|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796208 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 03:41 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>
>>>
>> frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong.
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
>
> So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
> too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.
I don't really ride anymore. But no, I wouldn't.
> How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
Of course.
> Do you ever roll through stop signs?
NO.
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796209 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 03:57 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
> wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
> did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
> narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
> road to get around parked cars.)
It is possible that he had one of those crappy bicycle headlights. If
he was in range of your vehicle's headlamps, the light from them would
easily overpower the bicycle light.
My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one
time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars :)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796210 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 03:59 |
|
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
>> wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because
>> he did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a
>> very narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side
>> of the road to get around parked cars.)
>
>
> It is possible that he had one of those crappy bicycle headlights. If
> he was in range of your vehicle's headlamps, the light from them would
> easily overpower the bicycle light.
>
> My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one
> time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars :)
No, he had no headlight at all. At one point I passed him and checked
my rearview, I could just barely see a figure on a bike. I'm really not
sure how he could see when there wasn't a car behind him or approaching.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796211 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:00 |
|
Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
> too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.
>
> How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
> Do you ever roll through stop signs?
The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796212 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:02 |
|
N8N wrote:
> But you're right, there's a whole lotta stupid on both sides. Just
> more so with cyclists, it seems. Not sure why; I don't actually know
> any serious cyclists in this area personally, so I haven't had the
> opportunity to try to figure it out - and to be perfectly honest,
> their behavior is kind of a disincentive to take up cycling seriously
> again, although this area is actually more bike-friendly than any I've
> lived in the last decade or so.
Most cyclists where I live aren't any different. When I ride, I follow
the rules of the road as much as I do in my car (though I don't speed
quite as much ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796215 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:14 |
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>
>> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
>Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
>From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
the rules.
It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796216 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:17 |
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> <gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>>>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>>
>>Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>>it's *your* proposal, after all.
>>
>
>>From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>
>>of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>>light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
>
> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>
> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
> law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
> the rules.
Nope. I just don't see them because cyclists obeying the letter of the
law don't exist in my area.
>
> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>
> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>
> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
I'd like to cordially invite you to take your attitude and shove it up
your ass. It's not like I needed yet *another* reason to think the
average cyclist was a self-important asshole.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796218 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:21 |
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:32:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 6:04 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>> >an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>
>> >nate
>>
>> So you still don't understand how those things work.
>> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
>
>
>If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
>right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
>roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.
>
>Explain that, if you please.
>
Drivers are petulant brats.
What's new?
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796221 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:32 |
|
On Feb 27, 7:21=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:32:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 6:04=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. =A0I remember it well=
,
> >> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meetin=
g
> >> >an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
> >> >nate
>
> >> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> >> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
>
> >If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
> >right at their location, then you are mistaken. =A0Average speeds on
> >roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.
>
> >Explain that, if you please.
>
> Drivers are petulant brats.
Nice cause and effect you have going there.
Logic, much?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796222 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:36 |
|
On Feb 27, 7:14=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Come ride with me someday. =A0You'll see I'm right.
>
> >> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> >> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
> >Yes. =A0Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. =A0Go ahead,
> >it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
> >From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> >of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> >light or a sign. =A0Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
As a former vehicular cyclist, I am always careful. And not just
around bicyclists.
> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
> law.
What about we clown who used to ride bikes, and now pay very close
attention to all traffic, just out of habit?
> They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
> the rules.
Except that seeing bicycles riding correctly on the roads is a rare,
noteworthy event.
> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
Which is it - there are so many you can't keep track, or they are
rare? You are being contradictory.
> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one. =A0
And the lawful one, in their rarity, is not noticed at all.
Uh -huh - you're making a whole lot of sense now. (not)
> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
Just like fools on bikes who can't be bothered to make themselves even
partially visible at night, or who ignore traffic control devices.
Got it.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796226 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:48 |
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:17:12 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net>
wrote:
>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>> <gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>>>>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>>>
>>>Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>>>it's *your* proposal, after all.
>>>
>>
>>>From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>>
>>>of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>>>light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>>
>>
>> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
>> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>>
>> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
>> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
>> law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
>> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
>> the rules.
>
>Nope. I just don't see them because cyclists obeying the letter of the
>law don't exist in my area.
>
Amazingly they manage to survive to piss you off again another day.
Given current trends, their numbers are growing and it's not because
you've learned to compensate for their behaviour. Likely they've
learned to avoid your predictable stupidity.
>>
>> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
>> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>>
>> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
>> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
>> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>>
>> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
>> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
>> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
>I'd like to cordially invite you to take your attitude and shove it up
>your ass. It's not like I needed yet *another* reason to think the
>average cyclist was a self-important asshole.
