|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796287 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:42 |
|
"Paul M. Hobson" <fobson [at] gatech.edu> wrote in
news:fq6lso$aup$1 [at] news-int.gatech.edu:
> 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
maybe in the older '60s-'70s autos.
Today's cars have a much lower drag coefficient.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796288 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:51 |
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet [at] 1q2008.subsume.com> wrote in
news:droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> 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.
The AMISH slow-moving horse-drawn carts have to have a large reflective
triangle.Why should slow-moving bicycles be any different?
If slow bikes want to mix in with the heavier and FASTER automotive
traffic(a really dumb idea),then they shouldn't complain about things to
make THEM safer.
> When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians.
Well,Whoop-de-do!
If you were smart,you'd respect heavier faster autos,as they can cause you
a lot more grief.
> 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.
license bicyclists.
Then take away THEIRS when they don't follow the road laws.
>
>> 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.
A bicycle in auto traffic does NOT "promote traffic flow".
It makes it worse.
>
>> 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.
That oughta be a clue as to mixing bikes and motor vehicles on the roads.
>> 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.
AH,without knowing the facts,you automatically *assume* it's the fault of
the auto.
>
>> 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.
>
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cager today [message #796289 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:58 |
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:17:45 -0800 (PST), pdlamb [at] gmail.com wrote:
>On Feb 27, 12:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
><xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>> He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you 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?
Now, for S&DDAM, that sounds like a good idea. Especially for those
parst that tend to drop off of cars that are ill maintained like
S&DDAM's beater.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff [at] posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796290 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 19:59 |
|
On Feb 27, 9:38=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:32:21 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >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 w=
ell,
> >> >> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason mee=
ting
> >> >> >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?
>
> 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.
Other than your logical fallacy (straw man), and your invalid
conclusion arising from your false premise, you are correct.
I'll leave to to figure out which part of your argument applies.
For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
their primary duty - slowing down traffic. Thus, they are not
indicated in any situation.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796291 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 20:08 |
|
On Feb 27, 9:26=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:36:56 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >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 ahea=
d,
> >> >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. =A0And 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. =A0
Which has nothing to do with the refutation of your illogical premise.
>
>
> >> 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.
I am not. I see *very few* law-abiding vehicle operators of any type.
That includes bicyclists.
> >> 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. =A0(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.
You're still not making sense. Even the fully law-abiding driver can
make a mistake.
ALL cars must be watched. Your lack of logic has made you blind.
> >> 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.
Yeah - like stop lights, stop signs, properly riding with traffic,
etc. Visible at night barely even makes the top ten of bicyclists
willfully ignoring traffic law, or more importantly, the laws of
common sense.
> 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.
The vast number of drivers disobeying the law does not give cyclists
the right to break the law. If you spent any time in r.a.d. AT ALL
you'd see we don't like those folks, either.
The above is yet another logical fallacy - the two wrongs fallacy.
> What part of "except bicycles" appended to signs restricting
> automobile entry you clowns not understand?
We don't have those here. And I certainly won't answer for those who
ignore them.
> Surely driving over the
> diverter curbs and swerving around the signs must have gotten your
> attention.
Logical fallacy - guilt by association.
You aren't really high on the reason scale, are you?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796292 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 20:17 |
|
On Feb 28, 5:37=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> 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. =A0The jeans and dark shirt
> >>>>should not be part of the equation. =A0If it's night, a driver has a
> >>>>right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> >>>>(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) =A0But night or day, a
> >>>>motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. =A0The=
y
> >>>>are legal. =A0It'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. =A0You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > No, Frank, he really doesn't. =A0You'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? =A0Why do
> > people attact reflector tape to their helmets or caps?
>
> > What you wear can make a difference. =A0Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> > non-sensical.
>
> I don't think he's saying it doesn't matter. =A0He's saying
> it isn't required for adequate night time detection of a
> bicyclist.
He's saying it should not matter - the quote is above. But it does
matter - the more visible you are at night, the better. Even for
those of us who actually pay attention, more visible is better.
> It certainly can't hurt for a bicyclist to wear bright glowing
> clothing while pedaling his bike at night.
This is true.
> =A0It certainly can't
> hurt for a motorist to wear a helmet while he drives.
I do wear a helmet when I drive.
> But such things aren't additional *requirements* simply because
> what *is* required is deemed sufficient for the purpose.
Being a pedantic asshole does not make one more safe in low-light
conditions. Like those idiots who can't find their headlamp switches
when it's raining. Sure, it's optional, but that doesn't make it an
equal choice.
> >>>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? =A0Nice
> > logic use, Frank.
>
> Each perceives his world somewhat in his way.
Which does not imply that one's own view is necessarily correct, or
that someone else's is incorrect.
> >> 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. =A0Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
distance.
> Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
> we know.
The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.
Don't be an idiot.
> >>>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.
>
> 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.
