|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796808 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:18 |
|
On Feb 29, 3:05=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:40 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 5:41 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 7:49 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 4:36 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht... [at] worldnet.att.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > But let's get practical, Leo. =A0The fact is, the very normal gene=
rator
> > > > > headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike ..=
..
>
> > > > You consider this normal, huh?
>
> > > I'm sorry, Ed. =A0I meant "normal" as in "equipment which satisfies th=
e
> > > law, but does not greatly exceed the laws requirements."
>
> > Uhh, the word for that is "legal". =A0"Normal" has a different meaning.
>
> An aircraft landing light on a bicycle is probably legal - meaning,
> AFAIK there is no upper limit on lumen count for bikes.
That's not "normal", either. No matter how you dance and posture,
your intent was quite clear.
Pretending you meant something else after the fact fools exactly
nobody.
But your condescension is hilarious in it's irony.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796811 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:25 |
|
On Mar 2, 5:14 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d... [at] m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <frkry... [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.
In the case of drivers speeding through residential neighborhoods, I'm
simply asking that obedience to existing laws be effectively
enforced. If it takes speed humps to do it, that's fine by me.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796812 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:30 |
|
In article <hZUyj.500$Ie2.241 [at] trndny09>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Flash-to-pass is highway rudeness. It's not like someone coming on
> with high beams on at night who perhaps is simply unaware of the
> situation. A quite double flash provides a gentle reminder.
What other standard features of cars do you find to be rude when used
according to their design and by law? You do realize that it is the law
in many states that a driver give way to faster traffic upon light or
audible signal?
For instance, on a two lane road in IL, you can use an audible signal to
indicate that you wish to pass.
(625 ILCS 5/11.703) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11.703)
Sec. 11.703. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules
govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same
direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules
otherwise stated in this Chapter:
(a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof
at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the
roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. In no event shall
such movement be made by driving off the pavement or the main traveled
portion of the roadway.
(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right
is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the
right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not
increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the
overtaking vehicle.
So, is the law rude?
> Someone roaring up the passing lane (generally parked in the left
> lane BTW) flashing his headlights madly as he bears down on you
> rear bumper isn't displaying "driving etiquette" in my book. He's
> display rude, selfish behavior.
He just wants to drive his chosen speed and you are purposely blocking up
the road, yet he's 'rude and selfish'. Sorry, the rude and selfish person
is you.
> The bottom line in this driving situation is that *I am* passing a
> vehicle. *I am* driving the speed limit or a few mph above it. I
> *am not* parked out in the passing lane. *I am* blocking the flow
> of people who are going faster than I am (although probably not for
> long as there like people ahead of me who aren't going as fast as
> the person flashing their lights wants to be going), but I will
> swing into the right lane when I complete the pass.
Ahh... hiding behind the posted speed limit. Yes, the behavior we have
the NMSL to thank for. It's lasting contribution to the road.
From Mark Rask in "American Authobahn":
"...was becoming the mindset in the mid-to-late 1970s. A new kind of
self-righteous motorist began appearing in greater numbers on the
highways of the country. Convinced it was their duty to slow down other
drivers, these motorists moved from the right, slow lane into the left ,
passing lane of the highway.
<...>
Law enforcement and safety experts hailed this "improvement". These "good
drivers" were blocking the progress of speeders. What they failed to
consider was the growing trend of faster drivers weaving between the
slower ones, and the increased level of aggravation caused by these new,
artificially created traffic jams"
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796813 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:34 |
|
On Mar 2, 5:51 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <51f3617d-5eec-4007-a848-a1595f6dc... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <frkry... [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?
Mid-block? Sounds like you're talking about some hypothetical stop
sign that's not at an intersection. Still, if you re-read my
paragraph more slowly, you'll see that I _do_ want cyclists to follow
the rules of the road. See? (Take notes!)
> >Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. Motorists kill
> >40,000 "others" every year.
>
> Liar. The majority of those killed are motorists.
The majority of motorists killed in crashes _are_ killed by "other"
motorists.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796814 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:35 |
|
In article <fqfd6p2lh9 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > 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.
And that's why you're so misguided. You see, I'm completely willing to
be wrong if the science contradicts my own observation bias. Your
unfounded certainty means you're clearly not fit to conduct a scientific
study. If you expect to sway intelligent people to your side of an
argument, you're better served by reality than willful ignorance.
--
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 #796815 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:36 |
|
On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!
If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796816 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:38 |
|
In article <366c0821-8aa4-44ef-a746-4e610a549f97 [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:56 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <a4d9f159-5de9-4a09-95e0-14cdbc73d... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > I would suggest that most bike trips are loops. You start at home,
>> > then end there. Mountain biking can be destination biking too, if by
>> > destination you mean a lake or a waterfall or some such. But you
>> > still get to ride back to the car. And I agree, it's nice to have a
>> > loop, rather than an out-and-back.
>>
>> What I mean by no destination is a loop set up inside a forest preserve
>> or park that is like doing laps on race track. It gets old fast. The
>> concept is to drive the bike there, ride a few laps, drive home. It beats
>> a treadmill, but that's about it.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> I meant a loop as in a ten to twenty mile loop where you don't see the
> same terrain twice. Out west here we could ride loops like that a
> bunch and never have to go on the same loop twice, if that suited our
> fancy.