>
Get out your bike, pump up the tires and go for a ride. If that
doesn't rekindle your soul then you've buried it in that coffin you
love.
Get well soon.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796229 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:54 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote in news:20535a39-4021-4038-ba94-
99920e03c0d5 [at] 28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
>> > be respected.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
>> > should not be.
>>
>> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>> for anything that might happen to you.
>
> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> they're dressed should not matter.
>
>> > I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
>> > motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
>> > lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
>> > should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
>> > reason.
>>
>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>> something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
> Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>
>
>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> Wrong.
>
>>
>> > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
>> > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
>> > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
>> > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>>
>> Mostly cyclists kill themselves.
>
> Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
> commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
> risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
> in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
> find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)
>
>> But my car will still be damaged.
>
>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> around!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
depending on auto drivers to keep you bicyclists safe is about as sensible
as expecting police to protect you from criminals 24/7/365.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796231 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 04:56 |
|
necromancer wrote:
>>It would help if the cyclists would obey the laws and stop running red
>>lights and stop driving on the left side of the road.
>
>Cyclists are riding, you idiot, *not* driving.
What I don't understand is how sfb can judge what intelligence is,
considering that it doesn't possess the attributes necessary to make
such a judgement.
--
People don't confuse me with someone who cares.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796232 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 05:00 |
|
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234 [at] wvu.edu> wrote in
news:vtpxj.5095$7d1.1986 [at] news01.roc.ny:
> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>
>> So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
>> too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.
>>
>> How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
>> Do you ever roll through stop signs?
>
> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
> has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
> yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>
> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>
I ALWAYS stop for stop signs.No matter what time of day/night,or traffic
conditions. The same goes for red lights.
I often exceed the posted speed limits,where it's reasonably safe.
IMO,there are far more "amateur" bicyclists out on the roads than the
"skilled,law-abiding semi-pros" that you bicyclists seem to believe inhabit
the roads.
And both types of bicyclists *always lose* in a car-bike collision,no
matter who's at fault.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796234 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 05:10 |
|
Jim Yanik wrote:
> I ALWAYS stop for stop signs.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't (both in a car and on a bike). I'm
capable of making sound judgments about which stop signs are necessary
and which aren't. The ones that are necessary are at intersections
where I would stop even if there wasn't a stop sign simply because I
can't see cross traffic before I get there. The one's that aren't are
at intersections that one can see for hundreds of feet in either
direction and don't have much cross traffic.
> I often exceed the posted speed limits,where it's reasonably safe.
So what makes stop signs so special? There are quite a few unnecessary
stop signs and quite a few under posted roadways. In many other
countries, stop signs are rarely used as a traffic control device. The
rule for roads that don't have the right-of-way is to *yield* to other
traffic prior to proceeding. It doesn't mean that one needs to come to
a full stop when no traffic is approaching.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796238 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 06:06 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796240 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 06:11 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Larry Farrell wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, Larry Farrell <farrl... [at] isu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, Larry Farrell <farrl... [at] isu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>>>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>>>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
>>>>>>> flagrantly
>>>>>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't.
>>>>> You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of
>>>>> cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road.
>>>>> Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It
>>>>> sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride
>>>>> like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around
>>>>> where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike
>>>>> trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off
>>>>> the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving.
>>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>> Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing
>>>> illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were
>>>> doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong.
>>>> I stand by *my* statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
>>> that.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>>
>> No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do
>> illegal things, and that is clearly false.
>>
>
> I said "my observations are 100%." That is a 100% true statement.
>
> nate
>
This has dragged on long enough so I will concede that I overstated the
situation a *bit.* Your initial statements are reproduced above exactly
as they appeared in your original message. Granted, you did state
initially that, "Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
flagrantly violate the rules of the road," and my calling that 100% BS
was out of line (although I really doubt that *every* bicyclist you have
ever seen has done as you suggest). However, you followed that later
with the statement that, "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs."
Clearly, you are not in a position to judge what 100% of bicyclists
do, even in your local area, and you did not limit that comment to apply
only to your observations.
One for you, one for me.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796242 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 06:26 |
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:36:56 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>
>> >> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>> >> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>>
>> >Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>> >it's *your* proposal, after all.
>>
>> >From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>> >of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>> >light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>>
>> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
>> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>
>As a former vehicular cyclist, I am always careful. And not just
>around bicyclists.
>
>> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
>> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
>> law.
>
>What about we clown who used to ride bikes, and now pay very close
>attention to all traffic, just out of habit?
I didn't really learn to drive until after taking a motorcycle safety
course. I'd already had a license for ten years, owned two cars,
three motorcycles and three road bikes. An evasive driving course
later in life was rehashing most of what I already knew and threw in
a few twists suited to 4 wheels and more mass. Rarely am I required
to drive these days but the survival habits are ingrained. As a
passenger I'm usually uncomfortable as the driver's skill and
attention level is comparably lower than mine.
