Critical Mass in San Francisco
Insectus Pentius
Dave Blake (dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART) wrote:
: I assure you that your insults hurt a lot less than the
: injuries I have received from law-breaking motorists
Then don't play in traffic, idiot! Didn't your mother tell you that if you
play in traffic you might get hurt? Quit whigning and use a bus or
streetcar then. Don't bitch about your getting hit while PLAYING IN
TRAFFIC, idiot. Are you fucking retarded or what?
: over the years. Your insults will not allow my college
: roommate to use his left leg again - he was hit by
: a motorist in a hit and run. Your insults will not
: remove the pain I suffered when I could not walk
: for three weeks after a car ran a stop sign in front
: of me and threw me into the middle of 5 lanes at
: rush hour. The motorist again fled like a coward leaving
: me with no use of my right leg and no bike for
: transportation. I literally had to hop the final 1.5
: miles of my commute on my left leg while carrying the
: skeleton of a bicycle that had been ruined in the
: hit. Your insults will not bring back Jeff
: Steinwedel, who was killed near Palo Alto by a truck who
: claimed he never knew Jeff was there (even though he had
: just passed him). Involuntary manslaughter, or vehicular
: homicide was expected - instead the DA refused to press
: charges. Apparently when a cyclist dies of gets maimed
: the government does not care.
That's what you get for playing in traffic. And you wonder why you get
hurt.
: How much suffering does driving cause you ? Were you upset
See? Driving or public transport is vastly safer than your CHOICE of
riding a bicycle, idiot. Why are you trying to push the responcibility for
YOUR OWN CHOICE of a vehicle, which has proven to be dangerous to it's
user? Your choices always have consequences. If one chooses not to go to
college, he has to endure low wages. If one smokes, he chooses to risk
addiction and lung cancer. If one drinks (and I do), one chooses the risk
of liver problems. If one sunbathes, one chooses to risk skin cancer. If
one chooses to play in traffic (like you do), one chooses to risk getting
hit by a car. It's really that simple. Get a car or take the bus. If you
fucking play in traffic, you will (as you yourself said), you WILL get
hurt.
Fucking communist.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
806764 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
Dave Blake
In article <5rlnbr$s0v$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
pen...@ripco.com anonymously and massively cross-posted
from some hole in Chicagoland:
>Dave Blake (dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART) wrote:
>
>: I assure you that your insults hurt a lot less than the
>: injuries I have received from law-breaking motorists
>
>Then don't play in traffic, idiot! Didn't your mother tell you that if you
>play in traffic you might get hurt? Quit whigning and use a bus or
>streetcar then. Don't bitch about your getting hit while PLAYING IN
>TRAFFIC, idiot. Are you fucking retarded or what?
Let's get all the cards on the table eh ?
What is your real name ?
What are you hiding from ?
And does your mommy know you are playing on the Internet ?
And why did you massively cross-post your reply ? You should
know that such behavior is poor netiquette and can cause
accounts to be revoked. Like alt.rush-limbaugh really cares
about this.
>:Apparently when a cyclist dies of gets maimed
>: the government does not care.
>
>That's what you get for playing in traffic. And you wonder why you get
>hurt.
>
>: How much suffering does driving cause you ? Were you upset
>
>See? Driving or public transport is vastly safer than your CHOICE of
>riding a bicycle, idiot. Why are you trying to push the responcibility for
>YOUR OWN CHOICE of a vehicle, which has proven to be dangerous to it's
>user? ...
Because it is in the best interests of society for people
to ride bikes - it has no pollution, uses almost no fuel,
and is maximally efficient in terms of number of people
passing on a road. One lane of traffic can support ten
times more cyclists than cars. Cycling is also the most
efficient form of transportation in SF. I can get where
I want faster than any other mode of transportation,
park more easily, and do it all FREE.
You see - we live in a society. It is the duty of those in
the society to do what is best for the society. That is
not communism - that is life. It is applied at every
level of society. You have a job - you do what is best
for your employer. Same concept, different level. You
play on a sports team - you do what is in the best interests
of the team. You have a family - you do what is in the
best interests of the family. You commute in a major city -
you use a mode of transportation that makes commuting
facilitated for others. The city should encourage such
behavior - but because it cannot make any money from
cyclists, it chooses not to. Well, it is considering such
measures now due to raised awareness from Critical Mass.
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
Matt Williams
Insectus Pentius <pen...@ripco.com> wrote in article
<5rlnbr$s0v$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>
> Dave Blake (dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART) wrote:
>
> : I assure you that your insults hurt a lot less than the
> : injuries I have received from law-breaking motorists
>
> Then don't play in traffic, idiot! Didn't your mother tell you that if
you
> play in traffic you might get hurt? Quit whigning and use a bus or
> streetcar then. Don't bitch about your getting hit while PLAYING IN
> TRAFFIC, idiot. Are you fucking retarded or what?
We don't "play in traffic". We use the roads for the exact same reasons
assholes like you do, to get from place to place. If all bicyclists
started driving 10 ton armored vehicles on the roads and killed, maimed,
harrassed, and annoyed motorists you wouldn't just say well the streets
aren't safe, I better walk through the woods. No you'd fight like we are.
We aren't trying to take away your vehicle of choice, so quit trying to
take away ours.
> : over the years. Your insults will not allow my college
> : roommate to use his left leg again - he was hit by
> : a motorist in a hit and run. Your insults will not
> : remove the pain I suffered when I could not walk
> : for three weeks after a car ran a stop sign in front
> : of me and threw me into the middle of 5 lanes at
> : rush hour. The motorist again fled like a coward leaving
> : me with no use of my right leg and no bike for
> : transportation. I literally had to hop the final 1.5
> : miles of my commute on my left leg while carrying the
> : skeleton of a bicycle that had been ruined in the
> : hit. Your insults will not bring back Jeff
> : Steinwedel, who was killed near Palo Alto by a truck who
> : claimed he never knew Jeff was there (even though he had
> : just passed him). Involuntary manslaughter, or vehicular
> : homicide was expected - instead the DA refused to press
> : charges. Apparently when a cyclist dies of gets maimed
> : the government does not care.
>
> That's what you get for playing in traffic. And you wonder why you get
> hurt.
They weren't playing in traffic anymore than you are driving to work. I
could also use your argument just as well to people killed crossing the
streets legally by someone running a stop sign or not watching where they
were going. To a 5 year old child killed by a drunk driver while riding
with her mother to the store. To a 16 year old, killed because someone was
late and had to drive 10 mph above the speed limit. To the 45 year old
killed because someone didn't signal. They were playing in traffic, just
like those of us on bikes.
> : How much suffering does driving cause you ? Were you upset
>
> See? Driving or public transport is vastly safer than your CHOICE of
> riding a bicycle, idiot. Why are you trying to push the responcibility
for
> YOUR OWN CHOICE of a vehicle, which has proven to be dangerous to it's
> user? Your choices always have consequences. If one chooses not to go to
> college, he has to endure low wages. If one smokes, he chooses to risk
> addiction and lung cancer. If one drinks (and I do), one chooses the risk
> of liver problems. If one sunbathes, one chooses to risk skin cancer. If
> one chooses to play in traffic (like you do), one chooses to risk getting
> hit by a car. It's really that simple. Get a car or take the bus. If you
> fucking play in traffic, you will (as you yourself said), you WILL get
> hurt.
We face risks we shouldn't because people like you refuse to see us as
legitimate road users. We face risks we shouldn't because prosecuters
won't charge drivers guilty of killing bikers in hit and run accidents. We
face risks we shouldn't because drivers act like they own the lane we're
in. We face risks we shouldn't because people like you are too important
to slow down for us, to stop at the stop sign for us, to watch out for us,
to take 1 measly second of their life to make sure they don't take the rest
of ours.
> Fucking communist.
Like I've said, you can't say any of us are communists because you have no
evidence, and you should use an insult that has some sting, just because
someone feels one government is better than another doesn't mean they are
an inferior person.
--
Matt Williams
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds, and the pessimist fears that this is true.
James Branch Cambell
Alan Miles
Insectus Pentius wrote:
>
> Then don't play in traffic, idiot! Didn't your mother tell you that if you
> play in traffic you might get hurt? Quit whigning and use a bus or
> streetcar then. Don't bitch about your getting hit while PLAYING IN
> TRAFFIC, idiot. Are you fucking retarded or what?
The point, anonymous crybaby fool, is that motorists break laws and in
the process kill law-abiding bicyclists.
This isn't a smug little joke that you should get all puffed up about.
In Manhattan, where I live, on 6th Avenue, where I live, there is a
bike lane. I routinely observe vehicles swerving into the lane without
a signal, making turns across the lane without a signal, and ignoring
cyclists right of way.
Who is "playing in traffic?"
Do you know how many pedestrians and cyclists are killed in the US by
careless drivers every year? Do you know?
No drunk drivers, careless drivers.
fwarren@pacbell.net@pacbell.net
In <33E061...@interport.net>, Alan Miles <amiles...@interport.net> writes:
>The point, anonymous crybaby fool, is that motorists break laws and in
>the process kill law-abiding bicyclists.
I really don't have a problem with that. You go out there and play with big metal
things using your knees, chin and spine for fenders, I'm really not sure why you
would expect anything else. You may consider yourself law-abiding for doing
this. Mother nature, witness the results of any collision with one of these big
metal things, appears to see it differently.
Get some ball-bearing rollers and a sidestand, and go ride in your closet.
Bill Zaumen
This is no doubt flame bait, but is unfortunately a widely held belief,
and my comments really aren't about the recent Critical Mass fiasco.
In article 1...@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net, fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net writes:
> In <33E061...@interport.net>, Alan Miles <amiles...@interport.net> writes:
> >The point, anonymous crybaby fool, is that motorists break laws and in
> >the process kill law-abiding bicyclists.
>
> I really don't have a problem with that. You go out there and play with big metal
> things using your knees, chin and spine for fenders, I'm really not sure why you
> would expect anything else. .....
If we substitute "18 wheeler" for "car" and "car" for "bicycle", I
wonder if this dude would make a similar statement. The public, and
that includes cyclists, have every right to insist that people show due
care and diligence, and we have a right to require a level of competence
and responsibility appropriate to the vehicle being operated, based on
the risk that vehicle could pose if improperly operated.
Cyclists doing a reasonable job of obeying basic traffic laws have
every right to expect drivers not to hit them, just as home owners and
airline passengers have every right to expect that airlines will not
let incompetents fly and maintain 747s. If a driver can't handle that,
the driver should lose his or her license.
While even good drivers can have accidents, the recently reported
problems with "road rage" and "aggressive driving" seem to show that
over 1/2 of the deaths on our highways are the result of deliberate
actions. Congress is taking note of this and we, as members of the
public, certainly have a right to insist that this sort of "driver" has
no business operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
Bill
Dave Blake
fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net says...
>Alan Miles <amiles...@interport.net> writes
>>The point, anonymous crybaby fool, is that motorists break laws and in
>>the process kill law-abiding bicyclists.
>
>I really don't have a problem with that. You go out there and
>play with big metal things using your knees, chin and spine
>for fenders, I'm really not sure why you would expect anything
>this. Mother nature, witness the results of any collision
>with one of these big metal things, appears to see it differently.
>
>Get some ball-bearing rollers and a sidestand, and go ride in your closet.
Another truly enlightened post by a motorist.
The motorist is required to be in control of his vehicle
at all times. The above post is a great example of why
motorists have very high liability insurance and cyclists
do not. FWIW, every time a cyclist is crippled by a car,
he gets an award of several hundred thousand dollars that
comes out of the collective pocket of all motorists
that pay liability insurance.
