The Best Strategy of Survival for a Cyclist is
TheTibetanMonkey
> On Dec 27, 8:11 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> > Yeah, then it comes to a point that you know you can fight more
> > effectively through the Internet without all the personal risk,
> > conflict and humiliation involved. The only way I will take the lane
> > head on is if it is part of a coordinated campaign. The sidewalk is
> > the worst and the edge of the road offers not much improvement. Taking
> > the lane sends a strong message though.
>
> Not trying to send a "message" of some sort. Just
> trying to get somewhere. The only "control" I wish
> for is defense of my small 6' piece of space.
>
> When you're biking at or near traffic speed in a
> busy urban area, what lane position do you take?
> How do you ride through intersections? How do
> you make a left turn? Why?
You are there having no control over a small space that you can call
your own, so the drivers have the lion's share of the road --and you
don't even get the scraps. Even that edge of the road is often the
cause of conflict and they often blast the horn at me for no reason at
all.
I ride now on back streets to get to the supermarket and back, some 4
miles of stop and go. Riding the roads around here is suicidal, which
I leave for the fanatical believers. I must survive however I can, but
judge that the best chance of me riding the open road is by MAKING
NOISE. It's a survival strategy among the monkeys to alert of the
predator. ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOVE CONQUERS THE BEAST!
TheTibetanMonkey
> On Dec 27, 7:53 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > "jailers, cops, bondsmen" are upscale? News to me.
>
> > They are rather instrument of the powerful, though the bondsmen and
> > lawyers belong to another class altogether: THE VULTURES.
>
> > Whoever profits from the pain can't be expected to want to stop it.
>
> Over-simplification won't solve anything. Much as you label me a
> "Christian" when the Christians don't want me and likely you are
> closer to their P.O.V. than I.
> Blocking traffic (even only one lane), when what you do though just
> and right, will exacerbate an already congested situation and devolve
> sympathy for your cause and enrage others on the roadway and perhaps
> cause real hardship to some, may not be advantageous or helpful to a
> remedy.
> Encouraging folks to NOT drive across town to work, car pool, use
> smaller cheaper transport, live smaller, more efficient, DO less that
> uses non-renewable resource.
Well, I'm glad to have some intelligent dialogue. Let's assume it's a
3 lane road. The cars have two lanes all the time and a third one that
they leave for a few seconds. In what significant way that slows them
down, when even when you ride on the edge they must move partially to
the other lane? Some try to squeeze you and that's where the real
danger begins. TWO VEHICLES DO NOT FIT ON A LANE, even when one is a
bike.
Now may I remind our fellow drivers that one bike out there is one
fewer car? And now a question for the general public, Christian and
Atheist alike: How on Earth are we going to avoid Climate Change when
we can't even ride a bike?
tonski
wrote:
Why would we interrupt a naturally occurring climate cycle that's been
around since before bicycles and hippies?
A better question is why do think calling it Climate Change will throw
people from the scent of the piss poor press (triple word score) that
Global Warming has gotten recently? Oh wait, it probably will.
They're the same idiots that you want to understand how to live in
harmony (boring and illogical). Good luck.
Why compare some hipster movement ("climate change") to bicycling
safety? "Movement" is a term I use loosely. Same folks that won't
use plastic bags but will use plastic bottles without thinking twice
preach a green planet. Bicycling is done by more than just hipsters
(frauds), everyone CAN enjoy it - doesn't mean it's mandatory.
PS Renaming Global Warming to Climate Change and then arguing that
it's valid because the climate IS changing doesn't make the "data" or
suggestions of the former anymore valid.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm trying to make sense of that nonsense, and I think you say Climate
Change is NOT real. I assume ONLY god is real for a Christian...
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> > You are there having no control over a small space that you can call
> > your own, so the drivers have the lion's share of the road --and you
> > don't even get the scraps. Even that edge of the road is often the
> > cause of conflict and they often blast the horn at me for no reason at
> > all.
>
> Cars travel in packs, with open road before and after.
> Allow them to pass, then take the lane behind them.
Lions and wolves hunt in packs too... ;)
>
> Edge of the road is one of the worst conflict points. You
> can get doored by a parked car -- you need to be at
> 3 feet out, best in the middle of the lane. Hug the curb
> through an intersection, and right turning cars can take
> you out. Take the center lane position when safe, and
> let traffic pass once you're through.
You are saying the same thing I propose: THE SAFEST POSITION IS THE
MIDDLE OF THE LINE. But I would stay there all the time as the only
natural and safe position. I can't possibly worry about cars behind
me, but they can easily pass me on another lane.