Which mean, in a backhanded way, that Nate's observation is logically
possible.
>> >> The cyclists you claim to observe
> >>do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> > He's not claiming he's seen that. =A0Straw 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".
No. He was careful to set the parameters ahead of time. Your
sensitive feeling may not accept that, but it's true.
> That's a common thing to do but is still a broad sweeping negative
> generalization that IMHO is incorrect.
That conclusion is not a logical consequence of Nate's commentary.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796294 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 20:21 |
|
On Feb 28, 5:18=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! =A0
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
won't look like such a fool.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796295 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 20:25 |
|
On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> 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.
One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."
>
> If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
For the same reason that J.C. Whitney sells these safety vests for
motorists: http://tinyurl.com/3auqhh
and these Red Cross recommended safety tools: http://tinyurl.com/2u9c2g
and these safety backup systems: http://tinyurl.com/379elh
and these "extra safety" extra brake lights: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbln
They sell them to make money. That doesn't mean they're necessary.
That' _certainly_ doesn't mean they should be required.
> What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> non-sensical.
Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
making. I've never claimed they don't "make a difference." I'm
saying they should not be required. Why? Because at night, their
beneficial effects are completely overpowered by the effect of already-
mandated lights and reflectors. And because in the day, cyclists and
pedestrians are adequately visible for any remotely competent
motorist. If some motorists aren't competent, they should be removed
from the road.
And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
permanent loss of driver's license.
> > 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.
>
> > I suspect that's because yours
> > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
Ed, my original statement was "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." I was speaking of Nate's
supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.
His response was: "Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
time period."
Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
his car, not hurting anyone else.
But still: If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
reasonable to give _some_ evidence. No news reports? Fine. How
about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
injuries to bicyclists? Or more to the point, how about evidence that
an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
illegal cyclists? Hell, how about just listing the details of the
five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?
I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. I have connections
with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. I pay a _lot_ of
attention to cycling and cycling crashes. I haven't personally heard
of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.
How about you? Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
years? Do you think that's _really_ likely?
> 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.
Fine. You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." I'll
bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.
A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
unlikely, but not impossible, straws.
>
> > 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.
Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
stop signs." That was completely unqualified. In a later post, he
said "I stand by my statement. 100% of cyclists that I encounter
flagrantly violate the rules of the road." Later, there was this
exchange:
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> Wrong.
Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
the sample he sees and the total population - and exaggerating in
both cases. I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
statements differently.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796296 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 20:44 |
|
On Feb 28, 11:25=A0am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> 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. =A0The jeans and dark sh=
irt
> > > > > should not be part of the equation. =A0If it's night, a driver has=
a
> > > > > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > > > > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) =A0But night or day, a
> > > > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. =
=A0They
> > > > > are legal. =A0It'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. =A0You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > No, Frank, he really doesn't. =A0You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
> > boot.
>
> One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."
No, being pedantic is ignoring the other person's actual contention
while bolding trumpetting some fact, regardless of the logic of the
other person's contention.
> > If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> > Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> They sell them to make money.
That's the ONLY reason, Frank?
Of course not. The reason is that reflectorized vests *can help* a
cyclist be more visible in low-light situations.
> =A0That doesn't mean they're necessary.
> That' _certainly_ doesn't =A0mean they should be required.
Common sense dictates some additional care. Being pedantic and
legalistic is a fine way to try and dismiss Nate's argument, but he
does have a point. Your yelling about how you "shouldn't have to" is
a red herring.
> > What you wear can make a difference. =A0Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> > non-sensical.
>
> Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
> making.
Actually, I'm not. I got his point, and so did you. You're being a
pedantic jerk, for no other reason than you can be.
> And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
> prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
> permanent loss of driver's license.
A legal pedestrian around here could wear black sweats at night, and
get run down by even the most careful driver. The lack of street
lighting and proper sidewalks make it a possibility.
Hiding behind the cover of "what's required" legally does not exempt a
person from having common sense.
On a bicycle it goes the same way - if you're going to ride at night,
it *might be a good idea* to wear some clothing that helps drivers see
you.
A "should" suggestion, rather than a "must" law. Even you can see the
subtle difference, right?
> > > 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? =A0Nice
> > logic use, Frank.
>
> > > =A0I suspect that's because yours
> > > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> > Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
>
> Ed, my original statement was "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." =A0I was speaking of Nate's
> supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.
>
> His response was: =A0"Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
> laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
> time period."
>
> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
> his car, not hurting anyone else.
And that gives you license to say he's making it all up, how?
> But still: =A0If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
> reasonable to give _some_ evidence. =A0No news reports? =A0Fine. =A0How
> about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
> injuries to bicyclists? =A0Or more to the point, how about evidence that
> an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
> illegal cyclists? =A0Hell, how about just listing the details of the
> five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?
Or, instead of YOU justifying your own assholish behavior over the
internet, just acknowledge that behind the safety of a keyboard, it's
really very easy to call "bullshit" without any concern over what the
consequences might be.
