presume) of
>>being "stranded" in a rightward lane going "too slow", so they just
>>park themselves in the left (passing) lane instead, bullying the
>>person ahead of them to move on, while ignoring the person behind
>>them doing the same).
>>
>>I found I can do 62-65 mph with cruise control set in the right
>>lane and rarely have to be concerned with coasting, resume, on, off
>>changes to the control. *Everyone* is passing me and I experience
>>less stress in dealing with the idiots playing speed games.
>>
>>The only problems with the right lane are exit and in particular,
>>entry ramps that will have traffic temporarily going slower.
>
> If you're a true believer in your speed faith, just stay right.
Not "faith" at all. I already posted plenty of evidence of
relationships between speed and accident rates and seriousness
of accidents.
Only someone with a head of wood would believe it's nothing but
MADD propaganda.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796799 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 16:04 |
|
On Mar 3, 9:50 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <XBCyj.1641$4D2.203 [at] trndny06>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> >>Brent P wrote:
>
> >>>In article <ec26d7fb-850a-43d7-9088-a5526f3c6... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>If I do that, then find I'm looking at a radar gun, will the patrolman
> >>>>accept my excuse that I had to speed way up to save the tailgater a
> >>>>few seconds?
>
> >>>When I am affraid of the revenuers I don't pass to go a couple mph
> >>>faster. You're so anti-speed anyway, why don't you just drive slower and
> >>>stay in the right lane?
>
> >>First, I don't feel the need to answer to someone's impatience by
> >>accelerating to higher speed than I want to go just so that person
> >>astern of me won't be inconvenienced.
>
> > Typical Me, first, fuck you behavior.
>
> "I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
> <honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
I find it hard to believe people are honking before they flash. If
someone is honking it's likely because their flashing has been
ignored. Flash-to-pass is NOT "get outta my way", it's "excuse me,
please move to the right". Have you ever been walking down a sidewalk
and had a group of people blocking the whole thing, engrossed in their
conversation or whathaveyou? In that situation, what would you do? I
would say "excuse me", as I have in the past. That's the exact same
thing as flash-to-pass.
Your behavior and interpretation (get outta my way!) is equivalent to
the street thug who, in response to a polite "excuse me" to him and
his homies blocking the sidewalk is "What? F*** you! You want a
f***ing problem? This is MY sidewalk. I ain't excusing sh**!!!
You'll stand there until I damn well feel like letting you by.
Unfortunately it's harder to confront someone's attitude when they're
doing 65mph and have a barrier of steel and glass between them and
you. This is likely a big part of the reason people are so much more
willing to play the ass when driving. I doubt you'd be willing to
take the same stance while blocking the sidewalk, with nothing to
protect you.
> What class of behavior is that?
Seems to me the behavior issue is that of someone with serious
attitude issues, and/or no comprehension of driving etiquette, which
includes things like flash-to-pass.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796800 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 16:16 |
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> Brent, you strike me as a reasonable, sociable, likeable
> and respectable guy,
>
> and so does Stephen.
>
> Just tell me you don't wanna step on people's toes.
> Maybe occasionally go a li'l beyond formal courtesy
> and go into being friendly-like to others. /Like/
> people. I know you already do. We all do.
>
> There's too much gripin' about each other, and not
> enough acknowledging of each other.
>
> I'm just a communistically-home-educated, non-observant
> guy who has learned the value of getting together with
> human society. I celebrate the great things people can
> do together & co-operatively & empathically.
>
> Stephen seems to be somewhat Conservative, but he also
> celebrates the great things people can do together &
> co-operatively & empathically.
Being [politically] conservative in r.b.m. is a rarity. There
ain't many of us there.
> So do you.
>
> I guess we're all on the same page, more or less.
>
> We could put that to work. As long as we put
> stoopid idealoguery behind us, and replace it
> with true conversation & interchange of thoughts.
>
> Whadda concept!
Well the problem is we're actually not all on the same page,
although your call for basic conversation and interchange of
thoughts is really what NGs are all about.
Many decry cross-posted threads when those groups have
inherent antagonisms towards one another; both regard the
other as a form of mindless road danger.
It still can be an interesting and informative exchange up
to a point. I learned a bit about situations where changing
speed limits doesn't always result in the expected increase
or decrease in road accidents.
I learned about the 'U' shaped speed-accident curve where
people going under and over median traffic speed are more
likely to cause or be involved in accidents.
I learned about "micro-passing", although I can't really say
what is significant about it other than it really frosts
people who don't believe in speed limits when they encounter
it.
But I have also had confirmed my beliefs that many basically
good people do indeed become jerks once behind the wheel of
their motor vehicle. The old saying about the "nut behind
the wheel" seems confirmed.
Nothing to get too bent out of shape over. Hey, it's only
a NG (or two).
SMH
|
| |
|