That would be a good ride. There are some trails by stringing them
together or using the lakefront in chicago that can be 10-20 miles long,
but they don't loop back. That's why I take roads one way and trails the
other fairly often.
> Yes, I could imagine that a one to five mile loop would get seriously
> boring.
It does... except to do them faster and faster.... then people get upset.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796817 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:47 |
|
On Mar 2, 10:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <df9b6e5a-5e4d-4a56-bb3f-196306018... [at] u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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.
I'm discussing these points with a person who can't keep track of the
conversation. I admit, I feel I'm largely wasting my time... but
OTOH, others are probably reading and learning.
Let's review, Brent. The point was, motorists do MUCH more total
damage (medically or financially) than bicyclists ever do. The
difference is orders of magnitude. Your example of one dent in a
Tempo was a very silly attempt at counter-argument.
Try this, step by step: Visit the closest body shop. Ask which
repair cases were caused by other cars. Total the estimates. Then
ask the same about cases caused by bicycles.
Of course, there won't be any, so try another body shop. Repeat until
you find one dent actually caused by a bike.
NOW total the dollar values of repair estimates for car-caused dents,
and bike-caused dents.
If you like, repeat the exercise in hospital emergency rooms.
Does that make it clear? There is no logical way to pretend that cars
and bikes are equally dangerous, or cause equal damage.
(And BTW, such detailed instructions are necessary only for the very
bottom of the class.)
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796818 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:47 |
|
On Mar 3, 11:36 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
> indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!
>
> If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
> of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
That wouldn't be a fair way of measuring. Much of the damage done to
cars by bikes is of the hit & run variety. It could be they kicked
the car and split, they just refused to exchange info, or a million
other circumstances. When your car is damaged by another car there is
usually insurance involved, accident reports filed, etc. If you hit
my *truck* (just playing with you Frank) with your car and damage a
panel, there's a fairly good chance I'll use some or all of the
insurance money to repair the truck. If a bicycle hits my truck, the
only way for it to be repaired on the offender's dime is if they stop
and give me their info willingly, if they're so injured they need
medical attention, or an officer happens to witness it and apprehend
the cyclist. Two of those three circumstances seem quite unlikely.
The exception, the cyclist being so injured they need medical
attention, is likely to somehow cause me a bunch of headache even if
they were at fault.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796819 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:49 |
|
On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <063afda9-3835-4070-a5a9-90994d650... [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > 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?
You haven't been asking for "safer." You've been consistently asking
for raised speed limits, for years now.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796820 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:53 |
|
On Feb 28, 5:35=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:25 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."
>
> > No, being pedantic is ignoring the other person's actual contention
> > while bolding trumpetting some fact, regardless of the logic of the
> > other person's contention.
>
> I admit to some difficulty here. =A0Usually, when someone says "100% of
> bicyclists," I tend to think their actual contention is "100% of
> bicyclists." =A0Especially when they repeat it. =A0But then, I think most
> people probably agree with me.
You're leaving out a qualifier, Frank - on purpose.
By misconstruing the comments, on purpose, you can indulge in a little
bit of straw man logical fallacy.
> > > > If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> > > > Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> > > They sell them to make money.
>
> > That's the ONLY reason, Frank?
>
> > Of course not. =A0The reason is that reflectorized vests *can help* a
> > cyclist be more visible in low-light situations.
>
> Come on, Ed. =A0It was a bit disingenuous to trim out the motorist
> equipment I cited:
>
> "J.C. Whitney sells these safety vests for motorists:http://tinyurl.com/3a=
uqhh
> and these Red Cross recommended safety tools: =A0http://tinyurl.com/2u9c2g=
> and these safety backup systems:http://tinyurl.com/379elh
> and these "extra safety" extra brake lights: =A0http://tinyurl.com/2nnbln"=
>
> If they sell them, doesn't that mean they "can help"? =A0So, do YOU
> carry your motorist safety vest in your car? =A0How about the rest of
> the recommended "safety tools"? =A0Have YOU added the "safety backup
> system" and the "extra safety" brake lights?
I carry some stuff, and not other stuff.
My cars already came with "extra" brake lights, and I have installed
bulbs of maximum output - well beyond stock equipment, and certainly
more than the law minimally requires.
I carry a reflectorized vest for any stuff I may have to do at night,
and flares, and the cars came with safety triangles from the factory.
> Or are you just being hypocritical? =A0The latter, I think!
Then you are mistaken. Yet again.
> > Being pedantic and
> > legalistic is a fine way to try and dismiss Nate's argument...
>
> I think I see a pattern. =A0Any argument you can't answer gets defined
> as "pedantic." =A0I still prefer "accurate."
By quoting out of context, and picking at one phrase out of the whole
thing to pick an argument, you are being the opposite of accurate.
> > Actually, I'm not. =A0I got his point, and so did you. =A0You're being a=
> > pedantic jerk, for no other reason than you can be.
>
> > > And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
> > > prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
> > > permanent loss of driver's license.
>
> > A legal pedestrian around here could wear black sweats at night, and
> > get run down by even the most careful driver.
>
> For some value of "could."
Of course. Depends on the location and the pedestrian. I know of at
least one marked crosswalk that has no streetlights. I can see who it
would be possible to strike a poorly-visible pedestrian in that
particular crosswalk, if someone didn't know it was there.
> IOW, the probability of that is
> infinitesmally low.
Prove it. Show your work.