> I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. =A0I have connections
> with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. =A0I pay a _lot_ of
> attention to cycling and cycling crashes. =A0I haven't personally heard
> of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
> personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.
So, you live in the same area? Or could the conditions be different?
> How about you? =A0Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
> years? =A0Do you think that's _really_ likely?
In my area, no. I have seen three bicycle-related accidents here,
however. Two with cars, and one bike-pedestrian.
Our population here is around 3k persons.
So yes, in the D.C. metro area, and the surrounding 'burbs, I can
easily see how I might come across one per year.
> > 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.
>
> Fine. =A0You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." =A0I'll
> bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
> exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.
Or, he has seen correctly, and you, in another grand tradition of
Usenet, are exhibiting a lot of keyboard courage.
> A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
> unlikely, but not impossible, straws.
How ironic that you would notice that, Frank.
> > > =A0The cyclists you claim to observe
> > > do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> > He's not claiming he's seen that. =A0Straw man, Frank.
>
> Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
> stop signs." =A0That was completely unqualified. =A0In a later post, he
> said "I stand by my statement. =A0100% of cyclists that I encounter
> flagrantly violate the rules of the road." =A0 Later, there was this
> exchange:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------=
-=AD-----
>
> >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > Wrong.
>
> Come ride with me someday. =A0You'll see I'm right.
> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------=
-=AD-----
>
> It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
> the sample he sees and the total population - =A0and exaggerating in
> both cases. =A0I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
> statements differently.
Easily - by understanding the conditions set forth in the first
comment. I do not then extrapolate my own pedantic ideas on top and
just ASSume he's make a conflation.
Want to try again, Frank?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796297 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 20:47 |
|
On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? 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.
>
> So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
> not using due care and common sense.
Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. I can say that
because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.
Don't take that too far, though. Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. Extrapolating even to daytime
cyclists is a separate issue. (And I'll remind you that the original
post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)
> > 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 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 [than others]...
I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.
> > > > 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. ...
> > > 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.
>
> I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
> week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
I've been driving since 1964. I _know_ I've come across at least 100
car crashes - after the fact, as I said. That includes two I'm very
sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. The last
traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. And no, it
wasn't in any news report.
>
> > > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
>
> Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.
Then think back. A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
about 30 seconds. In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
intersection. IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
will see can't even be called part of the test.
Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
_never_ seen a cyclist stop? That would be an astounding situation.
If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.
And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
was clear, and then rolling through? That's what happens in front of
my house roughly 200 times per day. Most think it's a bit different
than "blatantly running the stop sign."
Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. Think carefully before posting.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796301 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 21:17 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:37 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
> This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
> distance.
>
>>Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
>>we know.
>
> The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
> infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.
>
> Don't be an idiot.
But one doesn't even really know that is true.
The ultimate point is that reflective clothing on bicyclists
is not a requirement for individuals engaging in the activity
at night. It may be helpful, but persons choosing to wear
ninja black while riding are not being irresponsible. Bright
clothing isn't really a critical aspect of night bicycling as
would be for a pedestrian walking the road.
Reflectors and in particularly lights, are required for
responsible riding. Anything beyond that whether visible
clothing, flashing strobes or wailing fog horn blasts every
5 seconds doesn't need to be part of the deal.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796302 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 21:22 |
|
On Feb 28, 2:47=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? =A0It's a failure of education a=
nd 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.
>
> Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
> cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. =A0I can say that
> because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
> of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.
>
> Don't take that too far, though. =A0Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
> you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. =A0Extrapolating even to daytime
> cyclists is a separate issue. =A0(And I'll remind you that the original
> post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)
I was primarily referring to after dark; since it's winter, I'm not
likely to be encountering cyclists during the daytime (as most of the
ones that I see are near my house, as most of my commute is on the
toll road.)
>
> > > 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. =A0I 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 [than others]...
>
> I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.
"People are mostly the same everywhere, with minor differences" is
generally a safe statement to make, unless you're talking about some
dramatic geographic and cultural differences, like trying to make
generalizations about the behavior of cyclists in China from observing
them in your neighborhood.
>
> > > > > 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 actua=
lly
> > > > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely=
> > > > unreported. =A0...
> > > > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks fr=
om
> > > > 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. =A0Even around here, two a
> > week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
>
> I've been driving since 1964. =A0I _know_ I've come across at least 100
> car crashes - after the fact, as I said. =A0That includes two I'm very
> sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. =A0The last
> traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. =A0And no, it
> wasn't in any news report.
I thought you meant in a one year period. 100 over 40 years, counting
seeing them after the fact, is low, in my experience, but then again,
drivers around here don't seem to understand how to handle freak
occurrances like water falling from the sky, so that may explain some
of it. That, and there's just too damn many people. (I'd love to
move to somewhere a little less populated; I'm not sure how to make
that happen while maintaining my current salary however.)
> > > > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > > I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
>
> > Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.
>
> Then think back. =A0A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
> about 30 seconds. =A0In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
> simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
> intersection. =A0IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
> will see can't even be called part of the test.
>
> Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
> _never_ seen a cyclist stop? =A0That would be an astounding situation.
> If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
> intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.
Yes. Might be a little bit of a special situation however, as the
overwhelming majority of cyclists that I see are on fairly residential
streets. Not to start up the whole other thread that I'm trying very
hard to avoid, but the area in which I live has had some very ill-
advised traffic management choices, such as installing speed humps on
the main road connecting US-29 to the Metro station, despite the fact
that for half that travel distance there's a deserted industrial lot
on one side of the road. So most of the driving traffic to the Metro
station is diverted onto residential streets (myself included) part of
which is a posted "bike route." So I do not see cyclists intersecting
with main roads; I do see them however riding on residential streets,
albeit ones that are unnecessarily heavily traveled.
>
> And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
> commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
> was clear, and then rolling through? =A0That's what happens in front of
> my house roughly 200 times per day. =A0Most think it's a bit different
> than "blatantly running the stop sign."
>
> Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. =A0Think carefully before posting.
I do occasionally see cyclists acting as you describe, which I agree
is technically an infraction but understandable and reasonably safe if
done with care and awareness. Far more often, however, I do not -
they simply proceed through the intersection at full speed; and I
can't tell if they're actually looking for cross traffic or not as I
don't see their heads move.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796303 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 22:01 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!
>
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> won't look like such a fool.
You can't possibly be disagreeing with that statement...
or can you?
Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
of survey or study or is this personal observation?
Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
or collisions with other vehicles.
Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
to legal limits or are you getting them off the hook by simply
claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
speed?
[Yes I believe some speed limits are indeed set too low.
But most are within reason and not worth quibbling over.]
How shall we determine excessive speed then? Can such a
concept even exist? What's "fast" for you is pretty tame
for Mario Andretti or Jeff Gordon.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796305 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 22:10 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> 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.
So maybe they don't crash into me when I am bicycling too? How's that for
a reason? I get tired of playing chicken with unlighted wrong ways on the
street and dodging red light runners. The annoyance caused by poor
bicycle riders is much greater when I am riding than when I am driving.
>> 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.
And yet, let me guess, you expect drivers to obey the number on the
painted steet metal sign and not use their brains to figure out the world
around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs
under the same conditions that you go through them under too....
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796308 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 22:19 |
|
In article <e079a703-38f0-4ceb-a567-3ad8067467c0 [at] v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
> his car, not hurting anyone else.
A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796309 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 22:31 |
|
In article <uiFxj.5216$O64.4347 [at] trndny03>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
> if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
> of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
> factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
> or collisions with other vehicles.
> Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
> alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
You wouldn't be one of those pro bicycle helmet zealots too? Because
those figures from the 'speed kills' and 'MADD' crowds you spout off are
about as truthful as what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots. Actually
IMO what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots is really more truthful.
They don't massage their data and definitions nearly as much IME.
Anyway, the whole point I'm making is one of consistancy. You really
can't argue against the safety nazi stances when it comes to bicycling
and then argue for them when it comes to driving and remain consistant
IMO. It's just foolish. Either you accept that people can adjust to their
environment or you don't. It doesn't matter if they are driving or
biking.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796311 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 23:35 |
|
<frkrygow [at] gmail.com> wrote: (clip) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frank, have you ever heard this quotation: "He was right, dead right. But
he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."?
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796315 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 23:46 |
|
{All non-troll content left intact}
BS
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796320 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 23:55 |
|
On Feb 28, 1:01=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! =A0
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> > won't look like such a fool.
>
> Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
> of survey or study or is this personal observation?
Years of traffic research in many industrialized nations.
> Drivers drive too fast! =A0
Asserting it again doesn't make it more true.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796321 ] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 23:58 |
|
On Feb 28, 4:01=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! =A0
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> > won't look like such a fool.
>
> You can't possibly be disagreeing with that statement...
> or can you?
>
Yes.
> Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
> of survey or study or is this personal observation?
Both.
>
> Drivers drive too fast! =A0That's my personal observation and
> if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
> of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
> factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
> or collisions with other vehicles.
Most of those that come to those conclusions are highly unscientific
and paid for by those with an agenda. "excessive speed" (or more
likely "speed related") often just means "someone involved was
exceeding the speed limit" - well, who isn't? The truth is, the
percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit is *higher* than the
number of crashes categorized as "speed related!"
>
> Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
> alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
Again, that just means that someone involved, who may not even have
been the cause of the incident, was exceeding the speed limit.
> You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
> to legal limits
No.
> or are you getting them off the hook by simply
> claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
> speed?
Yes.
> [Yes I believe some speed limits are indeed set too low.
> But most are within reason and not worth quibbling over.]
