|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796860 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 21:38 |
|
On Mar 3, 11:48=A0am, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <d9d98d34-4cb8-496f-a55c-d07bd0ea7... [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0<frkry... [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.googlegrou=
ps.com>,
>
> >> =A0<frkry... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Wow. =A0I've specifically explained roughly a dozen times in this thre=
ad
> >> >that I _do_ want cyclists to follow the rules of the road. =A0How is i=
t
> >> >that you forget? =A0How confused can you be?
>
> >> How many mid-block stop signs do you think an average cyclist will
> >> stop for?
>
> >Mid-block? =A0Sounds 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. =A0They're "traffic calming"
> devices. =A0Think any significant percentage of cyclists will stop for the=
m?
>
> >> >Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. =A0Motorists ki=
ll
> >> >40,000 "others" every year.
>
> >> Liar. =A0The majority of those killed are motorists.
>
> >The majority of motorists killed in crashes _are_ killed by "other"
> >motorists.
>
> Wrong again. =A0More than half were drivers in single vehicle crashes.
Hey - Frank never lets *facts* get in the way of a good rant. Unless
he can use them to try and obfuscate the issue.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796861 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 21:53 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <GeUyj.2380$VS2.1915 [at] trndny05>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>"I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
>><honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
>>
>>What class of behavior is that?
>
> Is this sort of thing the only line you people have?
>
> What do you get out of delaying people and refusing to keep right except
> to pass? What do you get out of cutting off other drivers?
>
> I wait until I can change lanes and pass without causing problems for
> other people going faster than I. Why is it such a problem for you?
Why is it you can't understand the situation?
No one is being cut off. No one (other than the Mr Speedies) are
parked in the passing lane.
Why can't you understand the "public" in public highway?
Practice your driving on an old abandoned runway if you can't
handle sharing a public roadway with the public.
>>>>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.
>
> Oh bullshit. I haven't seen one of your crowd raise any objection to
> sliding over in front of faster drivers. In fact you make it clear that
> you have no concern about them by saying they can just wait. You have
> made it quite clear you would see a faster driver approaching in the left
> lane from the rear and then slide over and begin your plus 2mph pass
> anyway. That's rude. I wait for the driver going faster than me to pass
> before I begin my pass.
I'm not talking "cutting people off" to regulate their speed. I'm
not a cop and have no interest in acting like one. If you wish
to go 90 mph feel free. Just don't expect me to accelerate up
to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.
>>You need to stay on your own private roadway. You don't have
>>the understanding to actually deal with driving a public road.
>
> Seriously, you need to lay off this bullshit. I know how to deal with a
> public road far better than you and the other asshats in this country who
> see the highway as their passive-aggressive control freak playground.
>
> It's bad enough you asshats have fucked up the roads in every other
> nation on the planet and beat montana down, but your kind continues an
> assault on Germany. what is with you control freaks anyway?
Montana can keep it's open speed limit if it wants I really don't care.
Germany can keep unlimited speed on its autobahn if it wants. Hell
it can even unregulate speed through downdowns or residential areas
if it wants. I don't care!
I only care about not being bullied into driving in a manner I don't
want to drive. I do the speed limit (more or less). I keep right
except to pass. I don't cut people off.
But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.
>>Not "faith" at all. I already posted plenty of evidence of
>>relationships between speed and accident rates and seriousness
>>of accidents.
>
> You repeated bullshit. Old, tired, politically charged bullshit that tis
> the driving equal of bicycle helmet zealotary.
>>Only someone with a head of wood would believe it's nothing but
>>MADD propaganda.
>
> It's not my fault you don't know the truth about MADD in the last decade
> or so. It's not my fault you never learned how those figures are
> generated.
>
> If a sober driver runs a red signal and hits a driver with a BAC 0.05 who
> did nothing wrong, it's an alcohol related crash.
Perhaps, but I don't know. My brother-in-law is a MA state trooper
and I think he once said it was 0.8 to be alcohol related here.
