On May 22, 12:33 pm, "i2i" <
boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <
nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:9abb9335-690a-4591...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Wait, I'm certified to walk and ride a bike in America. That's an
international permit, right?
This is the test anyway:
On May 21, 8:31 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:23:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:19:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sometimes I get yelled at when cycling, too. Or get a horn honked at
> >>>> me. It doesn't happen often, though. And when it happens it doesn't
> >>>> make me behave any differently.
>
> >>>> Sometimes I mutter quietly "Why do you think _you_ know more about
> >>>> bicycling than I do?"
>
> >>> Rather like those who think "Why do you think know more about
> >>> automobiles", isn't it?
>
> >> Rather like Joe Sixpack telling Richard Petty about how he should be
> >> doing NASCAR.
>
> >>> But more seriously, there was a post on another site that probably
> >>> goes a long way to describe the auto - bike controversy. The poster,
> >>> certainly a car driver said, in essence:
>
> >>> Why aren't those things licensed and inspected - how do we know that
> >>> they are safe.
>
> >>> Why aren't those guys tested and licensed - how do we know that they
> >>> know what they are doing?
>
> >>> Why do they believe that they can break highway laws, run stop signs,
> >>> etc., without penalty.
>
> >>> Why don't they gets points on their licenses and lose their licenses
> >>> if they keep breaking the law.
>
> >>> The various replies that the chap got all boiled down to "Hear, Hear!"
>
> >> Of course. Many motorists forget that operating a deadly vehicle in
> >> public is a privilege requiring licensing and insurance, while
> >> non-motorized travel is a right. Many motorists have the false belief
> >> that the roads exist only for their convenience. Most motorists think
> >> their constant disobedience of traffic laws is reasonable, yet similar
> >> behavior by others is despicable.
>
> >> "Anyone who drives faster than me is a raving maniac. Anyone who drives
> >> slower than me is a doddering fool."
>
> >> Motorists who hold those views most strongly are the ones most likely to
> >> post on the internet.
>
> > I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that there is
> > need for highway regulations? That testing vehicles for safety
> > features, like brakes, steering, lighting is unnecessary? That
> > establishing some sort of minimum skill level that is necessary before
> > being allowed to operate a vehicle on the public highways is
> > unnecessary?
>
> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
> the high points:
>
> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>
> 2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
> the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
> on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
> the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
> by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
> encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
> glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>
> 3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
> Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
> Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
> should be logically obvious.
>
> 4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
> skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
> more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
> repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>
> 5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
> shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
> pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
> that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
Pedestrians should be required to make a dash across the street in 5
seconds or less. Drivers should pass a test to make sure the horn is
loud enough, say 120 decibels. A train horn is better. The pedestrian
must learn that drivers can block the sidewalk because they are
important people on business. Nobody, but nobody, should interrupt the
frantic pace of life.
We cyclists are pedestrians on wheels, so we must learn the rules.