Face it; any idiot can drive. . . and they usually do.*
>
>> They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
>> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
>> the rules.
>
>Except that seeing bicycles riding correctly on the roads is a rare,
>noteworthy event.
You're kidding. As a cyclist riding daily throughout the city the
rarest observation is riders riding counterflow. Completely unlit
cyclists averages less than 10%. Most of them have tail lights.
Rolling stop signs is commonly observed by both cars and bicyclists.
Whether or not they have the prescribed bell, most bikes are not in
compliance with that law. Helmet use, mandatory here, is about 60%.
I probably only stop and dab for fewer than ten percent of the stop
signs along my usual routes. I and most cyclists I know approach
intersections with restricted vision prepared to stop not trusting
the stop sign to stop the cross-traffic. I've done my usual
momentary semi-stop in front of cops without hassle. They don't
hassle drivers for that move either. If the traffic is backed up,
I'll filter forward and cross with a car at a four way stop or red
light and I guess that's what really pisses off the caged stooges.
They're envious.
>
>> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
>> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>
>Which is it - there are so many you can't keep track, or they are
>rare? You are being contradictory.
>
I mean that individually they're entirely forgettable because there
are too many idiots pulling the same stunned stunts or selfishly
applying the laws of gross tonnage instead of normal ROW rules.
You can't keep track of them all and they're best forgotten though
always anticipated.
>> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
>> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
>> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>
>And the lawful one, in their rarity, is not noticed at all.
>
>Uh -huh - you're making a whole lot of sense now. (not)
The attentive attuned driver causes no conflict, is quickly processed
and forgotten. The next driver is still an unknown quantity but
initially regarded as a potential threat.
>
>> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
>> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
>> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
>Just like fools on bikes who can't be bothered to make themselves even
>partially visible at night, or who ignore traffic control devices.
>Got it.
Traffic control devices? You're making me gag now.
If the cops could write 100 citations per hour they'd write 350
between 3pm and six thirty, five days per week for drivers making
prohibited turns at just one intersection I cross daily.
What part of "except bicycles" appended to signs restricting
automobile entry you clowns not understand? Surely driving over the
diverter curbs and swerving around the signs must have gotten your
attention.
Quit touching yourself.
>
>E.P.
* meaning they're too stupid or lazy to figure out how to get around
without their motorised carapace. The genuinely handicapped are a
minority compared to those who have handicapped themselves by their
devoted dependance on their plastic lined cages.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796244 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 06:38 |
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:32:21 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 7:21 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:32:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 27, 6:04 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>> >> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>> >> >an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>
>> >> >nate
>>
>> >> So you still don't understand how those things work.
>> >> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
>>
>> >If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
>> >right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
>> >roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.
>>
>> >Explain that, if you please.
>>
>> Drivers are petulant brats.
>
>Nice cause and effect you have going there.
>
>Logic, much?
>
Speed humps aren't well tolerated by petulant brats so they speed up
to express their disproportionate annoyance over a trifling matter.
Thus: the average speed on the road goes up.
--
zk
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796253 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 11:02 |
|
In article <20535a39-4021-4038-ba94-99920e03c0d5 [at] 28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>,
frkrygow [at] gmail.com writes:
>> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>> for anything that might happen to you.
>
> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> they're dressed should not matter.
I believe you (Frank) and I concur.
As I see it, there is no substitute for active lighting,
not even reflectors. A rider with active lighting is,
well, /lit-up/. No sweat. Reflectors should be adjuncts
and supplementary to active lighting. But when you have
good active lighting, you're already pretty much covered.
Non-reflective clothing is no substitute for passive
lighting (reflectors) no matter what the colour.
In the dark, all cats are grey. I sure wouldn't rely
on a pair of white Dockers and a white London Fog
golf jacket for my safety on an unlit country highway
on a moonless, overcast-sky night (and I hope to never
even be caught dead in such an outfit. I'll wear a
powder blue leisure suit first. Well, may not.)
Even in the city there can be pockets of darkness
where light but non-reflective clothing can't cut
the mustard.
Reflective clothing /is/ reflectors, not a substitute
for bike-mounted reflectors.
But it's certainly not a substitute for active lighting.
I guess it's slightly better than nothing, in that if
circumstances are with one during an incipient collision,
one /might/ be seen & avoided.
As for obscurity: when I'm riding along past a line
of parked cars and I see one with tinted windows,
I'll swing a little further away from the door zone
as I pass by it. I can't tell if there's a driver
in there about to open his door and step into my line,
or even pull-out in front of me (although I can tell
by the running lights coming on, but car lights don't
always work.) I'm very leery of parked cars with
tinted windows. Drivers with tinted windows force
cyclists to have to take even more of the lane.