However, alcohol effects on driver reflexes is quite well documented
and at speeds some feel the right to engage in, I'd think they would
need all the reflex capabilities they could muster.
I guess we're just going to have to disagree and leave it at that.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796863 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:18 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>>>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.
Would you please provide me a cite where not giving way to someone
flashing their headlights at you is illegal. I don't think that is
the case in MA.
When I lived in TX, there was a rule that if three or more cars
backed up behind you, you were required to move over (when safe to
do so) to let them by.
I can see the purpose of light flashing after someone has spent at
least a little time stuck behind a vehicle that is merely traveling
in a passing lane. Give the guy a little time to complete the pass,
and then remind him someone is behind trying to get by. Much like
flashing headlights at oncoming cars with high beams on.
A gentle reminder is fine.
But all too often, I see people roaring up the passing lane rapidly
bearing down on others in that lane while flashing their lights to
get them out of the way.
Such individuals themselves never leave the passing lane. Why would
they? There's another car to be passed right ahead. They cover
probably tens of miles in the passing lane, flashing the headlights
for people to move out of their way.
This is not "gentle reminder". It is rude selfish behavior on the
part of a driver who feels a public road is entirely his.
>>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?
Because that's an actual reminder, where flashing of lights is
useful for someone who may not be aware his high beams are on.
Madly flashing one's lights while driving at high speed in a passing
lane is not "gentle reminder". As I said. It's rude selfishness.
>>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?
I know he's there. Can't he see me passing someone and am simply
going slower than he wants? What more information does the clod
need to figure out the situation?
>>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.
>>
>>So the issue is simply one of a person not passing fast enough for
>>another person behind them.
>>
>>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.
Depends on the road situation.
Here in MA, people park themselves in the passing lane. People go
quite fast as well. There may never be time to provide someone
who is well above the speed limit enough time. Most of the time
(on busy highways like the Mass Pike), I'm not the only one blocking
the passing lane for the clod. There's a line of cars ahead of me
that's he's going to have to flash his way through. All of them
actually passing other cars.
If he's doing the speed limit, or at least median traffic speed,
this shouldn't be an issue at all. But the mad flashers aren't
doing that. They're doing high rates of speed expecting everyone
else (out of politeness no doubt) to modify their speed to
accommodate them.
>>Who's being the "thug" in this situation?
>
> Certainly not the person flashing their beams at you, in a gesture
> that you clearly misinterpret.
I don't think I'm misinterpreting the fellow at all. I know exactly
what he's saying. It isn't "Excuse me sir, I'm trying to get by".
It's "You'll ruin my day if I have to back off the throttle so get
the F* out of my way".
It's quite similar to honking the horn. A slight honk can be a
"gentle reminder" to someone daydreaming that the light has changed.
It can also be a long blast effectively swearing at someone for not
being fast enough off the mark when the light changed.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796864 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:20 |
|
On Mar 3, 12:53=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
First you say this...
> =A0Just don't expect me to accelerate up
> to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.
=2E..then you say this.
> But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
> someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.
You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
explode.
LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796865 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:25 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> 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"
Light flashing can be useful just like horns can be useful.
Light flashing can be rude, just like horn blasts can be rude.
It all depends on the context of the situation.
Does this law imply one must accomodate speeders? Does this mean
if there is a long line of traffic to my right lane, I am required
to accelerate to 90 mph so the person behind me will not be in an
over-taking situation?
Will the cop that stops me understand that?
I think there is more to the law in these circumstances than you
are implying. I'll have to ask my state troop brother-in-law what
the legal situation is here in MA.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796866 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:31 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796867 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:33 |
|
In article <9zZyj.2391$VS2.566 [at] trndny05>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <GeUyj.2380$VS2.1915 [at] trndny05>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>>>
>>>"I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
>>><honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
>>>
>>>What class of behavior is that?
>>
>> Is this sort of thing the only line you people have?