So you see, it is really also in your best interests that
cyclists are safe on the road - since you inevitably pay
for damage to them through your insurance.
Michael Bucklin
Dave Blake wrote:
>
> mbuc...@cris.com says...
> >
> >I was caught in the last two critical mASSHOLE events.
>
> Use your brain. Don't be in downtown August 29,
There isn't going to be one, because commuters are not let
you jerks push them around anymore. CM has used up all its
goodwill.
We have been commuting to and from work for years now. If you
are worried about being held up, be out of downtown before
5 PM. Please, Thank you.
> and if you are, don't whine about it. This has now
> occurred 59 consecutive months. If you are worried about
> being held up be out of downtown before 6 PM. Please.
No. Don't give me any ultimatums. I will *not* allow you arrogant
massholes to dictate one whit of my life. I grew up here, and I'm
not going anywhere.
Get a clue --- all Fridays are work days for me. Not until the last
two CMs, has it really messed me up.
Is CM trying to create martyrs? Does CM *want* people to get hurt
intentionally?? Are casualties necessary for your social engineering
project? Is it the idea that "there's no such thing a bad publicity"
that attracts you guys? Does the end *really* justify the means? Do
these questions have any meaning to you?
Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
Face the music!
>
> --
> Dave Blake
> dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
> http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
Why don't you start terrorizing the people on your own street? Or
interfere with students at UCSF, where you hail from? Go make a hairy
nuisance of yourself where you are known, and where others know where
you live. Are you afraid of what they might do to you?
Go sabotage your family's work days. Stop your brother or sister
from pulling out of the driveway. Scuttle your grandma's bridge
game by preventing her from getting there.
Get the picture?
--
Michael Bucklin
mbucklin at cris dot com
Dave Blake
In article <33E19A...@cris.com>, mbuc...@cris.com says...
>Dave Blake wrote:
>> mbuc...@cris.com says...
>> >I was caught in the last two critical mASSHOLE events.
>> Use your brain. Don't be in downtown August 29,
>
>There isn't going to be one, because commuters are not let
>you jerks push them around anymore. CM has used up all its
>goodwill.
Well, let's suppose that there are just around a thousand
groups of ten bicycle riders each who happen to be riding
legally and very slowly on the road, and they happen
to do it at 6 PM the last Friday of the month. They
are all completely legal, and it will have the same
effect on traffic as Critical Mass used to have. No
laws are being broken.
That is what will happen. The bicyclists have gathered in
groups thousands strong because of the transportation -
there is no such solidarity among drivers. Because the
transportation planning is already licking their butts.
>> and if you are, don't whine about it. This has now
>> occurred 59 consecutive months. If you are worried about
>> being held up be out of downtown before 6 PM. Please.
>No. Don't give me any ultimatums. I will *not* allow you arrogant
>massholes to dictate one whit of my life. I grew up here, and I'm
>not going anywhere.
This is not an ultimatum or a threat. It is a prediction,
and it is advice. There is a very high chance you will
be held up in traffic on the last day of the month. It
will be the 60th consecutive time this has happened. How
many times will it take for you to learn ? Even if I had
nothing to do with it, it would still be a prediction
and advice. And I am asking nicely. And if you are there
I will politely ask you to be patient during the ride.
Only a fool is upset with his situation and still does
nothing about it.
>Get a clue --- all Fridays are work days for me. Not until the last
>two CMs, has it really messed me up.
>
>Is CM trying to create martyrs? Does CM *want* people to get hurt
>intentionally?? Are casualties necessary for your social engineering
>project? Is it the idea that "there's no such thing a bad publicity"
>that attracts you guys? Does the end *really* justify the means? Do
>these questions have any meaning to you?
>
>Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
>Face the music!
There are no leaders. It is a demonstration of solidarity
against the current bias in transportation planning. It
will be much safer in the future, because the cyclists
WANT the focus to be on issues and not violence (of which
there was very little anyway).
>> Dave Blake
>> dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
>> http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
>Why don't you start terrorizing the people on your own street? Or
>interfere with students at UCSF, where you hail from? Go make a hairy
>nuisance of yourself where you are known, and where others know where
>you live. Are you afraid of what they might do to you?
I live here. I work here. I pay taxes here. I vote here.
I work downtown sometimes, I work at UCSF sometimes, and
I work at the VA sometimes. I commute all over the city
by bike or by muni - but I refuse to use an SOV on a workday,
or at rush hour unless I absolutely have to.
I see no way that you hold any kind of ethical high ground
wrt transportation in the city.
>Go sabotage your family's work days. Stop your brother or sister
>from pulling out of the driveway. Scuttle your grandma's bridge
>game by preventing her from getting there.
>
>Get the picture?
What I do perceive is someone resorting to ad hominem attacks,
which usually means he has nothing of substance left to
discuss.
Michael Bucklin
Dave Blake wrote:
>
> In article <33E19A...@cris.com>, mbuc...@cris.com says...
> >Dave Blake wrote:
> >> mbuc...@cris.com says...
> >> >I was caught in the last two critical mASSHOLE events.
>
> >> Use your brain. Don't be in downtown August 29,
> >
> >you jerks push them around anymore. CM has used up all its
> >goodwill.
>
> Well, let's suppose that there are just around a thousand
> groups of ten bicycle riders each who happen to be riding
> legally and very slowly on the road, and they happen
> to do it at 6 PM the last Friday of the month. They
The intent is clear: to interfere with and disrupt traffic
as much as possible in the worst place at the worst time
of the week.
And you claim the moral high ground?
> are all completely legal, and it will have the same
> effect on traffic as Critical Mass used to have. No
> laws are being broken.
>
So, Dave Blake, the non-leader of critical mess, has so decreed.
> That is what will happen. The bicyclists have gathered in
> groups thousands strong because of the transportation -
> there is no such solidarity among drivers. Because the
> transportation planning is already licking their butts.
Stay tuned -- you'll be seeing solidarity.
>
> >> and if you are, don't whine about it. This has now
> >> occurred 59 consecutive months. If you are worried about
> >> being held up be out of downtown before 6 PM. Please.
>
> >No. Don't give me any ultimatums. I will *not* allow you arrogant
> >massholes to dictate one whit of my life. I grew up here, and I'm
> >not going anywhere.
>
> This is not an ultimatum or a threat. It is a prediction,
You mean like: "Hand over your money or I 'predict' dire
consequences for you!" "A rose by any other name..."
(I almost said, "You wouldn't be a lawyer, would you?")
> and it is advice. There is a very high chance you will
> be held up in traffic on the last day of the month. It
> will be the 60th consecutive time this has happened. How
> many times will it take for you to learn ? Even if I had
"'How many times will it take for you to learn?'"
Who died and appointed you god? Who are you to teach anyone
anything? And yet, if you must teach, then teach by example.
Shall I tell you how change is *really* wrought?
First, conquer yourself. Second, win over your friends and family by
your excellent example so that they *want* to be like you. Third, when
neighbors approach you to expound on your excellent life, (again, by
example) show them the benefits of your cause and the excellence of
your way of life. (note: this is qualitatively different from holding
your neighbor forcibly, preventing him from moving, while you say
"'How many times will it take for you to learn'"?
So the movement grows, in ever widening circles of families, friends
and neighbors.
This is how change is accomplished. Not by someone dictating to the
rest of us how it's going to be -- or else!
> nothing to do with it, it would still be a prediction
> and advice. And I am asking nicely. And if you are there
> I will politely ask you to be patient during the ride.
This is like a mugger telling his victim to relax and enjoy it.
Or like a terrorist. A *polite* terrorist:
"Halt! Do this, er, um, *please*, or we cut your damn throat!!!"
>
> Only a fool is upset with his situation and still does
> nothing about it.
I am doing more than you know. Maybe more than you *can* know.
> >Get a clue --- all Fridays are work days for me. Not until the last
> >two CMs, has it really messed me up.
> >
> >Is CM trying to create martyrs? Does CM *want* people to get hurt
> >intentionally?? Are casualties necessary for your social engineering
> >project? Is it the idea that "there's no such thing a bad publicity"
> >that attracts you guys? Does the end *really* justify the means? Do
> >these questions have any meaning to you?
Why won't you answer the rest of these questions.
> >
> >Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
> >Face the music!
>
> There are no leaders. It is a demonstration of solidarity
> against the current bias in transportation planning. It
> will be much safer in the future, because the cyclists
> WANT the focus to be on issues and not violence (of which
> there was very little anyway).
Tell that to those who were assaulted and threatened, and whose
cars were damaged, and whose families were forced to be without
them (yes, that IS violence), and those who sustained economic
losses, (both as businesses in San Francisco and as workers going
to other jobs).
No, criminal mess cannot claim the moral high ground.
>
> >> Dave Blake
> >> dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
> >> http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
>
> >Why don't you start terrorizing the people on your own street? Or
> >interfere with students at UCSF, where you hail from? Go make a hairy
> >nuisance of yourself where you are known, and where others know where
> >you live. Are you afraid of what they might do to you?
I note you have not answered a single question I have posed you.
>
> I live here. I work here. I pay taxes here. I vote here.
> I work downtown sometimes, I work at UCSF sometimes, and
> I work at the VA sometimes. I commute all over the city
> by bike or by muni - but I refuse to use an SOV on a workday,
> or at rush hour unless I absolutely have to.
Blessed Be. How convenient for you.
So instead you prefer to block 750,000 commuters from carrying on their
lawful business. (KRON, I believe mentioned 2 million commuters).
>
> I see no way that you hold any kind of ethical high ground
> wrt transportation in the city.
We've already dealt with the issue of moral high ground.
>
> >Go sabotage your family's work days. Stop your brother or sister
> >from pulling out of the driveway. Scuttle your grandma's bridge
> >game by preventing her from getting there.
> >
> >Get the picture?
I am not jesting in suggesting these things. I am only trying
to show you the destructiveness of your actions. By suggesting
that you do these actions to your loved ones, I hope to awaken in
you a certain sense of consequence for your actions. Whence
comes this holier-than-thou attitude?
>
> What I do perceive is someone resorting to ad hominem attacks,
> which usually means he has nothing of substance left to
> discuss.
You obviously don't know the meaning of "ad hominem attacks".
Don't they teach *anything* at the universities, these days?
It hard to discuss abything when the other person ignores your
questions.
Come on, Dave, be a mensch, admit you're wrong, admit CM is
antisocial and sociopathic in its intent as well as its
conception.
Else, why would the leaders refuse to show themselves, and take
responsibility fro their criminal actions?
>
> --
> Dave Blake
> dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
> http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
--
Marcio Watanabe
Michael Bucklin <mbuc...@cris.com> wrote:
>Shall I tell you how change is *really* wrought?
>First, conquer yourself. Second, win over your friends and family by
>your excellent example so that they *want* to be like you. Third, when
>neighbors approach you to expound on your excellent life, (again, by
>example) show them the benefits of your cause and the excellence of
>your way of life. (note: this is qualitatively different from holding
>your neighbor forcibly, preventing him from moving, while you say
>"'How many times will it take for you to learn'"?
>
>So the movement grows, in ever widening circles of families, friends
>and neighbors.
Even though I don't even know San Francisco, much less their Critical
Mass rides (I just read about it on www.sfgate.com), I think it
should've been like this that critical mass has grown. Hasn't it
grown from 25 riders to 6,000, in just 5 years? This is a rate of
doubling the number of riders every ride.
>Else, why would the leaders refuse to show themselves, and take
>responsibility fro their criminal actions?