You're not from around here, are you? (I mean geographically, not
Usenet-wise.) IME nearly ALL speed limits are too low, outside of
residential areas, and thus are universally ignored.
> How shall we determine excessive speed then? =A0Can such a
> concept even exist? =A0What's "fast" for you is pretty tame
> for Mario Andretti or Jeff Gordon.
85th percentile is a good place to start. Adjust from there if there
are non-obvious hazards.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796322 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 00:00 |
|
In article <47c5e3c5$0$25997$88260bb3 [at] free.teranews.com>,
Larry Farrell <farrlarr [at] isu.edu> wrote:
>N8N wrote:
>>
>> 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.
There's enough laws out there that it's a good bet 100% of bicyclists
who have been bicycling more than some small time period have done
illegal things.
For those regularly doing illegal things, 100% is way too high. I'm
sure it's no higher than 99.99%. Perhaps even as low as 99%.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796324 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 00:09 |
|
In article <c3405b2a-167f-483f-b99f-b431005828fc [at] 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>As awful as the skills/behavior/courtesy/awareness of the average
>driver around here are, the cyclists are significantly worse. I can't
>honestly say that all motorists blow stop signs or half of them drive
>around after dark with their lights off, for example.
That's because in a motor vehicle, it doesn't take a lot of effort to
get going again after stopping. And car headlights are ubiquitous,
require little extra effort on the part of the motorist, and reliable,
unlike bicycle headlights.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796325 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 00:11 |
|
In article <6fudnWXYHuproVranZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <47c5e3c5$0$25997$88260bb3 [at] free.teranews.com>,
> Larry Farrell <farrlarr [at] isu.edu> wrote:
>>N8N wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> There's enough laws out there that it's a good bet 100% of bicyclists
> who have been bicycling more than some small time period have done
> illegal things.
>
> For those regularly doing illegal things, 100% is way too high. I'm
> sure it's no higher than 99.99%. Perhaps even as low as 99%.
That's true about everyone in the US of A. There are so many ticky-tacky
laws that by the latest news stories more than 1% of the population is
behind bars.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796327 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 00:34 |
|
In article <9Mzxj.23245$6t3.8269 [at] trndny07>,
Stephen Harding <smharding16 [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.
Straw man.
>However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
>traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
>can be ignored under certain conditions.
Then fix the traffic laws so strict obedience isn't just plain stupid.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796328 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 00:40 |
|
In article <pan.2008.02.28.15.32.05.464809 [at] invalid.nospam>,
Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi [at] invalid.nospam> 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.
Protesting improper stop signs that way is like trying to remove snow
with a tweezer during a blizzard. It takes a lot of time and effort
and gets nothing accomplished.
>Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them.
No. Ignoring idiotic stop signs (or speed limits) is the proper way
to get on with life despite the legislature.
>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.
Simple solution to that: speed up to 10 over the limit.
>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.
Even assuming you're right, all that could have been avoided by not
setting limits people weren't willing to obey.
>Motorists have got to learn to respect traffic rules. If not for
>cyclists' sakes, for each other's sakes!
Make 'em respectable first. And they've got a long, poor reputation
to make up for, so don't expect instant results.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796330 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 00:47 |
|
In article <droleary.usenet-9C09DE.11022628022008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet [at] 1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>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.
Your relative sloth and vulnerability do not grant you moral
superiority. Nor visibility.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796333 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:08 |
|
On Feb 28, 1:59 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
> their primary duty - slowing down traffic. Thus, they are not
> indicated in any situation.
Odd. The neighborhood folks about 3 or 4 miles from here that had
them put in is, according to what I read, very satisfied with them.
They claim they've made a big improvement.
I can't say firsthand, since I don't live there. It's over the border
in a different municipality. But I don't see why the residents would
be mistaken.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796337 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:36 |
|
On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht... [at] worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> <frkry... [at] gmail.com> wrote: (clip) But night or day, a
> > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > are legal. (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Frank, have you ever heard this quotation: "He was right, dead right. But
> he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."?
Yep. I've heard it used to attempt to scare bicyclists off of certain
streets, for example. I don't put much stock in it.
But let's get practical, Leo. The fact is, the very normal generator
headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike are
visible enough at night that I've gotten spontaneous compliments from
motorists. Actual quote, as accurate as I can remember it: "Your
lights are great! I could see you from half a mile back there!" From
half a mile back, nobody could possibly make out my clothing, no
matter what color it was.
If bright clothing adds anything to night visibility above my very
normal bike equipment, it must be down around 1% improvement. Not
enough to matter, and _certainly_ not enough to mandate.
Bright clothing may cause a bit more percentage improvement in
daytime, both for bicyclists and for pedestrians. But are we to
forbid pedestrians and bicyclists venture near traffic unless they
wear approved colors? The idea is a non-starter - except, perhaps,
among certain members of the "get outta my way!!!!" crowd.