>>
>> What do you get out of delaying people and refusing to keep right except
>> to pass? What do you get out of cutting off other drivers?
>>
>> I wait until I can change lanes and pass without causing problems for
>> other people going faster than I. Why is it such a problem for you?
>
> Why is it you can't understand the situation?
> No one is being cut off.
So what made that car appear behind you? Did it decloak? Either you
didn't look behind you before changing lanes which means you don't care or
you did but don't care.
I look, I see someone gaining on me at a rate
where I won't complete the pass before he reaches me, I don't change
lanes until he's by me. Simple. It is quite obvious you don't do that.
> No one (other than the Mr Speedies) are
> parked in the passing lane.
Your +2mph is ~= 'parked in the passing lane'.
> Why can't you understand the "public" in public highway?
It is you who cannot understand that the road doesn't belong to regulate
its speed.
> Practice your driving on an old abandoned runway if you can't
> handle sharing a public roadway with the public.
You people are just a one trick pony... anyone who disagrees with you is
a boy racer using the roads as a race track.... nonsense.
>>>>>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.
>>
>> Oh bullshit. I haven't seen one of your crowd raise any objection to
>> sliding over in front of faster drivers. In fact you make it clear that
>> you have no concern about them by saying they can just wait. You have
>> made it quite clear you would see a faster driver approaching in the left
>> lane from the rear and then slide over and begin your plus 2mph pass
>> anyway. That's rude. I wait for the driver going faster than me to pass
>> before I begin my pass.
> I'm not talking "cutting people off" to regulate their speed. I'm
> not a cop and have no interest in acting like one. If you wish
> to go 90 mph feel free. Just don't expect me to accelerate up
> to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.
It seems that you and others do want to act as the road controller. Keep
right except to pass, make your pass and get over with. You're chastising
anyone who drives faster than you, but a 2mph speed differential is so
bloody important to you? 2mph... I don't go around blocking a passing
lane for a good long time to go 2mph faster than the guy I would be
'passing'. I just stay to the right. It's 2mph out of at least 55mph...
who the f cares? 2mph is important when you're on a bicycle and max out
around 30mph, but on a limited acccess highway traveling between 55 and
85mph it's nothing.
>>>You need to stay on your own private roadway. You don't have
>>>the understanding to actually deal with driving a public road.
>>
>> Seriously, you need to lay off this bullshit. I know how to deal with a
>> public road far better than you and the other asshats in this country who
>> see the highway as their passive-aggressive control freak playground.
>>
>> It's bad enough you asshats have fucked up the roads in every other
>> nation on the planet and beat montana down, but your kind continues an
>> assault on Germany. what is with you control freaks anyway?
> Montana can keep it's open speed limit if it wants I really don't care.
It's gone.
> Germany can keep unlimited speed on its autobahn if it wants. Hell
> it can even unregulate speed through downdowns or residential areas
> if it wants. I don't care!
The control freaks in the european union are coming up with new angles to
get rid of it.
> I only care about not being bullied into driving in a manner I don't
> want to drive. I do the speed limit (more or less). I keep right
> except to pass. I don't cut people off.
If you are getting people 'appearing' behind you all pissed off, you
clearly are cutting them off or otherwise being rude.
> But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
> someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.
Your control freakish moral superiority complex is showing again.
Again, you express that you don't care one bit about the traffic gaining
on you. This makes it clear to me that you just change lanes to make your
+2mph pass without concern to them needing to brake for you. A MFFY
move. Then again, considering how they 'appear' suddenly there is the
possibility you don't use your mirrors well. For someone to 'appear' as
you describe even on an urban/suburban interstate they have to be doing
well over 100mph. That just ain't that common.
>>>Not "faith" at all. I already posted plenty of evidence of
>>>relationships between speed and accident rates and seriousness
>>>of accidents.
>> You repeated bullshit. Old, tired, politically charged bullshit that tis
>> the driving equal of bicycle helmet zealotary.