Well, just with the short readings I've just done, I've already
realized that there are no leaders. And now, I see why.
Marcio
--
_
__ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as much fun reading this
/ ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \ as I had writing it
/_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!! ,,,
(o o)
--- mar...@primenet.com -------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--
Steve Geller
Dave Blake wrote:
> Well, let's suppose that there are just around a thousand
> groups of ten bicycle riders each who happen to be riding
> legally and very slowly on the road, and they happen
> to do it at 6 PM the last Friday of the month. They
> are all completely legal, and it will have the same
> effect on traffic as Critical Mass used to have. No
> laws are being broken.
This is what should have happened last time. It didn't, because
the event got taken over by the spokeheads. Too many other
riders just followed along.
Next Critical Mass (I'm sure there will be one) will probably
be less in numbers, because a lot of riders will be shy of
getting lumped with the spokeheads. If the ride goes as
peacefully as it should, it's possible that some of the bad
attitudes among the general public will be reduced.
What I'm afraid of is that the spokeheads will take over again,
that there will be some serious violence. People will be
interested to find out what proportion of bike riders are spokeheads.
What would happen if some bicyclist were killed? How about
if a bicyclist clearly caused a fatal car crash?
Maybe it won't be any worse than a few of the hotter (spoke)heads
being arrested and tried for assault, or vehicular attempted
manslaughter.
> That is what will happen. The bicyclists have gathered in
> groups thousands strong because of the transportation -
> there is no such solidarity among drivers. Because the
> transportation planning is already licking their butts.
>
> >> and if you are, don't whine about it. This has now
> >> occurred 59 consecutive months. If you are worried about
> >> being held up be out of downtown before 6 PM. Please.
>
> >No. Don't give me any ultimatums. I will *not* allow you arrogant
> >massholes to dictate one whit of my life. I grew up here, and I'm
> >not going anywhere.
>
> This is not an ultimatum or a threat. It is a prediction,
> and it is advice. There is a very high chance you will
> be held up in traffic on the last day of the month. It
> will be the 60th consecutive time this has happened. How
> many times will it take for you to learn ? Even if I had
> nothing to do with it, it would still be a prediction
> and advice. And I am asking nicely. And if you are there
> I will politely ask you to be patient during the ride.
>
> Only a fool is upset with his situation and still does
> nothing about it.
>
> >Get a clue --- all Fridays are work days for me. Not until the last
> >two CMs, has it really messed me up.
> >
> >Is CM trying to create martyrs? Does CM *want* people to get hurt
> >intentionally?? Are casualties necessary for your social engineering
> >project? Is it the idea that "there's no such thing a bad publicity"
> >that attracts you guys? Does the end *really* justify the means? Do
> >these questions have any meaning to you?
> >
> >Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
> >Face the music!
>
> There are no leaders. It is a demonstration of solidarity
> against the current bias in transportation planning. It
> will be much safer in the future, because the cyclists
> WANT the focus to be on issues and not violence (of which
> there was very little anyway).
>
> >> Dave Blake
> >> dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
> >> http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
>
> >Why don't you start terrorizing the people on your own street? Or
> >interfere with students at UCSF, where you hail from? Go make a hairy
> >nuisance of yourself where you are known, and where others know where
> >you live. Are you afraid of what they might do to you?
>
> I live here. I work here. I pay taxes here. I vote here.
> I work downtown sometimes, I work at UCSF sometimes, and
> I work at the VA sometimes. I commute all over the city
> by bike or by muni - but I refuse to use an SOV on a workday,
> or at rush hour unless I absolutely have to.
>
> I see no way that you hold any kind of ethical high ground
> wrt transportation in the city.
>
> >Go sabotage your family's work days. Stop your brother or sister
> >from pulling out of the driveway. Scuttle your grandma's bridge
> >game by preventing her from getting there.
> >
> >Get the picture?
>
> What I do perceive is someone resorting to ad hominem attacks,
> which usually means he has nothing of substance left to
> discuss.
>
Insectus Pentius
Michael Bucklin (mbuc...@cris.com) wrote:
: Dave Blake wrote:
: > Use your brain. Don't be in downtown August 29,
: There isn't going to be one, because commuters are not let
: you jerks push them around anymore. CM has used up all its
: goodwill.
Davo is only proving the fact that Massholes(tm) are terrorists.
: > and if you are, don't whine about it. This has now
: > occurred 59 consecutive months. If you are worried about
: > being held up be out of downtown before 6 PM. Please.
: No. Don't give me any ultimatums. I will *not* allow you arrogant
: massholes to dictate one whit of my life. I grew up here, and I'm
: not going anywhere.
Davo deserves to be locked up in a gaol with a bull rapist to bugger him
up the arse all night every night. I wonder what he thinks of the idea of
a bull rapist asserting himself up his arse.
: Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
Becuse they are cowards like Tim McVeigh. If a bomb was needed for their
cause, one of them would build it. They want to shift the costs of their
commutes and protest rides onto strangers becuse they know their relatives
would not put up with them.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1111730 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
fwarren@pacbell.net@pacbell.net
In <01bc9ca3$8b208da0$4c57...@mypc.tdsnet.com>, "Matt Williams" <dav...@idaho.tds.net> writes:
>
>We face risks we shouldn't because people like you refuse to see us as
>legitimate road users. We face risks we shouldn't because prosecuters
>won't charge drivers guilty of killing bikers in hit and run accidents. We
>face risks we shouldn't because drivers act like they own the lane we're
>in. We face risks we shouldn't because people like you are too important
>to slow down for us, to stop at the stop sign for us, to watch out for us,
>to take 1 measly second of their life to make sure they don't take the rest
>of ours.
Now who said I don't see you as a legitimate road user? Let me think about that
for a moment.
No, I don't see you as a legitimate road user. You can't go faster than a pedestrian
on the run. You are only somewhat more efficient in your use of your muscles.
I don't think you have any business on the roads with motor vehicles.
Those roads have for over 80 years been built and maintained for use by motor
vehicles.
I'm all in favor of allowing bicycles their own lanes, because I'm tired of them
weaving around, and making a nuisance of themselves. The fact is that you
just can't keep up with the flow of traffic. If you could, like a motorcyclist,
that would be different.
I also own and ride a bicycle, but not to work, and not as a commute vehicle,
precisely because it can't keep up, and isn't a viable distance mode of transport.
The bicycle was a great invention in 1880. It is long since obsolete except as
a children's toy. The only reason, in fact, that bicycles are still tolerated on the
roads is because motor vehicles are dangerous enough that we don't let the
young and imtemperate operate them, due to public hazard.
Perhaps we need to pass laws against overaged kids, on bicycles, from impeding
everyone else's transport needs for their selfish pleasure.
Loren Petrich
In article <5s3ilq$8m$3...@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>,
<fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Now who said I don't see you as a legitimate road user? Let me think about that
>for a moment.
>No, I don't see you as a legitimate road user. You can't go faster than
a pedestrian >on the run. You are only somewhat more efficient in your
use of your muscles.
But it is a MUCH more efficient use of one's energy, meaning that
one can last MUCH longer.
>Those roads have for over 80 years been built and maintained for use by motor
>vehicles.
Surprise, surprise: in the early years of paved roads, an
influential lobby for them was -- bikers. (Stephen Goddard: _Getting There_)
>I'm all in favor of allowing bicycles their own lanes, because I'm tired of them
>weaving around, and making a nuisance of themselves. ...
How is that fundamentally different from reckless driving???
>The bicycle was a great invention in 1880. It is long since obsolete except as
>a children's toy. ...
Bull excrement and flame bait. I've ridden bikes for years -- they
have been very useful for me.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Matt Boersma
fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net wrote:
> No, I don't see you as a legitimate road user. You can't go faster than
a pedestrian
> on the run.
Hm? I go quite a bit faster.
> You are only somewhat more efficient in your use of your muscles.
I didn't realize efficiency was a criterion to determine road-worthiness.
I guess that will give you and your SOV the thumbs-down.
> Those roads have for over 80 years been built and maintained for use by
motor
> vehicles.
Bzzt. Paved roads in general were a technology developed to ease the lot
of cyclists on cobblestone streets.
> I'm all in favor of allowing bicycles their own lanes, because I'm tired
of them
> weaving around, and making a nuisance of themselves. The fact is that
you
> just can't keep up with the flow of traffic.
I'm generally outpacing traffic on my route.
> If you could, like a motorcyclist,
> that would be different.
Why?
> I also own and ride a bicycle, but not to work, and not as a commute
vehicle,
> precisely because it can't keep up, and isn't a viable distance mode of
transport.
No. It's precisely because you're lazy and unquestioning. What distance
are you talking about? You have a fixation on speed, but it's not a
requirement for coexistence on the road.
When was the last time you rode a bike?
Otter
In ba.general on 4 Aug 1997 21:39:09 GMT, "Matt Boersma"
<do...@email.me> wrote:
>> I also own and ride a bicycle, but not to work, and not as a commute
>No. It's precisely because you're lazy and unquestioning. What distance
Uh-oh! We've got a BODY NAZI here! Anyone who doesn't ride a bike
every day is physically and mentally inferior -- and therefore does
not deserve the special privileges the physical elite can expect as a
reward for their superior minds and bodies.
Are all us fat, old and lazy noncyclists supposed to report to special
relocation camps, or will the CM police simply herd us into gas
chambers on the last Friday of the month? Just run a hose from my MUNI
bus's exhaust pipe into the one of its roof vents after you've blocked
its path -- that way, I'll fall asleep and never wake up.
--
The Final Solution?
David P. Summers
of them
> weaving around, and making a nuisance of themselves. The fact is that you
motorcyclist,
> that would be different.
What amazes me is what people who want bikes off the rode seem to
think will happen. Those people aren't going to disappear. They
are going to start getting in their cars and taking up even more
space and they are going to mad at having been forced there.
Is this really an improvement for anyone?
--
David P. Summers
Sum...@Alum.MIT.edu
Charlie Ambrosi
In article <01bca11e$d87a0f20$99249ecd@pinhead>,
"Matt Boersma" <do...@email.me> wrote:
>fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net wrote:
>> No, I don't see you as a legitimate road user. You can't go faster than
>a pedestrian
>> on the run.
>
>Hm? I go quite a bit faster.
>
>> You are only somewhat more efficient in your use of your muscles.
>
>I didn't realize efficiency was a criterion to determine road-worthiness.
>I guess that will give you and your SOV the thumbs-down.
>
>> Those roads have for over 80 years been built and maintained for use by
>motor
>> vehicles.
>
>Bzzt. Paved roads in general were a technology developed to ease the lot
>of cyclists on cobblestone streets.
>
>of them
>> weaving around, and making a nuisance of themselves. The fact is that
>you
>> just can't keep up with the flow of traffic.
>
>
>> that would be different.
>
>> I also own and ride a bicycle, but not to work, and not as a commute
>> precisely because it can't keep up, and isn't a viable distance mode of
>transport.
>
>requirement for coexistence on the road.
>
>When was the last time you rode a bike?
Hey...I hope the Critical Mass morons DO keep up their nonsense. It'll only
be a matter of time before some guy in a big 4-By....maybe drunk...maybe
high...maybe both....after sitting in a traffic while these clowns play their
little games will just decide to FLOOR it and see how many of these bozo's he
can KILL before anyone can stop him!
And when it HAPPENS.....I'm gonna laugh my ASS off!!
Then they can be buried in their little girly bicycle shorts.
No..it won't be ME doin it....I learned to stay out of the sewer that is San
Francisco YEARS ago! But it's FUN to watch that silly city and the idiots
therein IMPLODE!