> > On a bicycle it goes the same way - if you're going to ride at night,
> > it *might be a good idea* to wear some clothing that helps drivers see
> > you.
>
> I just dealt with that in some detail in a response to Leo (whom I
> respect, BTW).
Fuck you too, Frank.
Your reasoning is no less specious there. The problem is that merely
hiding behind what is "legal" is not always what is "best".
In fact, sometimes the minimum legal standard is woefully inadequate.
For a lesson on automotive lighting, search r.a.d. on "e-code" to
learn something about our issues with automotive lighting.
> =A0The fact is, once a cyclist is properly lit and
> reflectorized, color of clothing makes negligible difference at
> night.
Not proven, merely asserted. You can assert it forever without
proving anything. Lets see some cites on your contention.
> =A0The eye is effectively overpowered by the brighter light
> sources. =A0
Light-colored clothing is not a light source. Try again.
> > So, you live in the same area? =A0Or could the conditions be different?
>
> I know enough about bike safety data that I know his claim is
> extremely unlikely. =A0
So, IOW, you don't actually know. Got it.
> > > How about you? =A0Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
> > > years? =A0Do you think that's _really_ likely?
>
> > In my area, no. =A0I have seen three bicycle-related accidents here,
> > however. =A0Two with cars, and one bike-pedestrian.
>
> I know you're not a fan of accuracy, so I must remind you: =A0Nate was
> making claims about accidents involving bent-up bike frames in the
> street, ambulances, cops, etc. =A0And he was making that claim about the
> last five years.
You asked me, and I answered with my own observations. Without
actually having been there, I make no claims either way on what goes
on in the D.C. area WRT to bike v. car accidents.
Your stupid-ass commentary aside, of course.
> I get pretty tired of all the "danger! danger!" exaggerations
> regarding bicycling. =A0There are more ER visits per year from
> basketball players than from bicyclists.
I have personally noted that on-road bicycling is more dangerous now
than it was ten years ago. I do not know if statistics bear out this
feeling, but that matters not one whit. Your "tiredness" is
immaterial to the original contention, and doesn't contradict the
common-sense idea that being more visible is better than being less
visible.
> So I think you're probably exaggerating, either by extending the time
> period or by overstating the seriousness of the accidents.
Again, fuck you. I've seen what I've seen, and you calling me a liar
over the internet doesn't change that one bit.
> > ...you, in another grand tradition of Usenet, are exhibiting a lot of ke=
yboard courage....Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Fran=
k?... Or, instead of YOU justifying your own assholish behavior over the int=
ernet, just acknowledge that behind the safety of a keyboard...
>
> What's with the "keyboard" comments, Ed?
Simple, Frank - if you were standing right in front of me, it is very
unlikely that you would call me (or anyone else, for that matter) a
liar, or any other thing. Behind the safety of your keyboard, you can
go ahead and insinuate, misconstrue, and otherwise be a complete
asshole with near-impunity.
Which, of course, you take advantage of.
The "who, me?" schtick is just icing on the cake.
> =A0This is a discussion group
> on the internet. =A0I'm using the same tools you are, and I'm not
> calling you names like "thug" or "asshole."
No, just "liar". Pretending you are somehow being an adult is
hilarious.
> =A0Which of us is engaging
> in behavior that would be rude in person?
LOL. I'd love to find out. What's your address, Frank? I'd love to
see you in person, so that I can compare your in-person persona with
the e-thug you play on the 'net.
I'd love to see what a tough guy you are in person.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796822 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:59 |
|
In article <09783198-c408-4b9f-b5a5-d0e6473f4242 [at] s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <df9b6e5a-5e4d-4a56-bb3f-196306018... [at] u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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.
>
> I'm discussing these points with a person who can't keep track of the
> conversation. I admit, I feel I'm largely wasting my time... but
> OTOH, others are probably reading and learning.
I kept track of it just fine. But you keep jumping the track to be insulting.
> Let's review, Brent. The point was, motorists do MUCH more total
> damage (medically or financially) than bicyclists ever do. The
> difference is orders of magnitude. Your example of one dent in a
> Tempo was a very silly attempt at counter-argument.
I was pointing out that you're orders of magnitude off. Of course that
won't get you to admit your error. I could easily cause thousands of
dollars in damage to a motor vehicle from the saddle of a bicycle. In
fact, such methods are often expressed as self defense mechanisms for
bicyclists from the pointy stick on up.
> Try this, step by step: Visit the closest body shop. Ask which
> repair cases were caused by other cars. Total the estimates. Then
> ask the same about cases caused by bicycles.
The SUV that backed in to my mustang did almost as much damage as that
kid's bicycle did to the tempo.
> Of course, there won't be any, so try another body shop. Repeat until
> you find one dent actually caused by a bike.
The body shop won't know or care. Of course you have to find a car owner
willing to pay it out of pocket, which skews the survey, but you already
knew that, hence the rules you specified.
> NOW total the dollar values of repair estimates for car-caused dents,
> and bike-caused dents.
It was $900 to fix the dent in my mustang. The tempo's dent was worse.
> If you like, repeat the exercise in hospital emergency rooms.
>
> Does that make it clear? There is no logical way to pretend that cars
> and bikes are equally dangerous, or cause equal damage.
>
> (And BTW, such detailed instructions are necessary only for the very
> bottom of the class.)
I realize you hate the automobile and see it as a 'death machine'.