>>>Only someone with a head of wood would believe it's nothing but
>>>MADD propaganda.
>>
>> It's not my fault you don't know the truth about MADD in the last decade
>> or so. It's not my fault you never learned how those figures are
>> generated.
>>
>> If a sober driver runs a red signal and hits a driver with a BAC 0.05 who
>> did nothing wrong, it's an alcohol related crash.
>
> Perhaps, but I don't know. My brother-in-law is a MA state trooper
> and I think he once said it was 0.8 to be alcohol related here.
..8 BAC is dead, it's more than dead, the person died and then some
replaced blood with alcohol.
> However, alcohol effects on driver reflexes is quite well documented
> and at speeds some feel the right to engage in, I'd think they would
> need all the reflex capabilities they could muster.
More bicycle helmet zealot equal type stuff.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796869 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:36 |
|
In article <xWZyj.2394$VS2.1899 [at] trndny05>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> I can see the purpose of light flashing after someone has spent at
> least a little time stuck behind a vehicle that is merely traveling
> in a passing lane. Give the guy a little time to complete the pass,
> and then remind him someone is behind trying to get by. Much like
> flashing headlights at oncoming cars with high beams on.
>
> A gentle reminder is fine.
>
> But all too often, I see people roaring up the passing lane rapidly
> bearing down on others in that lane while flashing their lights to
> get them out of the way.
After the first twenty people that needed a gentle reminder, the
reminders might get a little less gentle over time...
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796871 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:40 |
|
In article <C1_yj.1367$LK3.539 [at] trndny02>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> if there is a long line of traffic to my right lane, I am required
> to accelerate to 90 mph so the person behind me will not be in an
> over-taking situation?
>
> Will the cop that stops me understand that?
>
> I think there is more to the law in these circumstances than you
> are implying. I'll have to ask my state troop brother-in-law what
> the legal situation is here in MA.
Why is your +2mph pass so damn important anyway?
I find it interesting that drivers such as yourself are all about slow is
safe and calling other drivers impaitent, etc... so it puzzles me as to
why it's so damn important to go 2mph faster than you were going before
you caught up to someone in the right lane?
Just wait for a big enough gap to make your pass, if one never happens,
what's the big deal for paitent adult driver who believes slower speeds
are safer and morally superior to faster ones? It's only 2mph.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796872 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:44 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> 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.
I suspect they just can't catch you!
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796879 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 23:46 |
|
On Mar 3, 4:18 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > 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:
>
> >>>>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.
>
> Would you please provide me a cite where not giving way to someone
> flashing their headlights at you is illegal. I don't think that is
> the case in MA.
Brent already gave you an example of signal to pass, although in that
instance the signal mentioned is an audible signal.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/261e7e0 02dd1e61c
for reference. That was in this thread. There are other references
of states laws requiring drivers to yield to other vehicles that have
indicated intent to pass. They vary on audible (horn) or visual
(flash-to-pass). I consider a flash more polite than a horn.
> When I lived in TX, there was a rule that if three or more cars
> backed up behind you, you were required to move over (when safe to
> do so) to let them by.
>
> I can see the purpose of light flashing after someone has spent at
> least a little time stuck behind a vehicle that is merely traveling
> in a passing lane. Give the guy a little time to complete the pass,
> and then remind him someone is behind trying to get by. Much like
> flashing headlights at oncoming cars with high beams on.
>
> A gentle reminder is fine.
>
> But all too often, I see people roaring up the passing lane rapidly
> bearing down on others in that lane while flashing their lights to
> get them out of the way.
>
> Such individuals themselves never leave the passing lane. Why would
> they? There's another car to be passed right ahead. They cover
> probably tens of miles in the passing lane, flashing the headlights
> for people to move out of their way.
>
> This is not "gentle reminder". It is rude selfish behavior on the
> part of a driver who feels a public road is entirely his.
>
> >>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?
>
> Because that's an actual reminder, where flashing of lights is
> useful for someone who may not be aware his high beams are on.