--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENTVRIO
(E-mail address modified to foil spambots.
Remove the extra "home" for the true address!)
Richard Kaiser
Dave Blake (dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART) wrote:
: Well, let's suppose that there are just around a thousand
: groups of ten bicycle riders each who happen to be riding
: legally and very slowly on the road, and they happen
: to do it at 6 PM the last Friday of the month. They
: are all completely legal, and it will have the same
: effect on traffic as Critical Mass used to have. No
: laws are being broken.
CM will work this way. If the police will not "filter out" the
law breakers from the riders then they are not doing their
job (a word from other riders may help, but, unfortunately,
I don't think so). Mass arrests of non-law breakers
probably is a violation of civil rights. Spreading CM to
surrounding cities may also help as not everyone
works where they live and vote. This is also a good
opportunity to teach bicyclist and drivers how to
share the road which is what this is about anyways.
Probably the most effective use of Cm is a large turnout is
after a bike-car accident, expecially if caused by car-driver
(shouldn't that be car-ridder) or by poor facilities for
riding a bike. With the right spin to the press CM will
start to get simpathy from the general public. Even
the clueless cagger will be more carefull if hitting a
bicyclist will make his/her/its commute hell.
PS: You can keep Willie Brown (please!!). His only idea
of comprimise is whatever he wants. Term limits was the
rest of the state voting him out of office.
: There are no leaders. It is a demonstration of solidarity
: against the current bias in transportation planning. It
<snipped my somebody in my killfile>
Richard "moved to saner Colorado" Kaiser
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <5s66pn$9gu$5...@gail.ripco.com> pen...@ripco.com (Insectus Pentius) writes:
>Otter (nob...@edickinson.edu) wrote:
>: In ba.general on 4 Aug 1997 21:39:09 GMT, "Matt Boersma"
>: <do...@email.me> wrote:
>: >No. It's precisely because you're lazy and unquestioning. What distance
>: Uh-oh! We've got a BODY NAZI here! Anyone who doesn't ride a bike
>: every day is physically and mentally inferior -- and therefore does
>: not deserve the special privileges the physical elite can expect as a
>: reward for their superior minds and bodies.
>See? That's the jock mentality exposed. I'd like to see this body nazi
>pedal to work when it's -26F and with -80F wind chills.
Well, seeing as you so helpfully crossposted your mental problems to enough
newsgroups local to the San Francisco area, it's sort of pointless for you to
be gleefully contemplating such conditions, because they don't happen there.
But, while you're freezing your worthless butt off in Chicago, ponder *this*:
at the same time down here in Houston, it's likely going to be in the mid-20s
C and we'll have to worry about the heat index. (Don't move down here, though
-- we've got more than enough of you icebacks down here, as it is.)
--PLH, and folks wonder why some of us think Texas made a *big* mistake in
1845...
Christopher Hapka
In article <33e62c9c...@newstest.sirius.com>,
Otter <nob...@edickinson.edu> wrote:
>In ba.general on 4 Aug 1997 21:39:09 GMT, "Matt Boersma"
><do...@email.me> wrote:
>
>
>
>Uh-oh! We've got a BODY NAZI here! Anyone who doesn't ride a bike
>every day is physically and mentally inferior -- and therefore does
>not deserve the special privileges the physical elite can expect as a
>reward for their superior minds and bodies.
>
>relocation camps, or will the CM police simply herd us into gas
>chambers on the last Friday of the month? Just run a hose from my MUNI
>bus's exhaust pipe into the one of its roof vents after you've blocked
>its path -- that way, I'll fall asleep and never wake up.
>
>--
>The Final Solution?
I'm delurking here to invoke Godwin's Law. Let's try to keep this
somewhat on topic...
...followups to rec.bicycles.soc.
--Chris "that blond kid from Pennsylvania" Hapka
cha...@best.com
Dave Blake
cent...@homehome.com says...
> "Matt Boersma" <do...@email.me> wrote:
...
>>No. It's precisely because you're lazy and unquestioning. What distance
>>requirement for coexistence on the road.
>>
>>When was the last time you rode a bike?
>
>Hey...I hope the Critical Mass morons DO keep up their nonsense. It'll only
>be a matter of time before some guy in a big 4-By....maybe drunk...maybe
>high...maybe both....after sitting in a traffic while these clowns
>play their little games will just decide to FLOOR it and see how
>many of these bozo's he can KILL before anyone can stop him!
>
>And when it HAPPENS.....I'm gonna laugh my ASS off!!
>
>Then they can be buried in their little girly bicycle shorts.
This type of post is a very disturbing indicator of our society.
You would suggest that it would be comic if a motorist
committed mass homicide with a motor vehicle because
he was forced to wait for 30 minutes in his car. It
would be tragic. And the perpetrator would be guilty of
1st Degree Murder. That is no laughing matter.
Jack Dingler
fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> In <33E061...@interport.net>, Alan Miles <amiles...@interport.net> writes:
> >The point, anonymous crybaby fool, is that motorists break laws and in
> >the process kill law-abiding bicyclists.
>
> I really don't have a problem with that. You go out there and play with big metal
> things using your knees, chin and spine for fenders, I'm really not sure why you
> would expect anything else. You may consider yourself law-abiding for doing
> this. Mother nature, witness the results of any collision with one of these big
> metal things, appears to see it differently.
>
> Get some ball-bearing rollers and a sidestand, and go ride in your closet.
In 34 years of using the US system of public roads. I've never been
injured by a fellow cyclist. But I have been hospitalized twice in my
car by drivers who weren't paying attention. One driver was in a huge
gravel truck. I guess it was evolution in action. Since it was a big
truck and I was in a 79 T'Bird, it was my fault. It was also the fault
of the four other drivers who's cars were damaged when mine was shoved
into theirs. We were a law abiding fools driving cars when there are
big trucks on the road. Dang me. I'll have to quit driving. It's too
dangerous.
So, if some vehicle takes out a smaller one and kills one of your family
members, tell them it was their fault for playing in traffic with bigger
vehicles. After all, the biggest and most dangerous vehicle has the
most rights. Right?
Personally, I don't see this as a cyclist only problem. In Texas, we
have far more pedestrians being killed than cyclists. Most are killed
by red light runners. Many are children. I guess this is evolution in
action.
As you say, we shouldn't expect anything else. After all, there are a
lot of people like yourself, who have no respect for human life.
Just stay out of my neighborhood, we have too many children crossing the
street.
--
* Jack Dingler * Bill Clinton, has never, does not,
* jdin...@onramp.net * and will never, have any knowledge
* Probably not * of any WhiteHouse activities.
* your opinion * Isn't it obvious?
Matt Boersma
Otter <nob...@edickinson.edu> wrote in article
<33e62c9c...@newstest.sirius.com>...
> In ba.general on 4 Aug 1997 21:39:09 GMT, "Matt Boersma"
> <do...@email.me> wrote:
>
> >> I also own and ride a bicycle, but not to work, and not as a commute
>
distance
>
I'm not a body Nazi--I'm a 30-year old, overweight programmer who is barely
kept back from the brink of physical degradation by riding my bike to work
every day. I have no qualm with those who do not exercise. But I would
like everyone to think about alternative transportation and how they might
be able to replace some of their driving with bicycling. Nice hatchet job
on quoting me, BTW.
The second sentence and the rest of your post just head off into space, so
I omit them.
Insectus Pentius
Otter (nob...@edickinson.edu) wrote:
: In ba.general on 4 Aug 1997 21:39:09 GMT, "Matt Boersma"
: <do...@email.me> wrote:
: >No. It's precisely because you're lazy and unquestioning. What distance
: Uh-oh! We've got a BODY NAZI here! Anyone who doesn't ride a bike
: every day is physically and mentally inferior -- and therefore does
: not deserve the special privileges the physical elite can expect as a
: reward for their superior minds and bodies.
See? That's the jock mentality exposed. I'd like to see this body nazi
pedal to work when it's -26F and with -80F wind chills.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1460167 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
Mark W. Schaeffer
From http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/yaki.htm
(There is a search engine on http://www.ci.sf.ca.us)
>In article <33EA0...@wellsfargo.com>, Dave Hildebrandt
<hil...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>I'm looking to send email to Supervisor Michael Yaki regarding the
>proposed reclosure of the park to facilitate visits to the H. deYoung
>Museum. Does anyone know where I'd find a list? of SF Supervisors'
>email addresses?
>thankx,
>-dave
--
Mark W. Schaeffer
Resume:
http://www2.netcom.com/~mrkwscha/resume.html
Bill Zaumen
In article 6...@world.std.com, d...@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) writes:
> In article <5s3ilq$8m$3...@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>,
> <fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
>
> Only in the US where auto ownership is subsidized can you say that
> bikes are toys. In the rest of the world, where auto costs more
> closely match actual costs, bicycles are quite valid transportation
> options. ....
These guys (not Jeff, who knows better), might want to check out
a Japanese film, "Shall We Dance", now being shown in the U.S.,
particularly the scenes showing a typical commute using a bike to
get to a nearby rail station. Then there was the scene of this
guy washing the family car, with two bikes parked next to it.
This was meant to be typical of a middle-class Japanese family, and
(unlike in the U.S.) would not be viewed as excentric behavior).
Maybe at some point, we will realize that we are the weird ones :-).
Bill
Bob Glickstein
Michael Bucklin <mbuc...@cris.com> writes:
> > >Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
> > >Face the music!
> >
> > There are no leaders.
>
> responsibility fro their criminal actions?
I don't understand why people have such a hard time with the concept
that something can happen without leaders.
I was a Critical Mass first-timer in July. I wasn't contacted by some
underground cell. I didn't report to any representative. I read
about the ride in the newspaper, showed up, and rode. (And,
incidentally, I stopped for red lights and pedestrians.)
Imagine a pure democracy. Not a representative democracy such as the
U.S. government, but one in which every citizen votes on every policy
question, and the majority rules. Who are the leaders?
Jack Dingler
fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> Here lies the body of Michael O'Day
> Who died defending his right of way
> He was right, dead right, as he sailed along
> But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong
>
> This is an old sailing poem.
>
> If you don't like reality, take a dive off the GG Bridge and move to the
> Astral Plane.
>
> Besides the pointless whining, which changes nothing, it's the only thing
> you CAN do to change your situation.
I agree. Motoring deaths are an acceptable part of our culture. Our
right to do stupid things far outweighs anyone's right to live. We all
have the right to be stupid and kill people accidently, as long as we're
sober.
No argument here.
RicSilver
Could you guys & gals move this to the bike newsgroup?
Kevin Cole
On 08 Aug 1997 10:32:07 -0700, Bob Glickstein (bo...@hiro.zanshin.com) wrote:
> Michael Bucklin <mbuc...@cris.com> writes:
> > > >Why does CM's leaders behave in so cowardly a manner? Come out!
> > > >Face the music!
> > >
> > > There are no leaders.
> >
> > responsibility fro their criminal actions?
> I don't understand why people have such a hard time with the concept
> that something can happen without leaders.
> I was a Critical Mass first-timer in July. I wasn't contacted by some
> underground cell. I didn't report to any representative. I read
> about the ride in the newspaper, showed up, and rode. (And,
> incidentally, I stopped for red lights and pedestrians.)
> Imagine a pure democracy. Not a representative democracy such as the
> U.S. government, but one in which every citizen votes on every policy
> question, and the majority rules. Who are the leaders?
I saw a hand-scrawled poster on a street light in Sydney, Australia. I
couldn't find an organizer, let alone a leader. (That's because they're
hiding in the war room, and sending out troops as cannon fodder, no dobut.