Again: Motorists have an obvious duty to watch for other people, and
to drive within control so as to avoid hurting them. Motorists
already have assumed too much privilege. We don't need them to impose
dress regulations on the rest of us.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796338 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:40 |
|
On Feb 28, 4:08=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:59 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
> > their primary duty - slowing down traffic. =A0Thus, they are not
> > indicated in any situation.
>
> Odd. =A0The neighborhood folks about 3 or 4 miles from here that had
> them put in is, according to what I read, very satisfied with them.
> They claim they've made a big improvement.
>
> I can't say firsthand, since I don't live there. =A0It's over the border
> in a different municipality. =A0But I don't see why the residents would
> be mistaken.
Two words: placebo effect.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796339 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:43 |
|
On Feb 28, 6:40 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
>
>
> >Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them.
>
> No. Ignoring idiotic stop signs (or speed limits) is the proper way
> to get on with life despite the legislature.
:-) So, tell us, Matthew, roughly how much time do you save in a
typical week by proudly violating stop signs and speed limits? Please
explain your estimates.
And what exactly have you accomplished with that great savings in
time?
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796340 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:49 |
|
On Feb 28, 4:36=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht... [at] worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> But let's get practical, Leo. =A0The fact is, the very normal generator
> headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike ...
You consider this normal, huh?
I live in an area with two public universities within eight miles of
one another. There are a LOT of bikes on the roads.
I have seen TWO, yes *TWO* with generators. As a former bike
commuter, I notice equipment.
Now, it could very well be that some of the bikes I have see have hub
generators and have their lights put away during the day, but I would
have to say that *mart bikes make up well over 80% of the bikes I see,
and I doubt ANYONE is going to put any kind of hub generator on a
*mart bike.
Three nights ago, I came up behind an obvious bike commuter after
dark. I saw his reflectors some way off, and the reflective stripes
on his shoes and pants.
His rear light was burnt out. His front light was very bright, but
that did him no good as I came up from behind. A blinky would have
been nice, but I've only seen a handful of those here.
Your riding equipment is no more normal than the tools I used last to
change my timing belt.
>
> If bright clothing adds anything to night visibility above my very
> normal bike equipment, it must be down around 1% improvement. =A0
You are again assuming that the folks who ride at night are all
equipped as you are.
I can assure you that your night-kit is very rare. If indeed EVERYONE
had your night kit, nobody would care what clothing was being worn.
> Again: =A0Motorists have an obvious duty to watch for other people, and
> to drive within control so as to avoid hurting them.
Again. Assuming they can actual SEE them. You have to see something
to avoid it, Frank.
> =A0Motorists
> already have assumed too much privilege.
The laws of physics already grant a lot of privilege. It may not be
fair, but it's true.
> =A0We don't need them to impose
> dress regulations on the rest of us.
Who is asking for dress regulations, Frank? Straw man, anyone?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796342 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:54 |
|
On Feb 28, 7:36=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht... [at] worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > <frkry... [at] gmail.com> wrote: (clip) But night or day, a
> > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. =A0The=
y
> > > are legal. (clip)
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Frank, have you ever heard this quotation: =A0"He was right, dead right.=
=A0But
> > he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."?
>
> Yep. =A0I've heard it used to attempt to scare bicyclists off of certain
> streets, for example. =A0I don't put much stock in it.
>
> But let's get practical, Leo. =A0The fact is, the very normal generator
> headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike are
> visible enough at night that I've gotten spontaneous compliments from
> motorists. =A0Actual quote, as accurate as I can remember it: "Your
> lights are great! I could see you from half a mile back there!" =A0From
> half a mile back, nobody could possibly make out my clothing, no
> matter what color it was.
>
> If bright clothing adds anything to night visibility above my very
> normal bike equipment, it must be down around 1% improvement. =A0Not
> enough to matter, and _certainly_ not enough to mandate.
>
> Bright clothing may cause a bit more percentage improvement in
> daytime, both for bicyclists and for pedestrians. =A0But are we to
> forbid pedestrians and bicyclists venture near traffic unless they
> wear approved colors? =A0The idea is a non-starter - except, perhaps,
> among certain members of the "get outta my way!!!!" crowd.
>
> Again: =A0Motorists have an obvious duty to watch for other people, and
> to drive within control so as to avoid hurting them. =A0Motorists
> already have assumed too much privilege. =A0We don't need them to impose
> dress regulations on the rest of us.
Again, you miss my point. when you have NO lights, NO reflectors, NO
light colored clothing, you lose the right to expect anyone to see you
after dark. I agree with your point that two good lights should
really be all that is required, but how many cyclists have them? Very
few.