>
> > I ride now on back streets to get to the supermarket and back, some 4
> > miles of stop and go. Riding the roads around here is suicidal, which
> > I leave for the fanatical believers. I must survive however I can, but
> > judge that the best chance of me riding the open road is by MAKING
> > NOISE. It's a survival strategy among the monkeys to alert of the
> > predator. ;)
>
> Try not to get into fights, especially when your adversary
> outweighs you by several thousand pounds and several
> hundred hp.-
Giving the finger to an obnoxious driver caused a violent attack from
him because he wanted me on the sidewalk. It's better to show who's
alpha male/female... the driver.
Anthony ODell
I'm saying climate change is real but it is nowhere near as drastic as
your comrades in crime would have you believe and it's a cycle up and
down, not a smooth ride to a hot doomsday. Like I said, saying
climate change is happening doesn't make the previously dubbed Global
Warming "evidence" any more true.
I'm not sure what to make of you presuming/implying I'm Christian, I'm
not. You're only reinforcing my presumption that you're stupid.
The nonsense is that humans can't accept that they're animals, are
territorial, and will never live in complete harmony without
lobotomies. Go ahead and read into "territorial" to try to make sense
of the "nonsense" regarding drivers not wanting cyclists on the roads
or close to their possessions.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> You do go on !
> I have likely put more bike-miles on my card than you. When I was 12,
> I rode 120mi's (60 out and 60 back) to go and visit Everglades
> Natl.Park (Fla, USA), I've repaired bikes (and cars) for $ (and love)
> and houses in my later years.
> You yammer on about 3 lanes, round here - all 3 lanes (certain times
> of day) are all full up. Auto-drivers are generally morons who would
> rather be doing most anything other than "driving" (usually to work or
> shop or do shuttle-chores for children or old people) and believe that
> they can [spank the kids, text their friends, find a better radio
> station, eat a snack, and clip their toe-nails] while driving. I am
> alive today only because I realized early on that for me to depend on
> unthinking-morons NOT to run over me (inadvertently, not
> deliberately), was a fools choice. I've had multiple close friends
> killed while cycling, and a few more merely damaged. Now, I don't bike
> often (I'm over 60), nor do I drive often.
> If you truly desire to have significant impact on environmental
> concerns you should study city-planning or go into politics or
> lobbying.--
I think it's all good advice except for the latter. While I'd
appreciate all the benefits one gets being part of the government
bureaucracy, I find it too corrupt and paralized to accomplish
anything serious. Even the money that they do spend goes into projects
that are a total waste. Such is the case with all the thousands of
broken bike lanes and paths that are not connected as to render them
useless.
Even my Quixotic revolutionary enterprise has a better chance of
success. ;)
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
See, now you are making some sense. You should if you are a man of
science. Yes, we are territorial animals, but some are more animals
than others, and they can be trained like any dog or beast. Provided
moral laws and enforcement, everything can be done.
But I find it funny for a man that believes in the science of
evolution that he believes they are wrong about the likely outcome of
all this pollution we are putting out. In any case, I want to play it
safe and not be part of the problem.
Doug
wrote:
benefit cyclists and pedestrians instead of being strongly in favour
of drivers.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
tonski
I believe in God, I'm just not illusional. All animals are animals
and can be trained if caught early enough, there are only a finite
amount of paths a person is able to take as time progresses.
Like I said I'm not illusional and Global Warming isn't a question of
God. The argument of God in GW is irrelevant and diverts attention
from evidence and data which is part of the reason GW enthusiasts
bring it up. The "going green" thing is hip and profitable which is
why companies promote it. Toyota sells the Prius for a loss so they
can abide by less strict laws on other vehicles. Coke could go to
glass bottles and save a ton of energy considering the amount of
energy needed to recycle plastic compared to sanitizing glass. The
interest in industry is profits, the same industries selling a
"greener tomorrow". It's not evil like whiny hipsterslike to tout,
it's animalistic and the way things are meant to work.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I'm all for it too! But it all depends on launching a
coordinated campaign...
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> I believe in God, I'm just not illusional. All animals are animals
> and can be trained if caught early enough, there are only a finite
> amount of paths a person is able to take as time progresses.