They probably sprayed us with experimental chemicals too.)
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
Reverend Tweek wrote:
>
> William C. Keeley <kee...@mail.i-55.com> wrote:
> >
> >Cyclist face their risks just like everyone else. Motorist, cyclist and
> >pedestrian alike. More motorist are killed and injured every year than
> >cyclist can approach. In fact cyclist cause most of the risk out their to
> >themselves. The law states the a cyclist must stay to the right of the
> >lane as possible.
>
> WRONG. The law says "practicable", not "possible."
>
> >If there is a white stripe you should be on the other
> >side.
>
> Wrong. The law is much more detailed than that, and NOWHERE in the law
> does it say that bicycles must remain on the shoulder, or even in the
> bike lane, if there is one. There are many situations specifically
> allowed under the law, where bicycles may be in the same lane as you.
>
> >I too am a cyclist and have been broadsided by a car turning into a
> >driveway. So I know about all the hazards. Cyclist all to often ride side
> >by side extending half way out into the lane of traffic that was built
> >expressly for motor vehicles, not bicycles.
>
> I don't disagree here, hell, I've been in a narrow bikelane at 6am (darkness)
> and had two unlit, side by side bicycle riders, traveling the wrong
> direction, come right at me (obviously not seein me or playing chicken)
> and then cuss at me because I didn't make room so they could pass me while
> traveling side by side... But you are off base with the statement about
> the lane being expressly for motor vehicles. You do need to reread the
> CVC and get your facts straight.
Typically, slower traffic keeps to the right. This is the law on certain
roads; maybe simply common sense on other roads. Nevertheless, if the
bicycles are driving slower than other traffic, they should keep right
except to pass or turn.
William C. Keeley
Jeff DelPapa <d...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<EEH2K...@world.std.com>...
> In article <5s3ilq$8m$3...@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>,
> <fwa...@pacbell.net@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >In <01bc9ca3$8b208da0$4c57...@mypc.tdsnet.com>, "Matt Williams"
<dav...@idaho.tds.net> writes:
> >>
> >>We face risks we shouldn't because people like you refuse to see us as
> >>legitimate road users. We face risks we shouldn't because prosecuters
> >>won't charge drivers guilty of killing bikers in hit and run accidents.
We
> >>face risks we shouldn't because drivers act like they own the lane
we're
> >>in. We face risks we shouldn't because people like you are too
important
> >>to slow down for us, to stop at the stop sign for us, to watch out for
us,
> >>to take 1 measly second of their life to make sure they don't take the
rest
> >>of ours.
> >
Cyclist face their risks just like everyone else. Motorist, cyclist and
pedestrian alike. More motorist are killed and injured every year than
cyclist can approach. In fact cyclist cause most of the risk out their to
themselves. The law states the a cyclist must stay to the right of the
lane as possible. If there is a white stripe you should be on the other
side. I too am a cyclist and have been broadsided by a car turning into a
driveway. So I know about all the hazards. Cyclist all to often ride side
by side extending half way out into the lane of traffic that was built
expressly for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Also routinely bicycles ignore
the law of the road by weaving in and out of traffic illegally, running
stop signs and running stop lights. Cyclist have no one to complain to but
themselves.
>
> How about laws against overaged children in motor vehicles making life
> hell for other legal road users? The term "selfish pleasure" is much
> more applicable to the motor vehicle user.
>
>
> And when I'm on my to work in the morning, and I'm held up by cyclist's
(happens about once every 8 days) who are blocking the traffic lanes, cause
they think their crap don't stink and don't care about anyone else, just
cause problems for motorist, and cyclist who are suddenly lumped in with
their selfish pleasure group.
Reverend Tweek
>pedestrian alike. More motorist are killed and injured every year than
>cyclist can approach. In fact cyclist cause most of the risk out their to
>themselves. The law states the a cyclist must stay to the right of the
>lane as possible.
WRONG. The law says "practicable", not "possible."
>If there is a white stripe you should be on the other
>side.
Wrong. The law is much more detailed than that, and NOWHERE in the law
does it say that bicycles must remain on the shoulder, or even in the
bike lane, if there is one. There are many situations specifically
allowed under the law, where bicycles may be in the same lane as you.
>I too am a cyclist and have been broadsided by a car turning into a
>driveway. So I know about all the hazards. Cyclist all to often ride side
>by side extending half way out into the lane of traffic that was built
>expressly for motor vehicles, not bicycles.
I don't disagree here, hell, I've been in a narrow bikelane at 6am (darkness)
and had two unlit, side by side bicycle riders, traveling the wrong
direction, come right at me (obviously not seein me or playing chicken)
and then cuss at me because I didn't make room so they could pass me while
traveling side by side... But you are off base with the statement about
the lane being expressly for motor vehicles. You do need to reread the
CVC and get your facts straight.
--
Reverend Tweek Spiritual Advisor and Religious Liaison
DataBasix mailto: tw...@databasix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followups to Enoch and Cramer are deposited in alt.fan.kooks.mikael-enoch
Will Williams
"William C. Keeley" wrote:
>
>Cyclists face their risks just like everyone else. Motorist, cyclist and
>pedestrian alike. More motorist are killed and injured every year than
>cyclist can approach. In fact cyclist cause most of the risk out their to
>themselves. The law states the a cyclist must stay to the right of the
>side. I too am a cyclist and have been broadsided by a car turning into a
>driveway. So I know about all the hazards. Cyclist all to often ride side
>by side extending half way out into the lane of traffic that was built
>the law of the road by weaving in and out of traffic illegally, running
>stop signs and running stop lights. Cyclist have no one to complain to but
>themselves.
>And when I'm on my to work in the morning, and I'm held up by cyclist's
>(happens about once every 8 days) who are blocking the traffic lanes, cause
>they think their crap don't stink and don't care about anyone else, just
>cause problems for motorist, and cyclist who are suddenly lumped in with
>their selfish pleasure group.
Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop crushing
'em with my Hummer.
tony palmisano
Will Williams wrote:
>
> Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop crushing
> 'em with my Hummer.
Cool, self admitted premeditation. The lawyer of any cyclist you hit
will love taking the hummer from you.
tony
smr...@mail.com
> Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop crushing
> 'em with my Hummer.
In this county they do. Santa Clara County has been collecting extra
sales taxes for some years to build, in part, freeways from which
bicycles are excluded.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Joshua_Putnam
In <01bcd1ec$68f1dee0$6a61...@ns.linknet.net> "William C. Keeley" <kee...@mail.i-55.com> writes:
>Cyclist face their risks just like everyone else. Motorist, cyclist and
>pedestrian alike. More motorist are killed and injured every year than
>cyclist can approach. In fact cyclist cause most of the risk out their to
>themselves. The law states the a cyclist must stay to the right of the
>lane as possible.
False. Cyclists are to ride as far to the right as is safe, with
a long list of exceptions to that general rule. As far to the
right as is safe means far enough left to avoid gutter debris,
drain grates, doors of parked cars, etc. If the lane is too
narrow for a motorist to pass safely within the lane, the cyclist
should move far enough left in the lane to make this obvious,
rather than encouraging a motorist to pass illegally close by
riding on the far right edge of the lane.
>If there is a white stripe you should be on the other
>side.
False. Cyclists should be on the right side of the right through
lane. That means *in* the right through lane. Not in the gutter.
Hiding in the gutter *increases* a cyclist's chances of getting
hit by making the cyclist less visible to intersecting traffic at
driveways and intersections.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Reverend Tweek
In article <34386B...@ix.netcom.com>, <Stas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >lane as possible.
>>
>
>roads; maybe simply common sense on other roads. Nevertheless, if the
>bicycles are driving slower than other traffic, they should keep right
>except to pass or turn.
Which *is* a far different statement that that which I was claiming
was wrong. I don't disagree with you, but it appears to me that both
your, and my statements disagree with what William wrote.
Jennifer Brooks
Thomas Andrews wrote:
>
> I'd be more than happy to pay road taxes for my bike, if it was
> comensurate with the amount of wear that my bike and I put on the
> road...
I *do* pay road taxes. Every time I put gas in my car. Every time I
pay my yearly registration.
Cars are for lengthy trips. Feet are for short trips. Bikes are for
in-between trips.
I want to be as safe on bike or feet as I am in my car. (Which,
admittedly, isn't completely safe. But it's still safer to drive along
3rd or 4th street in SF than it is to walk along them.)
--
My opinions are mine.
To email, remove the anti-spambot bit.
Ken Kifer
Jennifer Brooks wrote:
> I *do* pay road taxes. Every time I put gas in my car. Every time I
> pay my yearly registration.
Ken Kifer replies:
The gas tax is a sales tax, just like any other. Some of it has been
dedicated to paying for highways because the tax was so unpopular; the
money collected does not begin to pay for the cost of the roads and
which comes out of sales, property, and income taxes. Auto registration
is designed to protect the car from theft; it is not a road tax.
Jennifer Brooks wrote:
> Cars are for lengthy trips. Feet are for short trips. Bikes are for
> in-between trips.
Ken Kifer replies:
The closest thing to heaven is a 3,500 mile bicycle trip. Cars are
pretty miserable then. They're probably best for short trips in rainy
weather or carrying heavy things or necessary last-minute trips.
Jennifer Brooks wrote:
> I want to be as safe on bike or feet as I am in my car. (Which,
> admittedly, isn't completely safe. But it's still safer to drive along
> 3rd or 4th street in SF than it is to walk along them.)
Ken Kifer replies:
No argument there whatsoever.
-------------(Lord Byron Childe Harold)------------
Where rose the mountains, there to him were friends;
Where rolled the ocean, thereon was his home;
Where a blue sky, and glowing clime, extends,
He had the passion and the power to roam . . .
David P. Summers
In article <343918...@NOSPAMwellsfargo.com>, Jennifer Brooks
<bro...@NOSPAMwellsfargo.com> wrote:
> I *do* pay road taxes. Every time I put gas in my car. Every time I
> pay my yearly registration.
And also everytime you buy something shipped by trucks, and everytime
you pay federal taxes, etc.
--
Name_David P. Summers
Email_...@Alum.MIT.edu
Jym Dyer
=o= This myth-of-cyclists-not-paying-for-roads issue/thread
keeps resurfacing, like a bad burrito. Somebody put the facts
into a FAQ already, willya?
> I *do* pay road taxes. Every time I put gas in my car. Every
> time I pay my yearly registration.
=o= Even those of us who don't own a car pay to subsidize cars.
Every time we pay rent or property tax. Every time we pay
federal and state income tax. Every time we take our kids to
the doctor to deal with their recurring respiratory ailments.
=o= Since cars run at an enormous deficit, those of us who don't
own cars are subsidizing motorists. Big time.
<_Jym_>
smr...@mail.com
> expressly for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Also routinely bicycles ignore
> the law of the road by weaving in and out of traffic illegally, running
...
> And when I'm on my to work in the morning, and I'm held up by cyclist's
> (happens about once every 8 days) who are blocking the traffic lanes, cause
So bicyclists aren't supposed to move left only at hazards and
obstructions, nor are they supposed to keep a straight line to the left
to avoid hazards and obstructions? How should they deal with these?
Jennifer Brooks
Ken - I'm sorry you thought you might be arguing with me. In fact, I
think you were agreeing with me, and correcting me too.
Ken Kifer wrote:
> ....the cost of the roads comes out of sales, property, and income taxes.