Right now I'd like to give all drivers w/ the selfish
affectation of having tinted windows an hearty
Bronx cheer and an heartfelt "thanx a lot".
So here yez go :-p :-p :-p
Tinted side/rear windows should be prohibited.
Outright banned like illegal drugs or kidnapping.
Tinted windows are a bain on all that's good.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796254 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 11:39 |
|
In article <qq06qf.3g.ln [at] vcn.bc.ca>,
tkeats2005 [at] hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes:
> Tinted windows are a bain on all that's good.
^^^^
I meant: "bane".
Please don't bug me.
Okay, go ahead, if ya wanna.
At least I didn't try to do math on Usenet.
Trying to do math on Usenet always goes awry too.
Usually in the simple arithmetic.
I need a copper bain-marie. Just the thing
for making custards. And a good dessert is
good for forgetting about math problems or
homonyms & synonyms.
Anyways, back to tinted windows -- there's something
sinister about folks who like to do stuff while
cloaked in darkness. Except maybe astronomers and
photographic film developers.
What's going on in those tinted-windowed cars
anyway, that the occupants of which fear discovery?
Coitus? Drug deals? Nose-picking?
--
Why can't anything ever go right?
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796256 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 14:18 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>> they're dressed should not matter.
>
> It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors. If I can't
> reasonably be expected to see them while I'm standing still, I'm
> certainly not going to see them from my car either. I'm sick of the
> attitude that the cyclist is always right and the motorist is always
> wrong. I knew at a very young age if I were going to be walking along a
> street at night that I should be wearing something that would be easily
> visible to motorists, or else carrying a light. I don't see how any
> cyclist could say with a straight face that he's somehow exempt from
> this same common-sense rule.
It might be better that a bicyclist wear a florescent glowing
jumpsuit at night for better visibility, but the generally
required safety equipment (lights, reflectors) required for
riding a bicycle at night should be more than adequate by
themselves.
A bicyclist isn't being irresponsible if he chooses dark clothing
in which to ride a bike at night, asl long as his "vehicle" is up
to proper night time safety equipment. Just like motorists.
A pedestrian probably is being personally irresponsible (assuming
no sidewalk and dark roads) if he doesn't wear brighter clothing
at night, although it should be more than adequate for him to have
a flashlight or reflectors to indicate his presence to motorists.
Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! That's the real problem
in most negative interactions between cars and others on the road
whether they be bicyclists, pedestrians or other cars.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796259 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 14:37 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>>>>should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>>>>right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>>>>(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>>>>motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>>>>are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>>>>they're dressed should not matter.
>>
>>>It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>>
>>Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
>
> No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
> boot.
>
> If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> Why do cycling shoes have reflectorized materials in them? Why do
> people attact reflector tape to their helmets or caps?
>
> What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> non-sensical.
I don't think he's saying it doesn't matter. He's saying
it isn't required for adequate night time detection of a
bicyclist.
I think all states require head and tail lighting for night
time bicycle operation. On top of that, most bikes come with
reflectors front and rear and possibly reflectorized areas of
the bike itself.
It certainly can't hurt for a bicyclist to wear bright glowing
clothing while pedaling his bike at night. It certainly can't
hurt for a motorist to wear a helmet while he drives.
But such things aren't additional *requirements* simply because
what *is* required is deemed sufficient for the purpose.
>>>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
>>>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>>
>>Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
>>and from all the people I know.
>
> So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
> logic use, Frank.
Each perceives his world somewhat in his way.
I don't find dead/dying bicyclists lying about the roads I ride
(or drive). I don't see 100% of bicyclists running stops where
I live.
That's my world to some extent, but I've bicycled a lot of roads
in the US and this view has been consistent everywhere I've been.
>> I suspect that's because yours
>>includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
close scrutiny. Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
we know.
>>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>
>>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
> Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
> it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
> From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
One "problem" with bicyclist behavior is that there is a significant
number of individuals riding bikes that are young; kids actually.
This demographic isn't necessarily known for driving "properly" on
the road, just as the 18-25 year old motoring demographic is known
to be a dangerous one in cars.
I understand the number of you bicyclists is in decline, so perhaps
when the roads are more dominated by older [wiser?] individuals, you
and other motorists will see fewer two wheeled traffic scofflaws on
the road.
>> The cyclists you claim to observe
>>do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.
No but the OP did say 100% of bicyclist he has observed don't stop
at stop signs/lights, then proceeded to apply that generalization
to "bicyclists".
That's a common thing to do but is still a broad sweeping negative
generalization that IMHO is incorrect.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796263 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 15:24 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
>> Where on earth do you live?