However that doesn't excuse poor behavior of bicycle riders. the only
reason you bring it up is to excuse the poor behavior of bicycle riders.
It's how you talk out of both sides of your mouth so to speak.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796823 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:00 |
|
On Mar 2, 10:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <a29e6c03-ba91-4a52-995a-dab11e8f9... [at] 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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.
Except for the detail that I am saying bicyclists should follow the
rules of the road! :-)
Don't your attempts at "logic" ever embarrass you?
> I haven't followed the bicycle news groups for years frank.
Hmm. Maybe you _did_ get embarrassed by your attempts at "logic."
> >> > [about speed 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.
When that happens, feel free to strut in here with documentation. But
to date, I've never heard of a single such case. It's another racer-
boy, car-worshiping fantasy.
> >> 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..
The speed humps are (so far) in just one residential neighborhood.
There are no businesses in that neighborhood. The big shopping area
is about two miles away.
However, if you intend to avoid the entire township, let me know.
Maybe I should send a note to that local government, saying you won't
visit from out-of-state unless they rip out the devices that have made
the taxpaying constituents happy.
Golly, I hope they don't get too scared by your threat!
Say, would you consider mail-order buying? PLEASE??? It would be
cruel for you to trigger a depression! ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796824 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:00 |
|
"DanKMTB [at] gmail.com" <DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> wrote in
news:bedcb2e5-8941-4cd6-8654-926a44d222fc [at] c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>> DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> > 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.co
>> >>>>>m>, 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.
You are bound to make a pass in a manner that doesn't hold up other
traffic. It's also a common COURTESY.
>>
>> >>>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 guess this guy has experienced it more than a few times;and he hasn't
learned yet.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT.
(And shit or get off the pot.)
OTOH,this guy may just be a "wanna-be" traffic enforcer.
"I'm going fast enough,you just wait until I'm done slothing by."
(all the while creating a more dangerous situation)
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Flash-to-pass is highway rudeness.
>
> No, it is not. It's the proper, polite, and legal way to signal to
> traffic in front of you that you wish to overtake them. Not yielding
> to the flash-to-pass is rude at the least, and depending where you are
> possibly illegal as well. Your misconception of this basic driving
> concept is all too common in this country, but that doesn't excuse it.
>
>
>> It's not like someone coming on
>> with high beams on at night who perhaps is simply unaware of the
>> situation. A quite double flash provides a gentle reminder.
>
> You're right, it's a completely different situation. So why are we
> talking about oncoming drivers and high beams all of a sudden?
A "thug" SUV would just leave on their highbeams,5 ft from your bumper.
They'd flash you and if you didn't show some sign of making a quicker
pass,then you'd get the HBs.
>
>
>> Someone roaring up the passing lane (generally parked in the left
>> lane BTW) flashing his headlights madly as he bears down on you
>> rear bumper isn't displaying "driving etiquette" in my book. He's
>> display rude, selfish behavior.
>
> He's signaling an intent to overtake. How would you like him to
> signal? Is your cell number on your rear windshield?
In Harding's world,he who is up front controls the road.
That's what it's about,control.
>
>
>> The bottom line in this driving situation is that *I am* passing a
>> vehicle. *I am* driving the speed limit or a few mph above it. I
>> *am not* parked out in the passing lane.
If you are crawling by another vehicle,slothing by,then yes,you ARE "parked
out in the passing lane".
You are creating an OBSTRUCTION to the flow of traffic.
In some states,you will be ticketed for this behavior,as those states
RECOGNIZE that it creates more hazardous traffic situations.
>>*I am* blocking the flow
Your own words "I am BLOCKING".
>> of people who are going faster than I am (although probably not for
>> long as there like people ahead of me who aren't going as fast as
>> the person flashing their lights wants to be going), but I will
>> swing into the right lane when I complete the pass.
>>
>> So the issue is simply one of a person not passing fast enough for
>> another person behind them.
That's why it's STKR,SLOWER traffic keep right.
>>
>> I see no reason why, on a *public road*, with *posted speed* being
>> met or exceeded by myself, that I am required, legally or by
>> "etiquette", to accelerate and complete my pass, so as to produce
>> minimal inconvenience for the person behind me wishing to move along
>> at a faster speed.
>
> You're not. You should have checked your mirrors and made sure you
> had time to complete your pass before you switched lanes.
well,Harding is just going to do what he wants,and F anyone behind him.
MFFY.
>
>
>> Who's being the "thug" in this situation?
>
> Certainly not the person flashing their beams at you, in a gesture
> that you clearly misinterpret.
>
>
A "thug" would just fire a couple of rounds thru the LLBs rear window.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796825 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:02 |
|
On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Citation? Show where I said "it doesn't matter if cyclists follow the
rules of the road."
Alternately, give up the racer-boy car-worship fantasies.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796827 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:05 |
|
In article <eba87682-e53e-4941-8b54-0d8eda14e58a [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <063afda9-3835-4070-a5a9-90994d650... [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 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?
>
> You haven't been asking for "safer." You've been consistently asking
> for raised speed limits, for years now.
As I tried to explain to you with an example I am familiar with, the higher
85th percentile limits lead to safer roads with improved traffic flow. I
*PREFER* to ride the road with the highest speed limits of three choices
because it has the best traffic flow, its speed limit is the closest to
the 85th percentile of the three.