It sounds like you might be the kind of cyclist that I wouldn't give a
second glance, because you'd be one of the tiny minority that actually
displays some common sense. It's the vast majority that I see at the
last minute because they're apparently attempting to camouflage
themselves that I have a problem with.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796344 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:55 |
|
In article <9b633e5a-d42b-41c5-81bb-4c7a1ac319d7 [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> But let's get practical, Leo. The fact is, the very normal generator
> headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike are
> visible enough at night that I've gotten spontaneous compliments from
> motorists. Actual quote, as accurate as I can remember it: "Your
> lights are great! I could see you from half a mile back there!" From
> half a mile back, nobody could possibly make out my clothing, no
> matter what color it was.
Now that's just over the top Frank... really... motorists compliment?
lol. I ride to the letter of the vehicle code. I signal. I used to ride
with a rather bright generator light on older bicycles and have an even
brighter battery powered one on my current bicycle... number of
compliments I've gotten from motorists.... zero. Day or night. I've had them
scream at me as they passed me on the left for blocking the road while I
was signaling a left turn, but a compliment... come on.... that's just
beyond belief. Unless maybe you're describing something that happened a
number of decades ago.
> If bright clothing adds anything to night visibility above my very
> normal bike equipment, it must be down around 1% improvement. Not
> enough to matter, and _certainly_ not enough to mandate.
I just wear a white shirt. Seems to work well enough. But like I said,
the bicycle is well lit. I'll likely add another tail lamp too.
> Again: Motorists have an obvious duty to watch for other people, and
> to drive within control so as to avoid hurting them. Motorists
> already have assumed too much privilege. We don't need them to impose
> dress regulations on the rest of us.
Interesting you should mention that. I've had motorists yell at me to
'wear a helmet'. I've even had one pull along side me and start giving me
the helmet lecture. Also, I'm apparently not a serious bicyclist because I
don't wear spandex.... no one ever said a thing about my night time
riding choice of color though.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796345 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:55 |
|
On Feb 28, 7:08=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:59 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
> > their primary duty - slowing down traffic. =A0Thus, they are not
> > indicated in any situation.
>
> Odd. =A0The neighborhood folks about 3 or 4 miles from here that had
> them put in is, according to what I read, very satisfied with them.
> They claim they've made a big improvement.
>
> I can't say firsthand, since I don't live there. =A0It's over the border
> in a different municipality. =A0But I don't see why the residents would
> be mistaken.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Probably because if there is a parallel road without them, through
traffic is now simply diverted onto the other road. They didn't slow
anyone down, they just made them move to another road. I see that
effect every morning on my commute - the obvious road for me to take
has four or five of those gawdaful things on them, but I can avoid all
but one by cutting through a neighborhood. I'll bet the people that
live in the neighborhood just LOVE the increased traffic.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent cager today [message #796346 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 01:59 |
|
necromancer wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:17:45 -0800 (PST), pdlamb [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 12:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>><xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you 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?
>
>Now, for S&DDAM, that sounds like a good idea. Especially for those
>parst that tend to drop off of cars that are ill maintained like
>S&DDAM's beater.
I'll bet he could pick up a brush and a can or two of paint from the
local wally-world. :-)
--
People don't confuse me with someone who cares.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796349 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 02:12 |
|
In article <11b28466-10e8-4172-aeda-fad0c00bc5b9 [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Now, it could very well be that some of the bikes I have see have hub
> generators and have their lights put away during the day, but I would
> have to say that *mart bikes make up well over 80% of the bikes I see,
> and I doubt ANYONE is going to put any kind of hub generator on a
> *mart bike.
Generators are rather rare these days (in the USA), especially in the *mart
bicycle group. Generators are largely used by people who are into bicycling
and prefer them these days (in the USA, europe is another story). When I
shopped for a decent generator light I found I had to get a european
made one that mounted to a boss on the frame that my cannondale just
doesn't have. (yes there were work arounds, but I didn't like them) In
any case I bought a light with a rechargable battery setup.
Getting back *mart bikes. These days those few who bother with lights mostly
just get a AA battery powered headlamp. El-cheapo and dim. You'll find them
at the *mart stores in the bicycle isle. It's little better than
strapping a cheap flashlight to the handlebars. Sometimes they'll get LED
taillamps. Again, the el-cheapo ones aren't so great. But taillamp wise
there isn't as huge a spread between best and worst compared with
headlamps. I will probably get one or two cheap LED rear lamps as an
addition to the good one I have.
I would expect that most *mart bicycle users remove the light for daytime
use to prevent its theft. Why anyone would steal it is another
question...
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #796350 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 02:35 |
|
On Feb 28, 2:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:25 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."
>
> No, being pedantic is ignoring the other person's actual contention
> while bolding trumpetting some fact, regardless of the logic of the
> other person's contention.
I admit to some difficulty here. Usually, when someone says "100% of
bicyclists," I tend to think their actual contention is "100% of
bicyclists." Especially when they repeat it. But then, I think most
people probably agree with me.
> > > If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> > > Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> > They sell them to make money.
>
> That's the ONLY reason, Frank?
>
> Of course not. The reason is that reflectorized vests *can help* a
> cyclist be more visible in low-light situations.
