"Ed" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote: > > Therefore you should ignore the risk of doing > > jumping jacks in the road.
> No, we should ban drivers who are incapable of driving safely on curvy, > hilly 55 mph roads. "Safely" means driving under control. "Under > control" means you don't drive faster than conditions allow, no matter > what the speed limit sign says.
Good luck. And keep risking your life, I really don't care about *you* per se.
> > > > I do understand. And what I'm also beginning to understand is you have no > > > > legitimate gripe with cyclists that you are willing to share. Somehow, > > > > the > > > > fact that they are doing exercise factors into it makes their right to the > > > > road less important than yours.
> > > Ya gotta wonder if he looks down on those in cars who are only out for > > > a spin instead of trying to get from point A to point B.
> > They generally aren't a problem.
> Sure they are. They're going 35 in a 55 mph zone because they're > rubbernecking, gazing at the scenery.
Two stupidities don't make the first one right.
You could have said "accident" and not "scenery". We have bumpers and car insurance for a reason. I don't think much of donorcycles safety-wise, either, but at least they are less likely to contribute to an accident.
Increased helmet wearing has certainly helped the organ donation industry. Please to be keeping up the good work!
>>>Bicyclists (particularly those who insist upon their >>>"right" to cause accidents) are incapable of speeds >>>appropriate for travel on the roads.
>>Neither can tractors, but you see them regularly.
> True. But you also see those tractors pull off the road > every 1/3 mile, courteously permitting the traffic to > pass them, before resuming their travel.
Some do, and others don't. I've been stuck behind some for way more than 1/3 mile.
You won't EVER
> see that with someone on a bicycle, tricycle, skateboard, > etc....
The difference with a bike is they require much less clearance to pass. I've been delayed more by tractors, or old ladies driving 10-15 mph below the speed limit, than by cyclists. Can't say I've come across any tricycles or skateboarders on any of the backoads in question...
> You know... some of the most capable "average" drivers in > the world are in Germany. I wonder why they have a traffic > law that makes it a crime to "insist upon your right-of-way". > Perhaps because it is dangerous as hell - and fraught with > fatalities?
And they also seem to have plenty of cyclists sharing the roads with cars and trucks. Perhaps the drivers are more open minded.
<NoS...@Ham.com> wrote: > "Ed" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:310820042006330615%nobody@nospam.com... > > In article <ch2dlm$of...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, Edward M. Kennedy > > <NoS...@Ham.com> wrote:
> > > > > I do understand. And what I'm also beginning to understand is you > > > > > have no > > > > > legitimate gripe with cyclists that you are willing to share. > > > > > Somehow, > > > > > the > > > > > fact that they are doing exercise factors into it makes their right > > > > > to the > > > > > road less important than yours.
> > > > Ya gotta wonder if he looks down on those in cars who are only out for > > > > a spin instead of trying to get from point A to point B.
> > > They generally aren't a problem.
> > Sure they are. They're going 35 in a 55 mph zone because they're > > rubbernecking, gazing at the scenery.
> Two stupidities don't make the first one right.
Where did I mention "two stupidities making a right"? You claim other cars aren't generally a problem. I claim quite the opposite. Idiot car drivers create far more problems than bicyclists, and they're a hell of a lot more difficult to pass.
>>>I am glad you agree on the two/three abreast thing. Honestly, I don't
> care
>>>on 25-35 mph roads. It the experience of coming upon them toddling along
> a
>>>10mph on a 55mph highway that is dangerous. Often as it has been
> observed,
>>>cars do not know how to pass safely veering into oncoming traffic.
>>That is one of the biggest problems. We've dumbed driving down so much >>that the average skills are pathetic. Quite a difference in places like >>the UK where you can pass almost anywhere, and most of the drivers know >>how to do it safely.
> I lived in the UK and I agree. A couple of other points about the > diferences:
> The roads are much narrower there and the cars smaller. Drivers learn early > what the dimensions of there cars are and know where they will fit. It > seemed to me that cars passed bicycles *much* closer there.
They sure are smaller.