I choose the safest roads to ride when I have a choice or the detour
isn't too great, it doesn't mean it's the road with the lowest speed
limit.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796828 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:06 |
|
On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <7265865b-1c02-4f9b-9efd-9ae702b0c... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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:
>
>
> >> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...
>
> > Up hills.
>
> > (Sheesh.)
>
> Not any of the hills around here.
:-) Well THAT clears things up! The hills in Chicago don't slow
trucks, therefore there are no hills anywhere that slow trucks!
I don't know why the highway departments around here wasted all the
money on those "7% grade" signs! They should have checked with racer-
boy!
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796829 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:08 |
|
In article <cd854657-c235-46b5-9221-4b0c20bc216d [at] e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Fuck you too, Frank.
Now you know how I got the way I am on usenet Ed :)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cross-posted Usenet thread today [message #796830 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:16 |
|
On Mar 3, 12:10 am, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:10 -0800, Jym Dyer <j... [at] econet.org> wrote:
>
> 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? ...
>
> 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?
Excellent point. In fact, I'm quite sure that I've been delayed by
motorists while I've biked, far more than I've delayed motorists
because of my bicycling. Simplest example: One short green from a
busy commercial side street onto the main arterial. "Green" is
frequently followed by:
<snore... umph... come dimly awake...> Huh? Is it green?
Next car: "Hmm. Why did he start moving? Oh, is it green? Maybe I
should go too."
Next car: "Hey, sweety, I gotta go, so I can call Sam and tell him to
buy lettuce. I'll call you back right after I call Sam..."
Next car: "No need to hurry. I'm sure _I_ can make it through this
yellow light... say, why is that bicyclist behind me so impatient?"
And that doesn't even count the times that the sheer number of
motorists completely clogs all the infrastructure.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796831 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:20 |
|
On Mar 3, 9:40 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
> 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 ...
Which _should_, by definition, mean racer-boys would refrain from
tailgating when someone is passing a truck.
Yes, even if that person isn't going as much over the speed limit as
the racer-boy would like to go.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796832 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:21 |
|
In article <3716a067-9524-4601-8e4a-4a44114e3033 [at] u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <a29e6c03-ba91-4a52-995a-dab11e8f9... [at] 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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.
>
> Except for the detail that I am saying bicyclists should follow the
> rules of the road! :-)
> Don't your attempts at "logic" ever embarrass you?
You hide behind that statement, so what? Doesn't change the fact you
bring out the same old crap and use it to excuse the illegally operating
bicyclists. I want bicyclists to obey the rules of the road but I don't
trot out the damage differentials and other crap in discussion about the
vehicle code.
I'll bring it up when someone suggests anti-cycling measures such as
liability insurance, excessive taxation, etc. That's where the argument
has merit. It has no merit in a rules of the road discussion. If you are
for bicyclists following the rules of the road, then it doesn't matter.
If you are looking to excuse bicyclists for not following the rules of
the road, well, then you bring it up.
> When that happens, feel free to strut in here with documentation. But
> to date, I've never heard of a single such case. It's another racer-
> boy, car-worshiping fantasy.
Geebus. have you ever googled ?
http://www.io.com/~bumper/ada0036.htm
http://speedbumps.50megs.com/Usatoday.htm
http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm
somewhere there is a story of someone who had a spinal injury and the
abulance going over the speed hump made it much worse and forever or
killed the person... can't remember, but I probably linked to it in the
past.
>> >> 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..
> The speed humps are (so far) in just one residential neighborhood.
> There are no businesses in that neighborhood. The big shopping area
> is about two miles away.
Two miles away.... such a bicycling and ped unfriendly place you live.
Sounds like it was set up for the automobile. Sorry, I just assumed you'd
live somewhere like I am used to , where one can walk to the store. Hell,
the nearest walmart is less than two miles way... I've walked there a
good number of time.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796833 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:29 |
|
In article <06b597a4-7a89-449e-8129-04bf91cd6048 [at] s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Citation? Show where I said "it doesn't matter if cyclists follow the
> rules of the road."
everytime you argue that the damage caused by cyclists can be neglected.
That it doesn't amount to anything signficiant. If they don't cause any
harm by violating the rules of the road as you argue, it doesn't matter
if they do or don't.
> Alternately, give up the racer-boy car-worship fantasies.
Its behavior like yours that I'd rather associate with drivers than
bicyclists. You don't see me calling you a POB, a critical masser, and
other such nonsense.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796834 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:30 |
|
On Mar 3, 10:04 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:50 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > "I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
> > <honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
>
> 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.
The situation we've all experienced and are complaining about is not a
simple flash-to-pass. Instead, it's this:
Approach from behind with at least 10 mph speed differential;
Maintain that approach speed until within about ten feet of the car in
front;
Begin flashing lights repeatedly, even though the car in front is
passing a truck at or slightly above the speed limit, or even though
the car in front is prevented from completing passing by yet another
car.
>
> 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.
A better analogy is for the light-flasher to be represented by a six-
foot-eight weightlifter coming up two feet behind a businessman who's
walking past a deliveryman pushing a cart. And the weightlifter says
"Get out of my way, wimp, you're not walking fast enough for me."
Flash-to-pass can mean "please don't block the lane by driving the
same speed as the truck you're passing." But more often it means "I
want to go even faster. Get the hell out of my way."
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796835 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:33 |
|
In article <8d1ff144-be8d-409e-b119-6e99257d4086 [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <7265865b-1c02-4f9b-9efd-9ae702b0c... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkry... [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:
>>
>>
>> >> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...