>
> Falls Church, VA
OK. Suburbia on steroids.
Not certain I'd want to bike commute in that area although I was
quite surprise last summer how bike friendly DC was!
>> How much viewing time are we talking about with this
>> observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time?
>
> I've lived here for over a year. I see anywhere from 1-5 cyclists every
> morning, and often a few more in the evening.
Maybe it's the same incompetent/irresponsible group you see over
and over.
My bike commute involves 10-11 miles each way with perhaps 8-10
lights along the primary route. I doubt there is a day that goes
by without *at least* one *blatant* running of a red light by a
motorist.
I'm talking the light is red and cars with the green have to wait
for the jerk to pass through before going. The motorists passing
through the light as it turns red are too numerous to bother
counting.
>> Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently
>> large, I would have to predict a significant number of the
>> 700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their
>> end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming
>> you are in the US)!
>
> I'm honestly surprised that more don't.
>
> Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
> wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
> did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
> narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
> road to get around parked cars.) Now the other cyclist that I saw was
> wearing a reflective vest, so he gets props for that, but making a left
> turn a little closer to oncoming traffic than I would have considered
> prudent kinda negates that.
Statistically, bicyclists involved in accidents with cars don't
get run down from behind. It's most likely the bicyclist running
a light, being on the wrong side of the road or riding at night
without adequate lighting that does him in.
Not certain what you mean by the cyclist making a left turn "a little
closer to oncoming traffic" means. That he was too far to the left
in the lane or crossed in front of oncoming traffic with insufficient
distance from traffic (cutting them off)?
If too far to the left side of the road, the bicyclist may have been
trying too hard to accommodate the motor traffic behind him. I
sometimes do this myself, moving to the near center of the road to
make a left turn rather than being farther to the right, just so
I give cars behind me more clearance to get around me.
I think too often, motorists feel a bicyclist should ride in a fashion
that causes motorists no inconvenience. That means be on the very
edge of the roadside, with pedals scraping the curbing.
The safe way is to actually "take the lane" which too many motorists
feel is "in your face" bicycling. It's really not meant to be.
> The only conclusion I can draw is that either a) cyclists are idiots or
> b) the act of getting on a bicycle causes one to become an idiot.
Interestingly, I have found this to be the case for motorists (and
I myself am a motorist who drives a big V-8, 4WD 1/2 ton Dodge pickup)!
I *personally know* people who are fine, intelligent and considerate
who become absolute jerks behind the wheel of their motor vehicles.
People will happily hop in front of a line of waiting cars because
they don't want to wait, but would never think of doing such a thing
(perhaps out of physical self-preservation) on foot, say for a line
outside a restaurant or theatre. But they'll do it in their
automobiles!
The list of selfish or irresponsible behaviors I have seen performed
by motorists is substantial. My general belief in the goodness of
humanity leads me to believe that most of these "automobile jerks"
are in fact pretty fine people outside their car.
> Of course, it's not *just* cyclists - just that it seems that they are
> more universally idiotic. Within the same two mile drive home from the
> Metro station, I also saw a motorcycle cop pull a U-turn and immediately
> make a left turn onto Leesburg Pike and I seriously thought he was going
> to run straight into a pedestrian; I slowed in case I would end up
> having to stop give a statement/help if I could.
Well we all have our bad days.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796264 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 15:27 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796265 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 15:43 |
|
Arif Khokar wrote:
> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
> has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
> yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>
> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
just to generate revenue).
However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
can be ignored under certain conditions.
Surveys show virtually every driver thinks *they* are a good
driver while *everyone else* is incompetent.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796267 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 16:16 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796268 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 16:18 |
|
On Feb 28, 9:43=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. =A0If o=
ne
> > has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
> > yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>
> > As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>
> I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>
> Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
> aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
> don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
>
> I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
> yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
> low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
> just to generate revenue).
>
> However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
> traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
> can be ignored under certain conditions.
>
> Surveys show virtually every driver thinks *they* are a good
> driver while *everyone else* is incompetent.
>
> SMH
All of your points are valid. However, I think you're confusing two
completely seperate issues. The first is the posting of speed limits,
and the second is the skill and awareness of the average motorist.
Even a marginally capable driver in a car meeting the minimum
requirements for street legality in the US ought to be able to handle
driving on an Interstate highway at a speed significantly greater than
55 MPH without any perceptible increase in risk. Anyone not able to
do so shouldn't have a license, and any car not capable of doing so
probably shouldn't be on the road.
That said, yes, there are an awful lot of drivers doing stupid stuff
every day. However, they seem to be just as likely to do something
dumb on a residential street as on an Interstate, and honestly, when I
see someone on a highway driving significantly *slower* than the rest
of traffic, that's often a flag to me that I ought to pay special
attention to them because they might be inattentive and do something
that normally would be unexpected.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796269 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 16:32 |
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them. One hopes that
lesson will be learned by way of an expensive ticket, rather than by way
of an injury "accident".