...which sounds to me like we all - every one of us - help pay for
roads. Every time I pay sales tax, I am paying for roads. Every time I
get a paycheck, my income tax pays for roads. Every time I write a rent
check, it pays my landlady's property tax which pays for roads.
So stop ragging on bicyclists for not paying for roads, everyone!
Thomas Andrews
In article <8761511...@dejanews.com>, <smr...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop crushing
>> 'em with my Hummer.
>
>In this county they do. Santa Clara County has been collecting extra
>sales taxes for some years to build, in part, freeways from which
>bicycles are excluded.
I'd be more than happy to pay road taxes for my bike, if it was
comensurate with the amount of wear that my bike and I put on the
road...
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Colin R. Leech
(Stas...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> Typically, slower traffic keeps to the right. This is the law on certain
> roads; maybe simply common sense on other roads. Nevertheless, if the
> bicycles are driving slower than other traffic, they should keep right
> except to pass or turn.
"Slower traffic keep right" menas keep to the right lane. It does not mean
"endanger your life by trying to squeeze close to the curb". How many
Austin Minis or Hyundais have you seen attempting to occupy less than a full
lane just because they are slower than the other traffic?
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Sebastian
>"William C. Keeley" wrote:
>>
>>Cyclists face their risks just like everyone else. Motorist, cyclist and
>>pedestrian alike. More motorist are killed and injured every year than
>>cyclist can approach. In fact cyclist cause most of the risk out their to
>>themselves. The law states the a cyclist must stay to the right of the
>>lane as possible. If there is a white stripe you should be on the other
>>side. I too am a cyclist and have been broadsided by a car turning into a
>>driveway. So I know about all the hazards. Cyclist all to often ride side
>>by side extending half way out into the lane of traffic that was built
>>expressly for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Also routinely bicycles ignore
>>the law of the road by weaving in and out of traffic illegally, running
>>stop signs and running stop lights. Cyclist have no one to complain to but
>>themselves.
>
>>And when I'm on my to work in the morning, and I'm held up by cyclist's
>>(happens about once every 8 days) who are blocking the traffic lanes, cause
>>they think their crap don't stink and don't care about anyone else, just
>>cause problems for motorist, and cyclist who are suddenly lumped in with
>>their selfish pleasure group.
>
>Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop crushing
>'em with my Hummer.
>
Since the roads here in San Francisco are paid for by bond measures I
will be expecting you to walk everywhere you go the next time you
visit. Remember to never touch the roads while you are here. I
wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite or anything.
blka...@nospam.value.net
In ba.general Jack Dingler <jdin...@onramp.net> wrote:
> Yes, this is correct. When I see one bad apple, I know the lot spoiled.
> By this token, I know that Jeffery Dahlmer owned a car, so all car
> owners are...
It isn't just one, that is the point. I routinely see bicyclists blatently
ignoring both stop signs, lights, right-of-way, etc. far more
than motorists(I ride a motorcycle and have seen my share of stupid
motorists.) I can't count the number of times I have had to slam on
my brakes and/or swerve to avoid some moron on a bicycle that couldn't be
bothered to obey the rules of the road... And then people wonder why there
are so many deaths....
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288
Systems Administrator
Namesecure
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Danny Low
Colin R. Leech says...
>"Slower traffic keep right" menas keep to the right lane. It does not mean
>"endanger your life by trying to squeeze close to the curb". How many
>Austin Minis or Hyundais have you seen attempting to occupy less than a full
>lane just because they are slower than the other traffic?
The concept is the bicycle is a vehicle like a car and must obey the same rules
as a car within practical limits. No one expects a bicycle to keep up with
40mph traffic. However when a car cannot keep up with traffic, it is supposed
to allow traffic to pass it easily. In many situations the car is required to
pull off the road so the other cars can pass it. Similarly a bicycle is
required to get as close as possible to the curb to allow traffic to pass if
that is feasible AND required by the situation. OTOH if traffic allows a
bicycle can go right up the middle of a lane just like a car.
Blindly saying that bikes must always be against the curb or bikes can take the
whole right lane is at the very least stupid as it ignores the actual traffic
situation. The laws of physics do not care whether you are right or wrong. You
can be dead right.
--
Danny Low
HP NSD
Dann...@hp.com
"The only good vampire is a dead vampire"
Jack Dingler
I concur that there are many motorists and cyclists that don't respect
the law. For the most part, these individuals are a danger to
themselves and others.
Danny Low wrote:
>
<snip>
> Running stop signs and red lights are very common with bicyclists. In all too
> many cases I can see the bicyclist is not even bothering to check if it is safe
> to do so.They do not slow down. They do not check cross traffic. In the above
> case the intersection was built up so you could not even see cross traffic
> until you were almost at the intersection. The bicyclist survived the first two
> incidents through luck and the skill of the drivers who stopped in time.
--
* Jack Dingler * Need a law in Texas? Pay off
* jdin...@onramp.net * the insurance lobby. It worked
* Probably not * for the anti-helmet motorcyclists.
* your opinion * $10,000 policies, can't be wrong.
Bob VonMoss
Ken Kifer wrote:
>
> Jennifer Brooks wrote:
> > I *do* pay road taxes. Every time I put gas in my car.
> > Every time I pay my yearly registration.
In Illinois part of the state auto registration fee pays for the Harold
Washington Library in downtown Chicago to stay open.
--
"This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like
chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a
wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of
the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about
as the creatures went." Ezekiel 1:16,17
Jym Dyer
> No one expects a bicycle to keep up with 40mph traffic.
> However when a car cannot keep up with traffic, it is supposed
> to allow traffic to pass it easily.
=o= Interestingly enough, when traffic is slow and bikes are
handily going much faster than cars, motorists tend to ignore
this particular law.
<_Jym_>
Danny Low
blka...@nospam.value.net says...
>It isn't just one, that is the point. I routinely see bicyclists blatently
>ignoring both stop signs, lights, right-of-way, etc. far more
>than motorists(I ride a motorcycle and have seen my share of stupid
>motorists.) I can't count the number of times I have had to slam on
>my brakes and/or swerve to avoid some moron on a bicycle that couldn't be
>bothered to obey the rules of the road... And then people wonder why there
>are so many deaths....
I was once rear-ended by a bicyclist while waiting for a red light to turn
green. He claimed he did not see me. The street had a bike lane but he chose to
not use it.
I once saw a bicyclist run a red light and almost get killed by a car. This was
on a commute route and a couple months later I saw the same bicyclist run the
red light at the same intersection and again almost get run down by a car. I
never saw that bicyclist again after that incident. Either he gave up bicycling
or finally got himself killed.
Running stop signs and red lights are very common with bicyclists. In all too
many cases I can see the bicyclist is not even bothering to check if it is safe
to do so.They do not slow down. They do not check cross traffic. In the above
case the intersection was built up so you could not even see cross traffic
until you were almost at the intersection. The bicyclist survived the first two
incidents through luck and the skill of the drivers who stopped in time.
--
Reverend Tweek
>moving Jacksonville, Fl. It stated to the right side of the white line.
>We both are probably right, all depends on jurisdiction I suppose.
Well, this thread mentions San Francisco, so I would assume using the
California Vehicle Code is what we should use unless otherwise indicated.
>I don't
>have a dictionary but I would assume to quibble over possible or
>practicably is a waste of time, same spirit. And as for avoiding road
>hazards, of course. Now let's get down to brass tacks. The car has the
>right away at all times period. I don't care what a law says. When I'm on
>a bicycle I'm not going to argue with a car. It's amazing at how stupid
>some people can be in doing so.
That's probably what was on the mind of the two drivers last week, one
who killed a cyclist after driving 11 blocks with the cyclist under the
front bumper, and the other who put a cyclist in a hospital after
driving three blocks with a cyclist on top of the car.
Danny Low
Reverend Tweek says...
>That's probably what was on the mind of the two drivers last week, one
>who killed a cyclist after driving 11 blocks with the cyclist under the
>front bumper, and the other who put a cyclist in a hospital after
>driving three blocks with a cyclist on top of the car.
People who do this would do the same if they hit a pedestrian or a motorcycle
or another car. The only real difference is if they had hit another car, their
car and mayeb they would not be in shape to drive much further on. The laws of
physic say that in a dispute between a car and a bicycle, the bicyclist will be
dead right regardless of who is legally right.
Bill Zaumen
In article f...@hpscit.sc.hp.com, dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) writes:
>
> I was once rear-ended by a bicyclist while waiting for a red light to turn
> green. He claimed he did not see me. The street had a bike lane but he chose to
> not use it.
>
That's nice. I was once tailended by a car while I was legally stopped
at a red light, crushing the rear of my car by 1 1/2 feet, and pushing
my car into the car ahead, which got pushed into the car ahead of
that. The 17 year old driver responsible claimed he was way cool, and
just didn't see a way out of the crash (having merely failed to pull
off some maneuver that would be difficult for a professional racer),
but thought he was a great driver anyway. His only concern was the
damage to his car, not whether he might have hurt anyone. Another
driver complained that this bozo was doing 50/60 in a 35 zone and ran
him off the road. The bozo also apparently didn't see the speed limit
sign, the signal-ahead sign, the flashing yellow lights mounted above
the road, nor did he think that something might be around a curve.
The bozo told the police that he normally drove a bit recklessly. They
said that maybe he should be more careful, but didn't do anything
useful like arresting him on the spot. He did moan about how he
wouldn't be able to drive because his insurance would go up to
something like $7000 per year (for the minimum required coverage).
While the seat belts/shoulder harnesses prevented any serious injuries
for me or my passengers, I had a bruise that lasted 3 weeks and my neck
hurt for a month. The real pain in the neck, though, was dealing with
insurance companies and car dealers. In any case, said bozo was so
angry about what he had done to his car, that he decided to walk home
and abandoned his girlfriend, leaving her to fend for herself (this was
near the border of an area one wouldn't want to walk through at
night).
Danny's complaint about being tail ended by a bike looks pretty trivial
in comparison.
Bill
Wayne Pein
Danny Low wrote:
> People who do this would do the same if they hit a pedestrian or a
> motorcycle
> or another car. The only real difference is if they had hit another
> car, their
> car and mayeb they would not be in shape to drive much further on. The
> laws of
> physic say that in a dispute between a car and a bicycle, the
> bicyclist will be
> dead right regardless of who is legally right.
>
So?
The laws of physics say that in a dispute between a car and a truck or a
locomotive,
the car driver will be dead right regardless of who is legally right.
Therefore, everybody
should drive locomotives. Unless you can afford a battleship.
Wayne
Anonymous
tw...@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield, aka "Reverend Tweek")
> >I don't
> >have a dictionary but I would assume to quibble over possible or
> >practicably is a waste of time, same spirit. And as for avoiding road
> >hazards, of course. Now let's get down to brass tacks. The car has the
> >right away at all times period. I don't care what a law says. When I'm on
> >a bicycle I'm not going to argue with a car. It's amazing at how stupid
> >some people can be in doing so.
>
> That's probably what was on the mind of the two drivers last week, one
> who killed a cyclist after driving 11 blocks with the cyclist under the
> front bumper, and the other who put a cyclist in a hospital after
> driving three blocks with a cyclist on top of the car.
The real pity is that neither of those victims you mentioned happened to
be your mentor, Mr. Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com>, who is the
CEO of DataBasix as well as one of the Critical Mass arrestees.
Such revenge/harassment tactics as deliberately disrupting traffic in a major
population center don't tend to make motorists sympathetic towards such a
cause.
The two scenarios you cited are probably tame compared to what was going
through the minds of the motorists who were stuck in traffic while Gary
Burnore and his friends were blocking traffic, shouting at them, flipping
them off, pounding on their cars, etc.