>>
>> > Up hills.
>>
>> > (Sheesh.)
>>
>> Not any of the hills around here.
>
>:-) Well THAT clears things up! The hills in Chicago don't slow
> trucks, therefore there are no hills anywhere that slow trucks!
Holy jump battman. I never said any such thing, but you know that.
> I don't know why the highway departments around here wasted all the
> money on those "7% grade" signs! They should have checked with racer-
> boy!
I dunno. The times I've driven through the hills and mountains on the way
to and from NC and WV I don't recall the trucks dropping to 55mph...
maybe my memory is off, that could be, but I think they kept it above
55mph for the most part. They certainly do through the hills of WI. Now
they do slow, but 55mph seems to be a floor speed. I suppose there are
some mountain roads out there where they slow to 45mph or something but
that is still the limit of their vehicles, I have rarely seen truckers
restrict themselves to 55mph.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796836 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:36 |
|
In article <7dGdnWyEU5NW6FbanZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't bitching about seeing
> properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.
Then please restate your argument, because you seem to have changed it
from "unlighted wrong ways" to "everyday physics" to who knows what. If
you just hate other people, simply say so. Classic road rage like that
is nothing new, although you seem to be going to elaborate lengths to
justify it. Again, and concisely, what's your issue?
> 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.
Then you aren't reading the thread closely enough. All I've defended is
the reality of the road, which I maintain the law does not adequately
represent. Yes, the reality is that some people on bicycles don't
strictly obey the laws that are meant to cover cars, though they are
usually the laws that cars themselves often do not obey.
> >> >> 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.
I have. It's you who seemingly can't stay focussed long enough to
follow an argument through. My statement is entirely consistent with
the notion that we approach stop signs based on our general experience
of how vehicles approach stop signs, not based on some abstract notion
of physics that hardly matters to people who are burning dinosaurs to
move.
> > 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.
So, what, now you've switched your argument to "special dispensation"?
Why not give a cyclist, someone who actually serves as the engine to
their vehicle, some extra consideration, too? I'm going to guess that
you think your 0.001% scenario somehow justifies the other 99.999% of
incidents where cars roll stops. I'm going to guess you'd go so far as
to bitch about a cyclist, additionally exposed to the cold, rolling
through that same stop you seem willing to forgive the car for. Please
stop going to the effort of imagining fanciful edge conditions and deal
with everyday reality.
> >> > 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.
You are certainly strong in "DUh". Your argument was of conservation of
energy/momentum, which is definitely a physics argument. But since stop
signs don't spring up at intersections naturally (or maybe you think
they're some kind of flower? :-), your position on that is irrelevant
unless you do the math and make it meaningful. So make up your mind:
either people, regardless of the vehicle, are supposed to be strictly
obeying the laws of road or they are supposed to be strictly obeying the
laws of physics.
> > 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.
Yes, it is so much easier to be dismissive when you can't support your
multiple specious arguments. You seem to belong to that special class
of people who use "stupid" to label things they're not capable of
understanding.
--
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 #796837 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:36 |
|
In article <76fef6f0-a100-40ff-9d95-d8fdc89eb875 [at] k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:40 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 ...
>
>
> Which _should_, by definition, mean racer-boys would refrain from
> tailgating when someone is passing a truck.
I think I have few hundred anti-tailgating posts out there by now.
> Yes, even if that person isn't going as much over the speed limit as
> the racer-boy would like to go.
I find it rather odd that with the application of simple courtsey that I
just don't have the kinds of problems with tailgaters you do.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796838 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:37 |
|
On Mar 3, 11:18 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No matter how you dance and posture,
> your intent was quite clear.
My intent should have been quite clear, but obviously, a) it either
wasn't clear to you, or b) you're looking for any way to salvage your
ego.
If a person on a bike has lights that are acceptable by law, their
clothing color makes no practical difference.
Go back and read. Take notes. Ask for help. And if you still don't
understand, just give up. You're not up to this.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796839 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:41 |
|
In article <4e8d2c3f-d188-42d5-904c-448f9d749865 [at] 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:04 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 9:50 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
>> > <honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
>>
>> 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.
>
> The situation we've all experienced and are complaining about is not a
> simple flash-to-pass. Instead, it's this:
>
> Approach from behind with at least 10 mph speed differential;
>
> Maintain that approach speed until within about ten feet of the car in
> front;
>
> Begin flashing lights repeatedly, even though the car in front is
> passing a truck at or slightly above the speed limit, or even though
> the car in front is prevented from completing passing by yet another
> car.
I get it now.... Frank and the rest of them don't even notice there is
someone behind them until that guy has been blocked for minutes and has a
reached a significant frustration level and/or has escalated his attempts
to wake them from their mindless stupor.
If you actually saw them 'maintain speed until 10 feet off your bumper',
that's behavior consistant with someone sliding in front of them going
much slower. There is an expectation when you move in front of them, to
accelerate. That's why he didn't brake, he was expecting you to
accelerate. But you didn't. MFFY.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796840 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:49 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-3F2F1F.11362903032008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <7dGdnWyEU5NW6FbanZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't bitching about seeing
>> properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.