>
> Like I said I'm not illusional and Global Warming isn't a question of
> God. The argument of God in GW is irrelevant and diverts attention
> from evidence and data which is part of the reason GW enthusiasts
> bring it up. The "going green" thing is hip and profitable which is
> why companies promote it. Toyota sells the Prius for a loss so they
> can abide by less strict laws on other vehicles. Coke could go to
> glass bottles and save a ton of energy considering the amount of
> energy needed to recycle plastic compared to sanitizing glass. The
> interest in industry is profits, the same industries selling a
> "greener tomorrow". It's not evil like whiny hipsterslike to tout,
> it's animalistic and the way things are meant to work.-
l'm sure religion is a much greater business than going green. Going
green would also hurt the sale of SUVs, motorboats and other
unnecessary stuff. The Prious is still half the price of a premium
Toyota SUV. This is the reality of the jungle...
"In a society dominated by the fact of commercial competition, money
is necessarily the test of prowess, and wastefulness the sole
criterion of power." -Upton Sinclair, book 'The Jungle'
And RELIGION IS GOING TO BED WITH THIS HUNGRY LION, unless he's
someone like...
The Medway Handyman
>>
> The best strategy is to campaign to get traffic laws altered to
> benefit cyclists and pedestrians instead of being strongly in favour
> of drivers.
Good idea. When sponging freeloading cyclists actually pay for using the
roads they could have saw in how they are used.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
--
Q. Why don't they put pockets in lycra cycling shorts?
A. Because cyclists never put their hands in their pockets.
Bill Sornson
> When sponging freeloading cyclists actually pay for using
> the roads they could have saw in how they are used.
One little trolletry and you screwed it up.
Tsk-tsk... BS
Jym Dyer
> When sponging freeloading cyclists actually pay for using
=v= Many motorists generally don't realize how much impact their
transportation choice has. They're aware that they're paying a
lot of money but most are not aware that it's not nearly enough.
=v= The bottom line is in fact that motorists are operating at a
HUGE deficit, and the difference is made up from general revenue
that we all pay into. This means that those of us using other
transportation modes are subsidizing motorists. Since cyclists
have the LEAST impact, we're subsidizing them the most.
=v= So wise up and have some gratitude already.
<_Jym_>
tonski
1) going green and religion are, respectively, apples and oranges.
They don't conflict and it is possible to believe in God or believe in
GW, neither has evidence and requires faith but you can believe in
both, one or the other, or neither.
2) Claiming religion is more profitable does not have any bearing on
GW and to assume anyone must believe in one or the other or both is,
again, stupid.
Automotive sales have been declining since before GW showed up, since
a few years prior to NAFTA. Do you really think hybrid vehicles are
killing other vehicles? Are you really comparing a Prius to a luxury
vehicle? How about some sort of sane comparisons to make your point?
Being a leader in hybrid vehicles creates pride in ownership and
branding, the former leading to brand loyalty. They're buying
customers, not making the world any greener. Even better, now they're
losing their foothold on hybrid sales and the fanatical customers they
bought couldn't give a hoot about their other cars. I'm sure the GW
frauds will be more than happy to spend 2x the poverty line for a
Prius to keep the earth green while others starve and go homeless. It
sounds inane because it is, but keep on the keeping on (I guess).
http://www.government-fleet.com/Blog/Market-Trends/List/Tag/new-vehicle-sales.aspx
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
The biggest freeloader is the American driver. He doesn't pay nearly
for the price of infrastructure, suffering, pollution and wars that
the cheap gallon of gas entails.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Religion and Science are at odds and Global Warming is science --
projected into the future. The religious person is UNLIKELY to accept
it because they don't watch the right TV channel, or even accept the
candidate most inclined to go green.
It takes a thinking person, or a very moral preacher like Billy to go
against they system.
Again I ask, WHERE ARE THE BIKES AT CHURCH?
Tom Sherman °_°
> Doug wrote:
>
>> The best strategy is to campaign to get traffic laws altered to
>> benefit cyclists and pedestrians instead of being strongly in favour
>> of drivers.
>
> Good idea. When sponging freeloading cyclists actually pay for using the
> roads they could have saw in how they are used.
>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
And taxpayers paid for GM and Chrysler to be saved... only to come
back with the biggest SUVs ever. I've seen two Chevy trucks today
unlike any other before. The next step in evolution toward the
Jurassic.
tonski
Again avoiding the issues. Religion isn't at odds with science, the
Church is. Nowhere in any bible (that I've read or seen) does it
denounce GW or science. Now I can see why you don't get many
responses from normal people, you're an idiot. GW is fraudulent
science (hoax). You bitch about people not watching the "right" news
channel but you don't want to accept other's freedom to watch what
they want. Oh hi, 1984. The candidate most likely to go green won't
end our "oil" war 10 years like Clinton, something Obama isn't
repeating.