--
Jack Dingler
We've had so many anomynous motorheads posting on this group
(rec.bicycles.soc), that I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a
relationship between auto-dependence and cowardice. Or is just the
worst of the motorheads that practice cowardly anomynous cross-posting?
Are there any motorists in all of these cross posted groups, that don't
believe in the promotion of murdering innocent people with their cars?
Anonymous wrote:
>
<snip>
> The real pity is that neither of those victims you mentioned happened to
> be your mentor, Mr. Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com>, who is the
> CEO of DataBasix as well as one of the Critical Mass arrestees.
>
> Such revenge/harassment tactics as deliberately disrupting traffic in a major
> population center don't tend to make motorists sympathetic towards such a
> cause.
>
> The two scenarios you cited are probably tame compared to what was going
> through the minds of the motorists who were stuck in traffic while Gary
> Burnore and his friends were blocking traffic, shouting at them, flipping
> them off, pounding on their cars, etc.
>
> --
--
el...@central.cis.upenn.edu.nospam
In article <343CF4...@onramp.net>,
Jack Dingler <jdin...@onramp.net> wrote:
>We've had so many anomynous motorheads posting on this group
>(rec.bicycles.soc), that I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a
>relationship between auto-dependence and cowardice. Or is just the
>worst of the motorheads that practice cowardly anomynous cross-posting?
>
>Are there any motorists in all of these cross posted groups, that don't
>believe in the promotion of murdering innocent people with their cars?
There's at least one motorist in this group that really doesn't
give a flying f*** about bicycles -- or rollerskates or pogo sticks
or... So how about leaving us out of your me-generation cross-posting?
Jack Dingler
Since you crossposted to so many groups, I can't tell which one you came
from. Would you mind letting us know which group instead of
crossposting everywhere, Ellen?
el...@central.cis.upenn.edu.nospam wrote:
>
<snip>
> There's at least one motorist in this group that really doesn't
> give a flying f*** about bicycles -- or rollerskates or pogo sticks
> or... So how about leaving us out of your me-generation cross-posting?
--
Allan Schaffer
jdin...@onramp.net said..
>
>Are there any motorists in all of these cross posted groups, that don't
>believe in the promotion of murdering innocent people with their cars?
Huh? You some sort of wierdo? Go back to your radical newsgroups
and leave us normal people alone. Most of us, all over the world,
just drive. No political agenda. No thoughts of "murdering innocent
people". Just point A to point B. We don't make a big deal out of
it.
But then, I imagine that the draw of newsgroups like rec.bicycles.soc
is that those predisposed to frothing-mouth cyclery advocacy can get
together and "bond". But whatever. Just keep right. I'll give you
plenty of space when I pass.
Allan
--
Allan Schaffer al...@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics http://reality.sgi.com/allan
zombie
On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 01:05:40 GMT, Seba...@worthless.dog (Sebastian)
wrote:
>Since the roads here in San Francisco are paid for by bond measures I
Really? Completely? Where does all that gas tax go, that I pay when
filling up in Milpitas? None of it to SF roads?
zombie
## Erik Veit ## er...@pacbell.net ## http://home.pacbell.net/erikv ##
"Obfuscation is an acquired talent, usually reserved for attorneys.
We amateurs do it recreationally." --John Higdon
Sebastian
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:46:04 GMT, er...@pacbell.net (zombie) wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 01:05:40 GMT, Seba...@worthless.dog (Sebastian)
>wrote:
>
>>Since the roads here in San Francisco are paid for by bond measures I
>
>Really? Completely?
I believe we may get some fed money on occasion.
>Where does all that gas tax go, that I pay when
>filling up in Milpitas?
Good question. It could go to the general fund. Last time I was in
the DMV they had a chart for that stuff on the wall. It could be
going to pay all of those DMV employees.
>None of it to SF roads?
Maybe some.
Adrian Tritschler
blka...@nospam.value.net wrote:
> It isn't just one, that is the point. I routinely see bicyclists blatently
> ignoring both stop signs, lights, right-of-way, etc. far more
> than motorists(I ride a motorcycle and have seen my share of stupid
> motorists.) I can't count the number of times I have had to slam on
> my brakes and/or swerve to avoid some moron on a bicycle that couldn't be
> bothered to obey the rules of the road... And then people wonder why there
> are so many deaths....
It isn't just one, that is the point. I routinely see motorists
blatently ignoring both stop signs, lights, right-of-way, etc. far more
than cyclists (I also ride a motorcycle and have seen my share of stupid
cyclists.) I can't count the number of times I have had to slam on my
brakes and/or swerve to avoid some moron in a car that couldn't be
bothered to obey the rules of the road... And then people wonder why
there are so many deaths....
Spot the difference kiddies...
CYCLISTS and MOTORISTS are PEOPLE. This may come as a nasty surprise to
some of you, but they all break the law when they think they can get
away with it.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Adrian Tritschler, Computer Centre, Monash University |
| Email: Adrian.T...@cc.monash.edu.au Crap: /dev/null |
| Phone: +61 3 990 54794 Fax: +61 3 990 54746 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Low
Jack Dingler says...
>We get plenty of cross posts in rec.bicycles.soc from ?motorists? who
>brag about killing pedestrians, cyclists, rollerbladers, old people,
>children, pets, etc... So many in fact, that I wonder how the majority
>of motorists really feel about automobiles being promoted as machines of
>death. Does anyone actually use their car to got to work? Daycare?
>The supermarket?
>Mr. Anonymous didn't mention any peacetime uses for an auto.
Most motorists like most people see such postings as obvious trolls. If you
believe such postings then the trollers have succeeded in making you a fool in
their minds.
Danny Low
Jack Dingler says...
>We've had so many anomynous motorheads posting on this group
>(rec.bicycles.soc), that I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a
>relationship between auto-dependence and cowardice. Or is just the
>worst of the motorheads that practice cowardly anomynous cross-posting?
There is a much simpler explanation. The net is full of people who are
argumentative and love to get a rise out of people like you with such
inflammatory statements. It does not matter whether they drive cars or not.
It does not matter whether the subject is bicycles, cars, trucks, trains,
planes or shank's mare.
Hillary and Douglas Smith
Thomas Andrews wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I don't know why California drivers can't be
> bothered to signal lane changes...
Because they figure if they let anyone know where they are going next,
someone else will think it must be a good place to be, and get there
first.
Of course, why would they signal for lane changes, when they don't even
signal for turns?
Doug
David Casseres
In article <61m17f$8...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low)
wrote:
> Jack Dingler says...
> >We've had so many anomynous motorheads posting on this group
> >(rec.bicycles.soc), that I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a
> >relationship between auto-dependence and cowardice. Or is just the
> >worst of the motorheads that practice cowardly anomynous cross-posting?
>
> There is a much simpler explanation. The net is full of people who are
> argumentative and love to get a rise out of people like you with such
> inflammatory statements. It does not matter whether they drive cars or not.
> It does not matter whether the subject is bicycles, cars, trucks, trains,
> planes or shank's mare.
Of whom Danny Low is a prime, perfect, all-star example. Some of you may
not be familiar with this name. Danny Low is a semi-professional
rightwing net.troll and full-time crackpot, who makes his points by
posting the same untrue statement over and over -- e.g., "car registration
pays for the roads, the Highway Patrol, etc." -- and never, ever responds
to counterarguments except by stating his original false premise yet
again.
Don't waste your time on this guy. He has more free time to flood the net
with drivel than you have to argue with him, because he has no life. Take
a bike ride instead, and maybe he'll go away and bother someone else.
--
Cheers,
David
Keith Lynch
In article <01bcd3a8$48b020c0$4961...@ns.linknet.net>,
> all times period. I don't care what a law says. When I'm on a
> bicycle I'm not going to argue with a car. It's amazing at how
> stupid some people can be in doing so.
What is stupid is people following laws that they make up rather than
the ones that are written. What happens when a cyclist and a motorist
come to an intersection? The law says the one with the stop sign
yields to the other.
But many cyclists yield to the car even if the car has the stop sign,
and both vehicles just sit there for a minute, then gradually start
edging forwards.
Many motorists fail to yield to the bike, even though the motorist
has the stop sign. If the cyclist is not extremely skilled, there
will be a crash.
Many motorists always yield to bikes, even if the bike has the stop
sign. Both vehicles just sit there for a minute, then gradually start
edging forwards.
Many cyclists fail to yield to the car, even if the bike has the stop
sign. Probably because they know that some cars will always yield,
and other cars never will, regardless of who has the stop sign.
The only solution to this is for everyone to follow the law as
written. And to campaign to change the law if you think it's
unreasonable. Personally, I think it's already a fine law.
(Posted and mailed.)
--
Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I boycott all spammers.
Keith Lynch
Will Williams <dav...@idaho.tds.net> wrote:
> Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop
> crushing 'em with my Hummer.
Thanks for admitting that. I'm saving that message just in case you
ever do murder a cyclist with your Hummer. I'm sure the prosecutor
will love seeing your confession that it wasn't an accident after all.
Most road costs are paid for through general taxes. I am required to
pay for highways and bridges many of which I am forbidden from using.
But even if you motorists really were paying your own way and even
subsidizing cyclists, rather than being the most heavily subsidized
group in the country, that still wouldn't justify murder. Or do you
go around murdering people on welfare?
Since you *are* in fact being subsidized by non-motorists, would that
justify my killing *you*?
Keith Lynch
In article <EHqF5...@moraga.ness.com>,
Reverend Tweek <tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com> wrote:
> That's probably what was on the mind of the two drivers last week,
> one who killed a cyclist after driving 11 blocks with the cyclist
> under the front bumper, and the other who put a cyclist in a hospital
> after driving three blocks with a cyclist on top of the car.
Then there was the cyclist who was struck by a car in Maryland last
Wednesday. He got up off the ground, pulled out a gun, and shot the
motorist dead.
This is what lack of respect for human lives causes. If motorists
start treating cyclists as vermin, don't be surprised when cyclists
start treating motorists the same. (Cars have always reminded me of
giant cockroaches.)
He has been charged with murder. As he should be. When will motorists
who kill cyclists be charged with murder? End the double standard.
Mary E Knadler
In Massachusetts the pedestrion always has the right of way & I think
it should apply to cyclists as well. They are very vulnerable & often
if they are youngsters do not always know the law. It is more
important to save a life than to worry who has the right of way.
yasmin2
Bill Zaumen
In article 929...@nntp.ix.netcom.com, inv...@homo-sapiens.org (Brian Mueller) writes:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> >that. The 17 year old driver responsible claimed he was way cool,
>
>
> Teenagers are no more intristically stupid than 90 year old people
> are.
Brian, please do not quote things out of context. I was replying to a
guy who complained about being tail ended by someone on a bicycle, and
gave an example of a real-life accident. Whether you like or not, the
driver was in fact 17 years old and was a lot more concerned about what
he did to his car than if he had injured someone, and did brag about
what a great driver he was. I stated what happened---if your reading
comprehension was better, you would realize from context that this had
nothing to do with teenaage drivers in general, although given this
driver's age, there is at least a chance that he might become more
responsible eventually (if he hasn't already killed himself). His
insurance rates weren't high enough to nearly pay for a car per year
(and that is liability only) for no reason.
I find your reaction interesting. When this jerk told the police that
he normally drove a bit recklessly and they did nothing, my friends
(Canadian visitors) were shocked. Odd that in the U.S. there is not a
similar reaction. It is almost as if reckless driving is somehow
acceptable.