> Then please restate your argument, because you seem to have changed it
> from "unlighted wrong ways" to "everyday physics" to who knows what. If
> you just hate other people, simply say so. Classic road rage like that
> is nothing new, although you seem to be going to elaborate lengths to
> justify it. Again, and concisely, what's your issue?
Geebus... you really like to mix stuff up don't you. You people are sick.
You go around doing things in traffic and on usenet to intentionally piss
people off then you scream 'road rager! road rager!' when someone gets
pissed off. Grow up.
>> 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.
>
> Then you aren't reading the thread closely enough. All I've defended is
> the reality of the road, which I maintain the law does not adequately
> represent. Yes, the reality is that some people on bicycles don't
> strictly obey the laws that are meant to cover cars, though they are
> usually the laws that cars themselves often do not obey
The reality of the road.... what happenes when all sorts of nonsense is
politically applied to the road. Of course wanting to remove the nonsense
is what Frank and the rest of the gang including yourself scream bloody
murder at.
>> >> >> 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.
> I have. It's you who seemingly can't stay focussed long enough to
> follow an argument through. My statement is entirely consistent with
> the notion that we approach stop signs based on our general experience
> of how vehicles approach stop signs, not based on some abstract notion
> of physics that hardly matters to people who are burning dinosaurs to
> move.
You said it was LEARNED from car drivers. If that's not what you meant,
that's not my problem.
>> > 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.
> So, what, now you've switched your argument to "special dispensation"?
> Why not give a cyclist, someone who actually serves as the engine to
> their vehicle, some extra consideration, too? I'm going to guess that
> you think your 0.001% scenario somehow justifies the other 99.999% of
> incidents where cars roll stops. I'm going to guess you'd go so far as
> to bitch about a cyclist, additionally exposed to the cold, rolling
> through that same stop you seem willing to forgive the car for. Please
> stop going to the effort of imagining fanciful edge conditions and deal
> with everyday reality.
*sigh* No moron. I am pointing out your statement lacks the universality
that you think it has.... geebus. grow a clue.
>> >> > 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.
> You are certainly strong in "DUh". Your argument was of conservation of
> energy/momentum, which is definitely a physics argument. But since stop
> signs don't spring up at intersections naturally (or maybe you think
> they're some kind of flower? :-), your position on that is irrelevant
> unless you do the math and make it meaningful. So make up your mind:
> either people, regardless of the vehicle, are supposed to be strictly
> obeying the laws of road or they are supposed to be strictly obeying the
> laws of physics.
Holy fuck. I am sorry the physics terms confused you. I didn't realize
you were so fucking stupid.
>> > 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.
> Yes, it is so much easier to be dismissive when you can't support your
> multiple specious arguments. You seem to belong to that special class
> of people who use "stupid" to label things they're not capable of
> understanding.
Support the arguments you make up and assign to me? I think not asshat.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796841 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:49 |
|
> frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>> his car, not hurting anyone else.
Brent P wrote:
> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.
Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
ruining another. And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796842 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:54 |
|
In article <fqhdna$hp8$1 [at] news-int2.gatech.edu>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>
>> frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>>> his car, not hurting anyone else.
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
>> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
>> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
>> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
>
> The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
> wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.
So you agree with me.
> Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
> ruining another.
Again, I say that it might be called trivial by some.
> And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
> certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
> economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.
The typical SUV driver would say you should drive something more durable
that isn't ruined by a minor collision. That knife cuts both ways.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796844 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 18:57 |
|
> Brian Huntley wrote:
>> What's with all those damned crosswalks and stoplights downtown,
>> anyway? If they just take the obvious path and knock down enough
>> buildings on the corners for cloverleafs, we can do away with all
>
Nate Nagel wrote:
> (smacks forehead)
>
> Seriously. Is it even possible to have a rational, reasonable
> discussion anymore? I'm starting to think "no."
LOL! You're crackin' me up, Nate. Keep 'em coming!
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796845 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 19:11 |
|
On Mar 3, 12:30 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:04 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 9:50 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > "I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
> > > <honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
>
> > 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.
>
> The situation we've all experienced and are complaining about is not a
> simple flash-to-pass.
You trimmed out the part I was replying to.
I quote: "Flash-to-pass is highway rudeness." Not "approaching from
behind with a 10+mph differential to within 10 feet, flash a car
that's blocked by another car, etc". What you are describing is
indeed rude, and I don't think it's real common. However, people
thinking that "flash to pass is highway rudeness" is all too common.
> Instead, it's this:
>
> Approach from behind with at least 10 mph speed differential;
>
> Maintain that approach speed until within about ten feet of the car in
> front;
>
> Begin flashing lights repeatedly, even though the car in front is
> passing a truck at or slightly above the speed limit, or even though
> the car in front is prevented from completing passing by yet another
> car.
This is a different than simply saying "flash to pass is highway
rudeness". I don't think it's common people are being flashed by a
vehicle that intends to overtake them when there is another vehicle
directly in front of the vehicle being flashed at.
> > 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.
>
> A better analogy is for the light-flasher to be represented by a six-
> foot-eight weightlifter coming up two feet behind a businessman who's
> walking past a deliveryman pushing a cart. And the weightlifter says
> "Get out of my way, wimp, you're not walking fast enough for me."
No, that's your own misinterpretation of a legal and polite signal.
> Flash-to-pass can mean "please don't block the lane by driving the
> same speed as the truck you're passing." But more often it means "I
> want to go even faster. Get the hell out of my way."