While cycling, I really haven't had a whole lot of trouble with bad
drivers. (12,000 miles and only two close calls - both in bright
sunshine. Unfortunately that doesn't include close calls with
illegally loose dogs. I wish sawed-off shotguns were legal, I could use
one.)
While driving, on the other hand...
Here in Northern Middle Tennessee we have a frustrating, dangerous
combination:
- Lots of hills.
- Lots of semis. (which usually can't climb Tennessee hills at the speed
limit)
- Two-lane Interstates. (which means either you follow the slow semis in
the right-hand lane, or you pass them in the left)
- Too many motorists who believe they're *entitled* to drive as fast as
they want.
Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you try
to pass the semis.
Now that they've learned the speed limit can be ignored with impunity,
(sometimes...) they're branching out. To running stop signs & lights.
(not only speed-control stop signs) To ignoring oncoming traffic when
pulling out from driveways and sideroads. To passing in no-passing zones
- and even no-traffic zones.
(worst case: last winter, guy on I-24 so convinced he was entitled to go
90mph he passed me *on the right-hand shoulder*, *at an exit*, the day
after a snowstorm, when the shoulder *had frequent patches of ice & snow*.
He couldn't wait ten seconds for the other guy to finish passing me.)
Motorists have got to learn to respect traffic rules. If not for
cyclists' sakes, for each other's sakes!
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796273 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 16:57 |
|
In article <pan.2008.02.28.15.32.05.464809 [at] invalid.nospam>, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
>> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
>> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
>> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
> and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
That's nice. it's about as effective as pounding sand in these parts and
many others. BTW, I don't ignore stop signs, I am only stating what the
results of misusing stop signs is.
Speed control stop signs are especially annoying when biking. I am far
more annoyed by them when bicycling than driving. on the order of several
times more if I am at the end of a long ride.
> Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them. One hopes that
> lesson will be learned by way of an expensive ticket, rather than by way
> of an injury "accident".
> - Lots of semis. (which usually can't climb Tennessee hills at the speed
> limit)
> - Two-lane Interstates. (which means either you follow the slow semis in
> the right-hand lane, or you pass them in the left)
> - Too many motorists who believe they're *entitled* to drive as fast as
> they want.
Interesting... that list puts you as the subject of that famous George
Carlin bit about driving.
> Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
> over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
> semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
> your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you try
> to pass the semis.
Pass, get back right... why is that so difficult for most people?
> Now that they've learned the speed limit can be ignored with impunity,
> (sometimes...) they're branching out. To running stop signs & lights.
> (not only speed-control stop signs) To ignoring oncoming traffic when
> pulling out from driveways and sideroads. To passing in no-passing zones
> - and even no-traffic zones.
Maybe the speed limits should have made sense in the first place. See
that's the problem with law that's based only on authority, eventually
you get laws that don't make sense and people lose respect for
similiar laws, even ones that make sense, because of it.
> (worst case: last winter, guy on I-24 so convinced he was entitled to go
> 90mph he passed me *on the right-hand shoulder*, *at an exit*, the day
> after a snowstorm, when the shoulder *had frequent patches of ice & snow*.
> He couldn't wait ten seconds for the other guy to finish passing me.
That may be shocking for you, but that's everyday driving in c(r)ook
county, IL.
> Motorists have got to learn to respect traffic rules. If not for
> cyclists' sakes, for each other's sakes!
Rules need to make sense to be respected. The problem with speed limits
is they are often pulled from some so called authority's ass and worthy
the same respect as anything that came out of that ass.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796274 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:01 |
|
N8N wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:43 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
>>> has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
>>> yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>>> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>> I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>>
>> Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
>> aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
>> don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
>>
>> I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
>> yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
>> low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
>> just to generate revenue).
>>
>> However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
>> traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
>> can be ignored under certain conditions.
>>
>> Surveys show virtually every driver thinks *they* are a good
>> driver while *everyone else* is incompetent.
>>
>> SMH
>
> All of your points are valid. However, I think you're confusing two
> completely seperate issues. The first is the posting of speed limits,
> and the second is the skill and awareness of the average motorist.
> Even a marginally capable driver in a car meeting the minimum
> requirements for street legality in the US ought to be able to handle
> driving on an Interstate highway at a speed significantly greater than
> 55 MPH without any perceptible increase in risk. Anyone not able to
> do so shouldn't have a license, and any car not capable of doing so
> probably shouldn't be on the road.
55 mph speed limits were set to increase the national fuel economy.