> There are fewer cars because driving is so expensive. Only people who are > well off can afford to drive cars. Some jobs come with cars, which is a way > to avoid paying extra wages and income taxes. Most teens do not get a car as > a "right of passage".
Yup, they have to earn their driving privileges
> Laws are much stricter about pedestrians and cyclists rights of way.
The laws here are pretty clear here, unfortunately, there are too many "macho" cagers who think they own the road and everyone else should get out of their way.
>>>It >>>really is a recipe for disaster. I admit don't understand the "macho" of >>>proving your as good as a car while risking lives. I also freely admit
> that
>>>I see behavior by bicyclists that makes me angry sometimes.
>>It's not a "macho" thing of trying to prove that one "as good as a car", >>it's exercise and recreation. I don't understand the point of risking >>one's life by jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, but I respect >>their right to pursue sports that they enjoy.
> I think for some it is "macho" or perhaps a fairer word is "principled" > thing. Reading the posts here by some proponents of the sport is a little > like "sharing" the road with them. They won't give an inch.
What are they supposed to give? NC law says bicycles are entitled to use the public roads. I realize there are some buttheads who insist on riding two abreast, even when there are only two of them, but most are not that way. They just want to be able to use a small part of the road. Unfortunately, they have been conditioned by too many bad experiences with people in cars and trucks that they have to do extra things. One example, moving a foot or two left when you hear traffic approaching from behind and you see traffic ahead. Why? To block the lane and prevent the car behind from trying to squeeze between you and the opposing traffic.
>>>As far as the "gentle toot" goes, I use it in an abbreviated honk only
> when
>>>people are riding two/three abreast. They don't seem to understand that
> I am
>>>sometimes towing 11,000lbs (with full control of course). They often
> offer a
>>>very short distance for slowing or stopping and the animals are >>>unnecessarily jostled.
>>>Another thing I don't understand is that on the weekends the entire RTP >>>(7000 acres) is all but empty of cars and traffic. The scenery is just
> as
>>>nice (in many cases arguably better). Why not ride where there is no
> traffic
>>>on the weekends?
>>I used to live in the Swift Creek area. Most of my rides started from >>home and headed away from the population. Then I moved to North >>Raleigh, same drill, get out of traffic. Now I live west of Lake >>Jordan, in the country. The small amount of traffic out here, until >>things like Briar Chapel get built, should be able to accomodate some >>bicycles.
>>Few people ride in RTP cause few people live there, the traffic lights >>are a pain in the butt, and when you actually look at the roads you find >>there really are not that many.
> I see your point, but I see people unloading bikes off of the top of their > cars, and I had thought that it was just as easy to drive your bike to RTP.
It would be easy to drive there, but as I said, the roads are also not conducive to long rides. Many people you see riding on the backroads are out for a 20-40 mile ride on weekdays and longer on weekends. Imagine how many loops one would have to make around RTP to cover those distances.
"Ed" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > Ya gotta wonder if he looks down on those in cars who are only out for > > > > > a spin instead of trying to get from point A to point B.
> > > > They generally aren't a problem.
> > > Sure they are. They're going 35 in a 55 mph zone because they're > > > rubbernecking, gazing at the scenery.
> > Two stupidities don't make the first one right.
> Where did I mention "two stupidities making a right"? You claim other > cars aren't generally a problem. I claim quite the opposite. Idiot > car drivers create far more problems than bicyclists, and they're a > hell of a lot more difficult to pass.
You're full of shit. I've have often claimed overly slow drivers are an anologous problem to bicycles.
You are the one implying that all "those in cars who are only out for a spin" are all driving slow. My point was that most of them aren't driving slow. The ones driving 20 mph below the speed limit are a problem, but at least they are protected by some steel, and therefore aren't quite as stupid as you are.
Go ahead, risk your life for a cause as dumb as exercizing on 55 mph country roads. Ignore the obvious solution while you are at it. Heck, when I was a kid, most of the bike paths weren't even paved. They were spontaneous creations and they worked just fine.