I commute a minimum of 62 miles per day. Most of it is highway. I
don't exceed the posted limit by more than 5-7mph, and am usually 3-5
over. I often flash-to-pass. It means "please don't block this lane,
I intend to overtake you". People, however, interpret it as "Get the
hell out of my way", which is a mistake on their part. It's not
uncommon for someone I flash-to-pass to slam on the brakes and come
down to 20MPH under the limit in response to my polite double flash,
i.e. flash to pass. This can be problematic when I'm driving a pickup
truck with rear drum brakes and the car in front of me has 4 wheel
disks, ABS, and low-profile shoes that give great highway traction. I
am always at a safe distance when I flash, and yet I've had to
negotiate out of the highway and onto the shoulder on one occasion
fairly recently because my truck is simply no match for a new A4 in a
65-0MPH deceleration race. So back to the analogy, I said "please let
me by" and the thug said "What? F*** you! You want a f***ing
problem? This is MY sidewalk. I ain't excusing sh**!!!
Unfortunately we were not on a sidewalk and I didn't have a chance to
exchange views face to face with that particular thug.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796846 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 19:36 |
|
On Mar 3, 9:08=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <cd854657-c235-46b5-9221-4b0c20bc2... [at] e6g2000prf.googlegroups.c=
om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Fuck you too, Frank.
>
> Now you know how I got the way I am on usenet Ed :)
I know that Frank does it on purpose to piss people off.
I don't think you really want to compare yourself in any way to Frank.
And I sure as hell don't pull Frank's crap...
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796847 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 19:39 |
|
On Mar 3, 9:37=A0am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:18 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No matter how you dance and posture,
> > your intent was quite clear.
>
> If a person on a bike has lights that are acceptable by law, their
> clothing color makes no practical difference.
Again, an assertion without proof.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cross-posted Usenet thread today [message #796848 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 19:41 |
|
On Mar 3, 9:16=A0am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:10 am, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:10 -0800, Jym Dyer <j... [at] econet.org> wrote:
>
> > 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? ...
>
> > 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? =A0 Any?
>
> Excellent point. =A0In fact, I'm quite sure that I've been delayed by
> motorists while I've biked, far more than I've delayed motorists
> because of my bicycling. =A0
Actually, Brent and I have made these points repeatedly in r.a.d.
DAGS so you don't look so stupid.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796850 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 19:47 |
|
In article <2da911c0-80e9-4943-a437-4ebcedfd30f7 [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:08 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <cd854657-c235-46b5-9221-4b0c20bc2... [at] e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > Fuck you too, Frank.
>>
>> Now you know how I got the way I am on usenet Ed :)
>
> I know that Frank does it on purpose to piss people off.
>
> I don't think you really want to compare yourself in any way to Frank.
>
> And I sure as hell don't pull Frank's crap...
Nonono.... Not compared to, the result of dealing with people like
Frank.... sci.environment was even worse than the bicycling newsgroups.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796851 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 20:07 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <fqhdna$hp8$1 [at] news-int2.gatech.edu>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>> frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>>>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>>>> his car, not hurting anyone else.
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
>>> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
>>> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
>>> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
>> The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
>> wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.
>
> So you agree with me.
>
>> Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
>> ruining another.
>
> Again, I say that it might be called trivial by some.
>
>> And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
>> certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
>> economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.
>
> The typical SUV driver would say you should drive something more durable
> that isn't ruined by a minor collision. That knife cuts both ways.
When he mans up and agrees to pay my out of pocket medical expenses
associated with *two* wrist operations, he and I can have that conversation.
Until then, he's just some coward hiding behind a steel cage.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796852 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 20:23 |
|
In article <fqhi9n$j91$1 [at] news-int2.gatech.edu>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <fqhdna$hp8$1 [at] news-int2.gatech.edu>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>>> frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>>>>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>>>>> his car, not hurting anyone else.
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
>>>> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
>>>> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
>>>> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
>>> The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
>>> wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.
>>
>> So you agree with me.
>>
>>> Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
>>> ruining another.
>>
>> Again, I say that it might be called trivial by some.
>>
>>> And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
>>> certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
>>> economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.
>>
>> The typical SUV driver would say you should drive something more durable
>> that isn't ruined by a minor collision. That knife cuts both ways.
>
> When he mans up and agrees to pay my out of pocket medical expenses
> associated with *two* wrist operations, he and I can have that conversation.
Many SUV drivers would say it's your fault for not being protected....
well at least the ones I've heard voice an opinion while I was using two
wheeled human powered transportation...
> Until then, he's just some coward hiding behind a steel cage.
Nahh, if he paid he would probably still be a coward hiding in a steel
cage.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796857 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 20:48 |
|
In article <d9d98d34-4cb8-496f-a55c-d07bd0ea7f55 [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 2, 5:51 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <51f3617d-5eec-4007-a848-a1595f6dc... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> <frkry... [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?
>
>Mid-block? Sounds like you're talking about some hypothetical stop
>sign that's not at an intersection.
Yes, that's what a mid-block stop sign is. They're "traffic calming"
devices. Think any significant percentage of cyclists will stop for them?
>> >Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. Motorists kill
>> >40,000 "others" every year.
>>
>> Liar. The majority of those killed are motorists.
>
>The majority of motorists killed in crashes _are_ killed by "other"
>motorists.
Wrong again. More than half were drivers in single vehicle crashes.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
|