Power required to propel a vehicle is proportional to the to cube of the
velocity. Gas starts getting burned really fast above 55 mph.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796276 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:14 |
|
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If
>> one has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only
>> have to yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>>
>> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>
> I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>
> Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
> aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
> don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
>
> I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
> yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
> low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
> just to generate revenue).
>
> However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
> traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
> can be ignored under certain conditions.
The reason that they are becoming interpreted as "guidelines" is because
so many of them make no sense.
Changing stop signs to yield signs would probably be a big benefit to
cyclists. The problem is that many stop signs are just to slow traffic,
not to control intersections. We have one street in my city which was
used as a major commute route prior to a new freeway being built.
Someone requested that the stop signs that were put in to control speeds
be removed. While the city council agreed that the stop signs were
unnecessary, they wouldn't remove them because they were worried that if
a bad accident then occurred at one of those intersections the city
would be liable because they removed the stop signs.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796277 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:34 |
|
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
>> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
>> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
>> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
>
> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
> and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
Good theory anyway. Getting a stop sign removed is extremely difficult,
even when the city council admits that it is not properly placed, or was
needed at one time, but not needed any longer. They're terrified of
removing a stop sign then there being an accident at that spot.
> While cycling, I really haven't had a whole lot of trouble with bad
> drivers. (12,000 miles and only two close calls - both in bright
> sunshine. Unfortunately that doesn't include close calls with
> illegally loose dogs. I wish sawed-off shotguns were legal, I could use
> one.)
All you need is a police whistle. Works on all dogs except pit bulls for
some reason.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796279 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 18:02 |
|
In article <fq55li01j55 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> be visible?
Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
moving at high velocities. When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that
even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.
> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
of actions that promote traffic flow.
> You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
> presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like
you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.
> I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
> yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
> year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
> obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.
Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a
motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more
vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason.
Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
"Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
out.
--
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 cager today [message #796280 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 18:17 |
|
On Feb 27, 12:26=A0am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and =A0you couldn'=
t
> miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet=
> hunter orange?
He was driving a bright lime green small SUV and you couldn't miss
them. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their car hunger
orange?
Pat
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796282 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:17 |
|
On Feb 27, 9:17 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
> > as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
> > lights, and never require clothing.
>
> > There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!
>
> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> be visible?
>
> Is that better?
A little. Much better would be "Why do many cyclists consistently not
use lights at night?" Again, the clothing item is negligible. Drop
it.
Why don't they? It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
they go totally car crazy.
> >>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> >>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> > and from all the people I know.
>
> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
>
> > I suspect that's because yours
> > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.
That was not an assertion; as I said, it was merely a suspicion.
>
> > But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> > check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> > fine.
>
> You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
> presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
>
>
>
> >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> > counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
> > do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
> > clear, find someone who can explain it to you.
>
> I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> observations are 100%."
I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
> >>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> >>>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> >>>around!
>
> >>It does to me.
>
> > What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>
> Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
> You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?
Time for more help, Nate. Get someone to explain to you that
regretting a dent in your car is NOT the same thing as thinking the
entire universe revolves around your car!
The former is normal care for your possession. The latter is
unhealthy obsession.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796283 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:35 |
|
On Feb 28, 12:02=A0pm, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... [at] 1q2008.subsume.com>
wrote:
> In article <fq55li01... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> =A0Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok then. =A0Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> > make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> > be visible?
>
> Why should they have to? =A0They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> moving at high velocities. =A0
Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for
you?
> When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians. =A0Or are you going so far as to say that
> even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
> drivers? =A0No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.
When you conceal yourself, you lose all reason to expect motorists to
yield to you. Just like if you do something unexpected like blow a
stop sign in front of a motorist that has the right of way.
>
> > Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. =A0I don't=
..
>
> What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
> said so. =A0Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
> around us. =A0Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
> of actions that promote traffic flow.
Well, if it were cyclists only blowing stop signs when no traffic was
around it wouldn't be an issue, kind of a tree falling in a forest
situation. But when they do it in front of a vehicle that's already
stopped and presumably preparing to proceed (or actually in the act of
proceeding) through the intersection, that's something else entirely.
>
> > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> > unreported. =A0(I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> > cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. =A0Due to the
> > presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> > truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > my house. =A0Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. =A0Sounds like
> you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.
As bad as the drivers are, I can't say with 100% certainty that if I
follow a driver for a couple blocks that I WILL observe him violate
one or more traffic laws. I *can* say that about cyclists.
> > I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> > observations are 100%." =A0As in, since I have moved to this area I have=
> > yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. =A0It's been over a
> > year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
> > obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.
>
> Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. =A0It is not unheard of for a
> motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
> see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
> that happen to me). =A0Consider the possibility that an even more
> vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason. =A0
> Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
> your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
> aren't expecting that. =A0Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
> "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
> out.