> Isn't the Cary Parkway 4 lanes? Doesn't that afford a safe and extremely > easy way by for other vehicles?
Not when there is a lot of traffic on the road, both lanes are crowded and some fool who decides to impede traffic can back up the entire road.
> Doesn't this artery also pass through countless residential neighbourhoods? > Kids, crossing the street, moms pushing strollers? The occasional weirdo > actually going for a walk? Isn't the speed limit on the Cary Parkway > supposed to be 45?
. . . and your point? A 45 mph road can be backed up (impeded) just as easily as any other road.
> How about sharing the name of the officer and the date/time you supposedly > made this phone call? Let's get some corroboration here.
Don't need to, just call the officer on duty and ask. They quote the law. I get the feeling tho that will call and ask a question in such a way that you get a yes response and therefore declare that bicyclists are allowed impede traffic.
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote: > > You know... some of the most capable "average" drivers in > > the world are in Germany. I wonder why they have a traffic > > law that makes it a crime to "insist upon your right-of-way". > > Perhaps because it is dangerous as hell - and fraught with > > fatalities?
> And they also seem to have plenty of cyclists sharing the roads with > cars and trucks. Perhaps the drivers are more open minded.
The only place I've ever seen folks riding bicycles was in the cities (particularly Rotterdam and north; not noted in Germany). Those cities often have a separate lane for bikes about five feet wide - sometimes with a concrete island between. Of course, the speed limit in cities is 50 km/h - or 30 mph - not 55 - so cycling is relatively painless and safe there.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:01:01 GMT, "geoff" <nos...@nospam.org> wrote: > I was driving on Cary Parkway on >the weekend going towards Kildaire Farm Rd. and some butt munch was riding >his bike in the middle of the lane. Of course traffice was moving very >slowly. I called the officer on duty, Cary police, and asked if that is >allowed. He told me bicyclists also have a right to the road but do not >have the right to *IMPEDE* traffic. If the police catch them doing this, >they will be written a citation.
It appears that such a citation would not stick in cour for the bicycle. See the state's Speed Restrictions statute... NCGS 20-141. paragraph H has an exemption that likely would apply to bicycles: -- (h) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the highway at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law; provided, this provision shall not apply to farm tractors and other motor vehicles operating at reasonable speeds for the type and nature of such vehicles. -- That last part, exempting farm tractors and other vehicles based on their nature...bikes by their nature can't go very fast. Bike riders can block the road, the law allows it.
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:01:51 -0500, Tim C <cannedm...@crone.us> wrote: >On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:03:56 GMT, Bender <nonon...@nononono.nono> wrote: >> shall not apply to farm tractors and other motor vehicles operating at >> reasonable speeds for the type and nature of such vehicles.
>Okay, I'm a bit perplexed how this could apply to a bicycle. Is there >some case in particular you recall?
legally, bicycles are treated as motor vehicles on public roads. The law says no motor vehicle shall impede traffic. But the "do not impede traffic" law has an exemption for tractors and other vehicles if its normal for the vehicle in question to travel slowly compared to the other traffic.
> > > > > > Ya gotta wonder if he looks down on those in cars who are only out > > > > > > for > > > > > > a spin instead of trying to get from point A to point B.
> > > > > They generally aren't a problem.
> > > > Sure they are. They're going 35 in a 55 mph zone because they're > > > > rubbernecking, gazing at the scenery.
> > > Two stupidities don't make the first one right.
> > Where did I mention "two stupidities making a right"? You claim other > > cars aren't generally a problem. I claim quite the opposite. Idiot > > car drivers create far more problems than bicyclists, and they're a > > hell of a lot more difficult to pass.
> You're full of shit.
"If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."
In article <020920041656068618%nob...@nospam.com>, Ed
<nob...@nospam.com> wrote: > "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can > still call him vile names."
> Elbert Hubbard
Boy, it's not every day you see somebody quoting Elbert Hubbard. I like you more and more better every day.
__________________________________________ Dan Becker "Conformists die, but Avid Cyclist heretics live on forever" roycr...@brainboing.com -- Elbert Hubbard