>
> Madly flashing one's lights while driving at high speed in a passing
> lane is not "gentle reminder". As I said. It's rude selfishness.
>
> >>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?
>
> I know he's there. Can't he see me passing someone and am simply
> going slower than he wants? What more information does the clod
> need to figure out the situation?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>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.
>
> >>So the issue is simply one of a person not passing fast enough for
> >>another person behind them.
>
> >>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.
>
> Depends on the road situation.
>
> Here in MA, people park themselves in the passing lane. People go
> quite fast as well. There may never be time to provide someone
> who is well above the speed limit enough time. Most of the time
> (on busy highways like the Mass Pike), I'm not the only one blocking
> the passing lane for the clod. There's a line of cars ahead of me
> that's he's going to have to flash his way through. All of them
> actually passing other cars.
I was born and raised in MA. I still work there. You're suggesting
all the cars in the left lane are passing other cars? IME, especially
in MA, the left lane is rarely the fastest lane.
> If he's doing the speed limit, or at least median traffic speed,
> this shouldn't be an issue at all. But the mad flashers aren't
> doing that. They're doing high rates of speed expecting everyone
> else (out of politeness no doubt) to modify their speed to
> accommodate them.
I believe the situation you speak of is extremely rare, and you are
constrewing it into "flash to pass is rude". That is an incorrect
assessment. Some drivers are rude? Sure. Flash-to-pass is rude?
No. The examples I run into at least once a week, which I mentioned
in my post and you snipped, are typical examples of flash-to-pass.
The only rude thing is the drivers refusing to yield, or worse yet
braking.
> >>Who's being the "thug" in this situation?
>
> > Certainly not the person flashing their beams at you, in a gesture
> > that you clearly misinterpret.
>
> I don't think I'm misinterpreting the fellow at all. I know exactly
> what he's saying. It isn't "Excuse me sir, I'm trying to get by".
> It's "You'll ruin my day if I have to back off the throttle so get
> the F* out of my way".
>
> It's quite similar to honking the horn. A slight honk can be a
> "gentle reminder" to someone daydreaming that the light has changed.
>
> It can also be a long blast effectively swearing at someone for not
> being fast enough off the mark when the light changed.
So now you're saying that flash-to-pass can be rude or polite? You're
getting warmer. Some drivers are rude, and they may or may not
include their high beams and horn in their rude behavior. That does
not make flash-to-pass rude in itself.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796880 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 23:48 |
|
On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796882 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 23:55 |
|
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <GeUyj.2380$VS2.1915 [at] trndny05>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> >>"I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
> >><honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"
>
> >>What class of behavior is that?
>
> > Is this sort of thing the only line you people have?
>
> > What do you get out of delaying people and refusing to keep right except
> > to pass? What do you get out of cutting off other drivers?
>
> > I wait until I can change lanes and pass without causing problems for
> > other people going faster than I. Why is it such a problem for you?
>
> Why is it you can't understand the situation?
>
> No one is being cut off. No one (other than the Mr Speedies) are
> parked in the passing lane.
Didn't you say you lived in MA? Noone but "Mr Speeders" (are we in
kindergarten?) are parked in the passing lane? Please. To speed
excessively in MA during times of traffic you need to bob & weave.
There is consistently 65-70MPH traffic parked in the left lane.
> Why can't you understand the "public" in public highway?
>
> Practice your driving on an old abandoned runway if you can't
> handle sharing a public roadway with the public.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>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.
>
> > Oh bullshit. I haven't seen one of your crowd raise any objection to
> > sliding over in front of faster drivers. In fact you make it clear that
> > you have no concern about them by saying they can just wait. You have
> > made it quite clear you would see a faster driver approaching in the left
> > lane from the rear and then slide over and begin your plus 2mph pass
> > anyway. That's rude. I wait for the driver going faster than me to pass
> > before I begin my pass.