I think that they just flagrantly violate the law. Their reasons for
doing so are of no concern to me; what *is* of concern to me is the
fact that I apparently need to be extra-vigilant as their actions are
for the most part unpredictable, and in the areas where I expect to
see cyclists I also have to be extra-vigilant because they are hard to
see due to not having the required safety equipment.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796284 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:40 |
|
SMS <scharf.steven [at] geemail.com> wrote in
news:47c6e1f2$0$36373$742ec2ed [at] news.sonic.net:
> Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If
>>> so, that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known
>>> fact that misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are
>>> not well respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the
>>> consquence of 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
>>
>> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
>> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
>> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional
>> elections and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
>
> Good theory anyway. Getting a stop sign removed is extremely
> difficult, even when the city council admits that it is not properly
> placed, or was needed at one time, but not needed any longer. They're
> terrified of removing a stop sign then there being an accident at that
> spot.
>
>> While cycling, I really haven't had a whole lot of trouble with bad
>> drivers. (12,000 miles and only two close calls - both in bright
>> sunshine. Unfortunately that doesn't include close calls with
>> illegally loose dogs. I wish sawed-off shotguns were legal, I could
>> use one.)
>
> All you need is a police whistle. Works on all dogs except pit bulls
> for some reason.
can of pepper spray,or "bear" spray.
watch out,some states limit the quantity of pepper spray one can carry on
their person.Florida does; 2.1oz.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796285 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:42 |
|
On Feb 28, 1:17=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:17 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Wow. =A0You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > > It's the lights you may complain about. =A0The clothing is nowhere nea=
r
> > > as significant as the lights. =A0That's why the laws universally requi=
re
> > > lights, and never require clothing.
>
> > > There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!
>
> > Ok then. =A0Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> > make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> > be visible?
>
> > Is that better?
>
> A little. =A0Much better would be "Why do many cyclists consistently not
> use lights at night?" =A0Again, the clothing item is negligible. =A0Drop
> it.
OK, so why don't they?
>
> Why don't they? =A0It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
> the former. =A0Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
> bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
> grade 11. =A0Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
> long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
> teach them the rules of the road. =A0For the 11th graders, I'd include
> heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
> they go totally car crazy.
So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
not using due care and common sense.
>
> > >>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> > >>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> > > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,=
> > > and from all the people I know.
>
> > Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. =A0I don't=
..
>
> Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. =A0Not specifically about cyclists
> being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
> world being somehow special. =A0"Nobody can tell me anything, because I
> live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
I don't know that it's all that special. I do know some serious
cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
here might be a *little* more careless and/or simply of the mindset
that they have priority over vehicular traffic (no matter what the law
actually says) but you're absolutely right that it is unreasonable to
assume that this is anything more than a small variation from the
norm.
>
> > > I suspect that's because yours
> > > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> > I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertio=
ns.
>
> That was not an assertion; as I said, it was merely a suspicion.
Well, come and visit and you will see that I am not exaggerating one
iota.
>
> > > But feel free to prove me wrong! =A0Just dig out citations we can
> > > check. =A0Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> > > fine.
>
> > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> > unreported. =A0(I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> > cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. =A0Due to the
> > presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> > truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > my house. =A0Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> Don't despair. =A0The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
> course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
> > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > > Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> > > counterexample to prove you wrong. =A0The cyclists you claim to observ=
e
> > > do not make up the total population of cyclists. =A0Again, if that's n=
ot
> > > clear, find someone who can explain it to you.
>
> > I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> > observations are 100%."
>
> I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet. A
cyclist simply slowing down and obviously looking both ways is rare
enough to be noteworthy. (and I really wouldn't complain if they did
that, and didn't come to a full stop, because I do understand that
accelerating from a full stop every block can become tiring.)
>
> > >>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> > >>>:-) =A0Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> > >>>around!
>
> > >>It does to me.
>
> > > What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>
> > Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
> > You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?
>
> Time for more help, Nate. =A0Get someone to explain to you that
> regretting a dent in your car is NOT the same thing as thinking the
> entire universe revolves around your car!
I don't think that the entire universe revolves around my car. I'm
simply stating that to me, in a case of someone damaging my property
due entirely to their lack of due care, the damage to my property is
of more importance to me than whatever damage they also incurred as a
result of their own actions. Just as if I rear-ended you in traffic,
you would be more concerned about the damage to your car or bike than
you would be about my well-being, and rightly so.
> The former is normal care for your possession. =A0The latter is
> unhealthy obsession.
Much like many cyclists seem to have with their bikes.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cager today [message #796286 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:42 |
|
On Feb 28, 12:17=A0pm, pdl... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:26=A0am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> <xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and =A0you could=
n't
> > miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helm=
et
> | |
|