Again I ask, explain a correlation between Religion and GW? Then
explain how religion ties into bikes? I see Mormons on bikes a lot, I
see a lot of Jews on bikes too. I'm not going to debunk anymore of
your craziness until you stop sidestepping.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
There you go: You say there's no conflict between religion and science
and then you tell me that Global Warming is a hoax...
Funny, ain't Jesus a hoax? A very old hoax, so old that we don't have
any evidence of Jesus even existing. How about Adam & Eve dooming us
over eating a stupid fruit? All our struggle trying to survive on a
bike doesn't come from the law of the jungle, but from a single bite.
And then Jesus is coming soon, right?
Well, he came to me in dream and told me, "Listen, Tibetan Monkey, my
ass is too old for that, so you better save the world on a bike."
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, TheTibetanMonkey
> showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > I guess this is a loaded question... Believers believe in Armageddon;
> > Nonbelievers know something got to give in this path to destruction,
> > not different from what happened in Easter Island...
>
> > So it is that there's hope of some sort: Jesus coming on his white
> > horse (or is it an ass?) and the revolution coming on a bike. But I
> > don't want to give you more hints which one it is.
>
> > And I don't want anyone neutral about this war of good vs. evil, OK?
>
> Several things immediately come to mind.
> The Bible states that there would be wars and rumors of wars until the end
> of time.
> The Bible also gives an Armageddon that belongs to the Israel race - because
> they believed not in their Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
> The Jewish calendar stands at 5770 - and supposedly Armageddon will only
> happen at the end of 6000 years.
> The Bible states that at the end of this Dispensation of the Grace of God in
> which we are now living (the times of the Gentiles -- which we are) that we
> will go to the Bema Seat and receive our rewards! We will not receive
> condemnation - as anything that is dross will be burned up at that time, and
> we receive less rewards because of besetting sins.
> The Bible also says that Nations shall rise and fall until the end of
> times. And this we have watched - The Roman Empire is gone - And all of the
> other empires are gone. So?
All the empires are not gone. One is still struggling and polluting
the planet as we speak.
> Is what we are seeing the time of the end -- no, we have just seen how we
> have consumed more than the world (the earth) can sustain. We cannot keep
> living like we have in the last 50 years - so we are going to have to bite
> the bullet, and come back to doing what Adam was told in the Garden of
> Eden. Adam was to *keep the garden* in Genesis 2:15.
> We sure haven't kept anything -- we have consumed it like a bunch of
> grasshoppers!
Then we are a sort of plague... What we need is DDT or at least some
organic stuff to keep the bugs in check.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
is. It's a tool for the powerful and a handicap for the weak. Then we
can expect societies to remain paralyzed in time at a time for change
and action...
So it is that we know the end is coming soon when OVERPOPULATION,
OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
beloved planet.
The monkeys learned how to use tools very early in time, but never
learned how to fully use their minds.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The resources of the jungle are limited and precious. But wars over
bananas are unlikely"
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
have. Pedestrians are under attack as well, and we was just once again
blasted for crossing the street with the light. My girlfriend was
startled, and we feel threaten to go out. Well, that happens to every
American, except for a few "lucky" areas. I guess that's the reason
those who can afford it go and live in Gated Communities.
I rest my case for now...
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> lol @ 'religious are tools' ... but hey, at least theyre something.
> what are atheists? having a disbelief isnt much to write home to mommy
> about is it?
>
> "hi mommy ... im just writing to tell you im an atheist....
"Hi mom, the weather is great, it would be a nice day to ride a
bike... But, you know, the loving Christians in their SUVs are like
predators. Otherwise I'm fine!"
andre...@aol.com
You are clearly living in the wrong community. I have a friend who
just moved back from Anchorage. She said that people were horrible
towards cyclists there. In El Paso, even though the vast majority are
Catholics with a good amount of other denomination xtians, people are
very nice to cyclists. I've ridden on the busiest roads next to SUVs,
and with exception of a few altercations over several years, I've been
lucky. I've been into 3 bike, car coalitions over 20 years. I guess
that that is a bad. However I ride on busy streets all the time w/o
harassment. I am going out for a 50 mile ride in the next hour and
don't expect any violence.
While I am an atheist myself, I ride with xtians all the time. One of
my best friends is a born again nut case and I remind her of that
regularly. She tells me that Jesus loves me and that one day she'll
convert me. Yet, she is a devoted cyclist who wouldn't hurt a soul. It
seems that the problem with aggressive cyclists is not a religious
one, but a community one.