>
> I'm not talking "cutting people off" to regulate their speed. I'm
> not a cop and have no interest in acting like one. If you wish
> to go 90 mph feel free. Just don't expect me to accelerate up
> to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.
>
> >>You need to stay on your own private roadway. You don't have
> >>the understanding to actually deal with driving a public road.
>
> > Seriously, you need to lay off this bullshit. I know how to deal with a
> > public road far better than you and the other asshats in this country who
> > see the highway as their passive-aggressive control freak playground.
>
> > It's bad enough you asshats have fucked up the roads in every other
> > nation on the planet and beat montana down, but your kind continues an
> > assault on Germany. what is with you control freaks anyway?
>
> Montana can keep it's open speed limit if it wants I really don't care.
> Germany can keep unlimited speed on its autobahn if it wants. Hell
> it can even unregulate speed through downdowns or residential areas
> if it wants. I don't care!
>
> I only care about not being bullied into driving in a manner I don't
> want to drive. I do the speed limit (more or less). I keep right
> except to pass. I don't cut people off.
>
> But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
> someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.
>
> >>Not "faith" at all. I already posted plenty of evidence of
> >>relationships between speed and accident rates and seriousness
> >>of accidents.
>
> > You repeated bullshit. Old, tired, politically charged bullshit that tis
> > the driving equal of bicycle helmet zealotary.
> >>Only someone with a head of wood would believe it's nothing but
> >>MADD propaganda.
>
> > It's not my fault you don't know the truth about MADD in the last decade
> > or so. It's not my fault you never learned how those figures are
> > generated.
>
> > If a sober driver runs a red signal and hits a driver with a BAC 0.05 who
> > did nothing wrong, it's an alcohol related crash.
>
> Perhaps, but I don't know. My brother-in-law is a MA state trooper
> and I think he once said it was 0.8 to be alcohol related here.
..08 is DUI lock, stock and barrel. Some states allow a DUI to be
processed with a lower BAC if the officer finds "indications of
intoxication" or something similarly worded. Couldn't tell you if MA
is one, but I would expect it to be considering what a nanny state it
is.
> However, alcohol effects on driver reflexes is quite well documented
> and at speeds some feel the right to engage in, I'd think they would
> need all the reflex capabilities they could muster.
>
> I guess we're just going to have to disagree and leave it at that.
>
> SMH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796886 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 01:09 |
|
In article <2j_yj.2596$oy2.433 [at] trndny07>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I suspect they just can't catch you!
Believe it or not, much of the time I am in the bottom 50% speed wise.
Even when I drive the fastest I am willing to go, there are drivers going
faster. I don't drive faster than the ISP officers drive, but a good
number of people don't so restrict themselves.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796888 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 01:18 |
|
On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> > damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>
> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.
Don't dance around the question, Dan. The question was whether
bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
vehicles. Do you really believe it does?
Either "yes" or "no" should be your first word. Explanation and
documentation should follow.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796889 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 01:30 |
|
On Mar 3, 7:18=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> > > damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>
> > No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> > blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.
>
> Don't dance around the question, Dan. =A0The question was whether
> bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
> vehicles. =A0Do you really believe it does?
>
> Either "yes" or "no" should be =A0your first word. =A0Explanation and
> documentation should follow.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Frank, my first word in response to the question was *"No"*. Your
reading comprehension is lacking. Dancing around the issue? Get a
grip man.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796892 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 01:47 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>>DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>
>
> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
> what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
> bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?
Just to clarify my statement, most vehicles, even if they're actively
gunning for me, are large enough that I'll see them in time to take
evasive action, unless it's the rare idiot driving around after dark
with his lights off (and some days, believe me, it feels like they *are*
gunning for me, but at least I can see them coming.) I don't see many
cyclists after dark, as a significant number simply refuse to use proper
safety equipment, until I'm already closer than I'm comfortable with.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796893 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 01:55 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:18 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>>> damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>>
>>> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
>>> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.