Come on, Ed. It was a bit disingenuous to trim out the motorist
equipment I cited:
"J.C. Whitney sells these safety vests for motorists: http://tinyurl.com/3auqhh
and these Red Cross recommended safety tools: http://tinyurl.com/2u9c2g
and these safety backup systems: http://tinyurl.com/379elh
and these "extra safety" extra brake lights: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbln"
If they sell them, doesn't that mean they "can help"? So, do YOU
carry your motorist safety vest in your car? How about the rest of
the recommended "safety tools"? Have YOU added the "safety backup
system" and the "extra safety" brake lights?
Or are you just being hypocritical? The latter, I think!
> Being pedantic and
> legalistic is a fine way to try and dismiss Nate's argument...
I think I see a pattern. Any argument you can't answer gets defined
as "pedantic." I still prefer "accurate."
> Actually, I'm not. I got his point, and so did you. You're being a
> pedantic jerk, for no other reason than you can be.
>
> > And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
> > prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
> > permanent loss of driver's license.
>
> A legal pedestrian around here could wear black sweats at night, and
> get run down by even the most careful driver.
For some value of "could." IOW, the probability of that is
infinitesmally low. That pedestrian may get run down by _you_, but
that's not the same thing. There actually are people who drive within
their limits of control and visibility.
> On a bicycle it goes the same way - if you're going to ride at night,
> it *might be a good idea* to wear some clothing that helps drivers see
> you.
I just dealt with that in some detail in a response to Leo (whom I
respect, BTW). The fact is, once a cyclist is properly lit and
reflectorized, color of clothing makes negligible difference at
night. The eye is effectively overpowered by the brighter light
sources. I've organized enough night riding workshops, and read
enough research, to be very confident of that. (I could dig up a
citation or two, but I'm sure that would be labeled "pedantic.")
> > Ed, my original statement was "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." I was speaking of Nate's
> > supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.
>
> > His response was: "Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
> > laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
> > time period."
>
> > ... If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
> > reasonable to give _some_ evidence. No news reports? Fine. How
> > about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
> > injuries to bicyclists? Or more to the point, how about evidence that
> > an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
> > illegal cyclists? Hell, how about just listing the details of the
> > five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?
>
> > I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. I have connections
> > with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. I pay a _lot_ of
> > attention to cycling and cycling crashes. I haven't personally heard
> > of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
> > personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.
>
> So, you live in the same area? Or could the conditions be different?
I know enough about bike safety data that I know his claim is
extremely unlikely. That is, the odds are it was an off-the-cuff
exaggeration in the heat of a Usenet post. And I note that he has not
yet given us even the details of personal recollections of the five
incidents.
> > How about you? Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
> > years? Do you think that's _really_ likely?
>
> In my area, no. I have seen three bicycle-related accidents here,
> however. Two with cars, and one bike-pedestrian.
I know you're not a fan of accuracy, so I must remind you: Nate was
making claims about accidents involving bent-up bike frames in the
street, ambulances, cops, etc. And he was making that claim about the
last five years.
The vast majority of bike "accidents" are extremely minor. The vast
majority result in no bent-up bike frames, no ambulances, no cops, and
no reports because they are too minor to bother with.
I've seen accidents involving bikes. I've seen the resulting skinned
knees (horrors!). I've seen a tacoed wheel, which I fixed for the guy
by popping it back into shape. I've seen two risk-taking mountain
bikers hurt themselves (one cracked rib and one broken collarbone).
But we were talking about road riding, bent frames, ambulances and
cops within the last five years. I haven't seen _one_ of those in 35
years of riding, 27 of them on club rides with the opportunity to see
lots of other cyclists.
I get pretty tired of all the "danger! danger!" exaggerations
regarding bicycling. There are more ER visits per year from
basketball players than from bicyclists.
So I think you're probably exaggerating, either by extending the time
period or by overstating the seriousness of the accidents. Of course,
statistically unlikely things do occasionally happen. So feel free to
talk about the level of bike frame damage, the seriousness of the
injuries, the number of ambulances and cop cars, etc. But don't
pretend that anomalies define the trends.
..
..
> ...you, in another grand tradition of Usenet, are exhibiting a lot of keyboard courage....Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?... Or, instead of YOU justifying your own assholish behavior over the internet, just acknowledge that behind the safety of a keyboard...
What's with the "keyboard" comments, Ed? This is a discussion group
on the internet. I'm using the same tools you are, and I'm not
calling you names like "thug" or "asshole." Which of us is engaging
in behavior that would be rude in person?
And if you're getting ready to threaten to meet someone on a corner
in, say, New York City, that tactic was tried by another frequent
poster. He gets laughed at even more now, especially since his online
opponent apparently scared him into discretion.
Quit the childish insults. Quit the attempted bullying. If you can't
make your point by logical argument - which is obvious - then don't
make a fool of yourself by posting.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
| |
|