>>
>> Don't dance around the question, Dan. The question was whether
>> bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
>> vehicles. Do you really believe it does?
>>
>> Either "yes" or "no" should be your first word. Explanation and
>> documentation should follow.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank, my first word in response to the question was *"No"*. Your
> reading comprehension is lacking. Dancing around the issue? Get a
> grip man.
There's a first time for everything! LOL
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796899 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:14 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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.
>
Sheesh...
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796900 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:18 |
|
Brent P. wrote:
> [...]
> I realize you [Frank Krygowski] hate the automobile and see it as a 'death machine'.[...]
I believe Brent P. has Frank Krygowski confused with Zoot Katz.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796901 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:26 |
|
Stephen Harding wrote:
> [...]
> 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.
>
Cross-posting makes for better flame wars. ;)
> [...]
> 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.
>
I do not believe it is the motor vehicle per say, but the isolation the
steel and glass cage provides.
> Nothing to get too bent out of shape over. Hey, it's only
> a NG (or two).
>
Hey, you are not supposed to mention 'bents on RBM! ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796902 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:27 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:48 am, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <d9d98d34-4cb8-496f-a55c-d07bd0ea7... [at] d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <frkry... [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.
>
> Hey - Frank never lets *facts* get in the way of a good rant. Unless
> he can use them to try and obfuscate the issue.
Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)
According to NHTSA 2006 statistics
( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader .jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810837.pdf
page 32; updated Jan 2008) about 57% of accidents are single car accidents.
However, just because a crash is single vehicle doesn't mean only the
driver goes to motorist heaven (we'll presume he's already living
in driver Hell dealing with scofflaw bicyclists and drivers who don't
respect flashing headlights astern).
There's a concept called "the passenger".
And, to be fair, a multi-vehicle accident may end in the death of
only a single driver. Was the driver a "guilty" party or not?
I'm not able to derive a rough estimate of what number of single
car crash fatalities involve occupants ("other persons") versus
multi-car crashes where only the "guilty" driver is the fatality.
My guess based on some components of the NHTSA data for 2006 is
perhaps a 50-50 split between "other people" and "driver" fatalities.
I'm perfectly willing to revise this estimate if someone can point
me to more thorough data. I did come across a statistic where
67% of drivers died in fatal crashes versus passengers. However,
I don't know what percentage of them were "guilty" drivers.
Nonetheless, a bicyclist probably kills < 0.???1 percent of "other
people" compared to motor vehicle drivers.
Motor vehicle drivers aren't off the hook in comparison to
bicycle drivers in killing "other people". Even if the percentages
were equivalent, the absolute number of persons killed would be
orders of magnitude in difference.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796903 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:28 |
|
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 unlike today's cluster f*ck of drivers scatttered
> willy-nilly all over the road in different lanes.[...]
The USians need to learn from the Germans and ticket the "left lane
bandits" and right hand passers.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796905 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:30 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> 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.
>
What is needed is the anti-tailgating cannon.
>> 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.
My greatest problem with tailgater's is when I am driving in the right
lane and maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead of me.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796907 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:34 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:53 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> First you say this...
>
>
>> Just don't expect me to accelerate up
>>to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.
>
>
> ...then you say this.
>
>
>>But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
>>someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.
>
>
> You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
> exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>
> The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
> explode.
>
> LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
*I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*
I'm not asking the person to do 50! I'm only asking for the
period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
back off on his desired speed.
Life is cruel on public roadways!
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796908 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:37 |
|
On Mar 3, 7:30 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:18 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> > > > damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>
> > > No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> > > blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.
>
> > Don't dance around the question, Dan. The question was whether
> > bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
> > vehicles. Do you really believe it does?
>
> > Either "yes" or "no" should be your first word. Explanation and
> > documentation should follow.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank, my first word in response to the question was *"No"*. Your
> reading comprehension is lacking. Dancing around the issue? Get a
> grip man.
Sorry, I should read more slowly. Since all the rest of that sentence
was vehemently disagreeing with what I said, I suppose it distracted
me.
I won't try to ask about why you think crash repair costs don't tell
the real story of crash repair costs. It's enough that you agree that
cars cause more damage than bikes.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796909 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:39 |
|
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
>> exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>>
>> The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
>> explode.
>>
>> LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
>
> *I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*
Sorry. All you characters are beginning to merge into one
driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
or traffic stops.
I guess it's an instance of "Ed" rather than "Brent".
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796910 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:40 |
|
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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
It is not practical to yield to faster traffic when the passing of the
truck has already started, and someone suddenly cuts over from the right
lane and speeds way up just to tailgate.
>>> 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.
>
Proper following distance is basic. Following a 5 feet or less with high
beams on is not just creeping up a little.
>>> 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.
>
Those are the people who are usually found to aggressively tailgate
someone who is passing a truck at a reasonable speed differential, or is
being slowed by another vehicle ahead in the passing lane.
>> 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.
>
However, you believe that aggressive tailgating with the high beams on
is just fine to teach someone a lesson. Grow up already.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796912 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:47 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> 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 unlike today's cluster f*ck of drivers
>> scatttered willy-nilly all over the road in different lanes.[...]
>
>
> The USians need to learn from the Germans and ticket the "left lane
> bandits" and right hand passers.
>
Damn straight. But for the time being, please concentrate on the LLBs
first; then when they're taken care of take care of those that pass on
the right (first, because many states have legalized passing on the
right, and secondly, because otherwise a single LLB can jam an entire
freeway.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796913 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:49 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> 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?
>
On a three lane road, the left lane is still available to pass.
> 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?
>
No, I leave enough of a gap for people to get through on a two lane
road, or pass on the left on a three lane. Two wrongs do not make a right.
>>>> 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?
>
If people behind me are not following too closely, they will not have a
problem. I slow done well in advance, so I do not have to brake. It is
not my fault some moron is blocking traffic.
> 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.
>
Why, if they do not care about passing on the right, they can go around
me to the left and pass the offending driver on the right if they so
desire. I have seen way too many people merge right without looking to
risk passing on the right, and there is no way I would ever pass a truck
or bus in their driver's blind spot on the right.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796914 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:51 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> 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.
>
In Colorado on I-70, I have passed trucks that were doing 15-20 mph
uphill. (I was doing about 40-45 mph, full throttle in 3rd gear, in a
Rabbit (Golf I).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796915 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:52 |
|
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>> You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
>>> exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>>>
>>> The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
>>> explode.
>>>
>>> LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
>>
>>
>> *I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*
>
>
> Sorry. All you characters are beginning to merge into one
> driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
> thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
> or traffic stops.
>
> I guess it's an instance of "Ed" rather than "Brent".
Not at all. We're just sick of being stuck in the passing lane behind
some old guy in a Buick doing 64 "passing" some other old guy in a Buick
doing 63.9999998.
The VAST majority of LLBs aren't even passing anyone, they're either
just camping out in the left lane for no apparent reason, or even worse,
pacing the car next to them not either in front of or far enough behind
to slip through without some really squidly driving.
That said, I can understand your frustration, but put yourself in the
seat of the guy behind you. He's *expecting* you to do actively hold
him up, because you're driving slow (relatively) in the passing lane and
that's the behavior he's come to expect from other motorists. If you
pass promtply and move over quickly, he'll be pleasantly surprised and
might even acknowledge your courtesy with a wave as he passes. If you
actively block him, you're just another of the rude and/or clueless
masses that make everyday driving unpleasant.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796916 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:55 |
|
Brent P? wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes, and what other industrialized country has as badly trained drivers
as the US?
>> 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.
>
That usually gets no reaction - they probably think you are doing the
"cop ahead" signal.
> Considering that you apparently don't find LLBing assholish
Apparently Brent P comprehends incorrectly.
> 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.
>
Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796918 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 03:56 |
|
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:
| |
|