In this particular "accident", my car was totaled, and two others were
seriously damaged, although seatbelts prevented serious injuries. When
my insurance agent asked how fast I was going, I said "zero". He said
"Zero???", and I added that I was legally stopped at a red light and
had been stopped for over 10 seconds before the crash. He said, "that
is what we like to hear." It didn't change my rates.
Bill
the Williams'
Keith Lynch wrote:
> Will Williams <dav...@idaho.tds.net> wrote:
> > Really! When cyclists start paying road taxes is when I'll stop
> > crushing 'em with my Hummer.
>
> Thanks for admitting that. I'm saving that message just in case you
> ever do murder a cyclist with your Hummer. I'm sure the prosecutor
> will love seeing your confession that it wasn't an accident after all.
>
> Most road costs are paid for through general taxes. I am required to
> pay for highways and bridges many of which I am forbidden from using.
>
> But even if you motorists really were paying your own way and even
> subsidizing cyclists, rather than being the most heavily subsidized
> group in the country, that still wouldn't justify murder. Or do you
> go around murdering people on welfare?
>
> Since you *are* in fact being subsidized by non-motorists, would that
> justify my killing *you*?
>
> (Posted and mailed.)
> --
> Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
> http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
> I boycott all spammers.
I didn't write this (the asshole put my email as his), my name is Matt
Williams. If you look at my previous posts you will see this is very
different from everything I've posted. I think this was Insectus Pentius
aka Bloody Viking trying to cause problems again.
Matt Williams
J David Egner
Keith Lynch wrote:
>
> In article <01bcd3a8$48b020c0$4961...@ns.linknet.net>,
> William C. Keeley <kee...@mail.i-55.com> wrote:
> > Now let's get down to brass tacks. The car has the right away at
> > all times period. I don't care what a law says. When I'm on a
> > bicycle I'm not going to argue with a car. It's amazing at how
> > stupid some people can be in doing so.
>
> What is stupid is people following laws that they make up rather than
> the ones that are written. What happens when a cyclist and a motorist
> come to an intersection? The law says the one with the stop sign
> yields to the other.
<snippage regarding following laws as written>
The point wasn't about the laws as written.
Rather, Keeley was merely observing that, despite what may be written on
the lawbooks, common-sense dictates that yielding to a faster-moving,
much heavier object will produce an outcome much more likely to prolong
his life.
I own a bike. I also drive. When I'm on the bike, I ride as if the
drivers might kill me. They can. Most likely through neglect. Most
car accidents are so-called 'fender-benders'. Ooopsies. Momentary
lapses of attention, sensibilities, courtesey, whathaveyou.
There is a big 'Except...' when it's your flesh and bones acting as the
'fenders.' Play like you want to keep 'em intact. A little extra
vigilence goes a long way, lawbook or no lawbook.
Cheers,
DE
Bill Zaumen
In article 22...@webtv.net, J David Egner <deg...@webtv.net> writes:
> Keith Lynch wrote:
> >
> > What is stupid is people following laws that they make up rather than
> > the ones that are written. What happens when a cyclist and a motorist
> > come to an intersection? The law says the one with the stop sign
> > yields to the other.
>
> <snippage regarding following laws as written>
>
> The point wasn't about the laws as written.
>
> Rather, Keeley was merely observing that, despite what may be written on
> the lawbooks, common-sense dictates that yielding to a faster-moving,
> much heavier object will produce an outcome much more likely to prolong
> his life.
The problem with this is that "right of way" refers specifically to legal
rights and responsibilities. Defensive driving/cycling is a different
issue altogether. As an example, a few days ago I reached a stop sign
at an intersection signed as an all-way stop at the same time as a large
truck. Since I had approached from the truck's right side, I had the
right of way, and continued (after the legally required stop, of course),
and the truck driver waited for me me to clear the intersection. It would
have been easy to avoid the truck if the truck driver decided to go anyway,
so safety wasn't an issue. In any case, the California DMV in their
driver's handbook recommends that one *not* let a driver who doesn't have
the right of way go first. The rationale is that the wasted time while both
drivers figure out who is going to go first itself causes traffic delays.
Bill
Jason O'Rourke
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <61okhf$k...@clarknet.clark.net> k...@clark.net (Keith Lynch) writes:
>>Many motorists always yield to bikes, even if the bike has the stop
>>sign. Both vehicles just sit there for a minute, then gradually start
>>edging forwards.
>>Many cyclists fail to yield to the car, even if the bike has the stop
>>sign. Probably because they know that some cars will always yield,
>>and other cars never will, regardless of who has the stop sign.
>>The only solution to this is for everyone to follow the law as
>>written. And to campaign to change the law if you think it's
>>unreasonable. Personally, I think it's already a fine law.
Precisely. Stopping when you must yield to someone else is the law, and
wise for both cagers and cyclists. When driving, I proceed with the
expectation that the cyclist will obey traffic law. When cycling, I hope
the cager won't sit at the stop sign, waiting for me to blow it. More
often then not, their idling results in me having to put my foot
down...real pain in the butt.
>In Massachusetts the pedestrion always has the right of way & I think
>it should apply to cyclists as well. They are very vulnerable & often
>if they are youngsters do not always know the law. It is more
>important to save a life than to worry who has the right of way.
Perhaps you should read the above. It is safer for all when we stick to
proper right of way. And cyclists are fast enough that they can appear
'out of nowhere,' not good if you want them to ALWAYS have right of way.
Even pedestrians aren't protected from really dumb moves.
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
'96 BMW r850R '98 Outback
last dive: September 9th, Monastery (North) Beach, Carmel.
24 mins at 113 ft max, viz as high as 30' (soupy)
Anonymous
Jack Dingler <jdin...@onramp.net> wrote:
> We've had so many anomynous motorheads posting on this group
> (rec.bicycles.soc), that I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a
> relationship between auto-dependence and cowardice. Or is just the
> worst of the motorheads that practice cowardly anomynous cross-posting?
Tweek". <g>
> Are there any motorists in all of these cross posted groups, that don't
> believe in the promotion of murdering innocent people with their cars?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now why don't you and Gary Burnore go stop your bicycles on a railroad
track to protest trains, or something useful like that. When you get
flattened, your comrades can whine about how you were "murdered".
--
Danny Low
David Casseres says...
>Of whom Danny Low is a prime, perfect, all-star example. Some of you may
>not be familiar with this name. Danny Low is a semi-professional
>rightwing net.troll and full-time crackpot, who makes his points by
>posting the same untrue statement over and over -- e.g., "car registration
>pays for the roads, the Highway Patrol, etc." -- and never, ever responds
>to counterarguments except by stating his original false premise yet
>again.
>Don't waste your time on this guy. He has more free time to flood the net
>with drivel than you have to argue with him, because he has no life. Take
>a bike ride instead, and maybe he'll go away and bother someone else.
I can recall when you were one of the major flamers on the political groups. It
seems you have not changed and you still hold grudges.
Bloody Viking
Mary E Knadler says...
: In Massachusetts the pedestrion always has the right of way & I think
: it should apply to cyclists as well. They are very vulnerable & often
: if they are youngsters do not always know the law. It is more
: important to save a life than to worry who has the right of way.
The problem with a law like that is it ends up encouraging recklessness on
the part of the cyclists. In Illinois it's the same way, and what few
cyclists we have, most of them are plain idiots. Someone with no prospects
of a future could take a "risk it all" gamble and deliberately ride around
in a rich suburb and try to get hit by a Lexus or BMW owner just to sue.
Of course, there's the danger of losing his life, hence "risk it all". I
suspect a lot of idiots do just that.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
492067 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Bloody Viking
Jason O'Rourke (j...@best.com) wrote:
: wise for both cagers and cyclists. When driving, I proceed with the
: expectation that the cyclist will obey traffic law. When cycling, I hope
I assume the cyclist _WON'T_. That's becuse 9 out of 10 don't. In
Illinois, the pedestrian has the right-of-way even if in the wrong. Becuse
a cyclist is using an unpowered (by petrol) vehicle, it's quite likely the
cyclist will be deemed a pedestrian. Result? Cyclists have the opportunity
to play the Lawsuit Lotto. Thus, becuse they don't have to take
responcibility for their actions, they ride any way they want, and do so
with reckless abandon. I cynically think most of them do it hoping to get
nailed but not killed by a Beamer driver with a tonne of money.
Danny Low
Mary E Knadler says...
>In Massachusetts the pedestrion always has the right of way & I think
>it should apply to cyclists as well. They are very vulnerable & often
>if they are youngsters do not always know the law. It is more
>important to save a life than to worry who has the right of way.
In Boston the idea that pedestrians have the right of way is not well known. In
fact in Boston, the idea that the other car may have the right of way is not
well known either. Bicyles used to be treated like pedestrians. Thirty or so
years ago, the rules for bicycles were very similar to the rules for
pedestrians. Today, the rule is bicycles are vehicles like cars. I have never
found out why the switch over was made but your idea was the original policy
and was changed.
Phil
Keith Lynch wrote:
>
> He has been charged with murder. As he should be. When will motorists
> who kill cyclists be charged with murder? End the double standard.
> --
> Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
> http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
> I boycott all spammers.
The double standard lives only in your feeble mind, ace. There's a
significant difference between a vehicular accident that results in the
death of an unprotected bike rider (involuntary manslaughter; maybe even
voluntary manslaughter; murder only if the car driver seeks to run over
the biker), and a low-life scum-bag who pulls a gun and blasts a poor
woman to death because of an accident. I hope the rat-bastard is put to
death and I only wish the state would let me watch. I'd cheer him on to
the great beyond. The faster we get rid of out-of-control pinheads like
that, the better off we'll be.
Jack Dingler
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Yeah, they ought to have the guts to post with REAL NAMES, like "Rev.
> Tweek". <g>
He isn't as much fun to bait as you are. But then you should know, as
you're the Master.
You wouldn't happen to be from chicago would you? You're grammar is
similar to that pimple faced Insectus Pentius, who insults Aussies by
pretending to be one, and brags about killing things with his
roo-guard.
Stan Rothwell
Wayne Pein wrote:
> The laws of physics say that in a dispute between a car and a truck or a
> locomotive,
> the car driver will be dead right regardless of who is legally right.
> Therefore, everybody
> should drive locomotives.
Or not be stupid enough to drive your car down the railroad tracks... or try to race
the train to the grade crossing... totally consistent with the bicycle observation.
> Unless you can afford a battleship.
I'll take a nuclear-powered attack carrier with a squadron of F/A-18's any day...
Stan
Bloody Viking
Anonymous (Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]) wrote:
: Now why don't you and Gary Burnore go stop your bicycles on a railroad
: track to protest trains, or something useful like that. When you get
: flattened, your comrades can whine about how you were "murdered".
<cynicism>
They are chicken. They don't want to get killed, only injured, so they can
sue and get a free car. Why pay for a Beamer when you can cut one off and
win it in a lawsuit? Not only that, but get free healthcare and get money
left over!
</cynicism>
"FREE CAR! Just cut off the nearest car of your choice on a bike!"
Sounds like a great idea for a bumper sticker!
Thomas Andrews
In article <620tj7$cji$8...@hirame.wwa.com>, Bloody Viking <nos...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>Mary E Knadler says...
>
>: In Massachusetts the pedestrion always has the right of way & I think
>: it should apply to cyclists as well. They are very vulnerable & often
>: if they are youngsters do not always know the law. It is more
>: important to save a life than to worry who has the right of way.
>
>the part of the cyclists. In Illinois it's the same way, and what few
>cyclists we have, most of them are plain idiots. Someone with no prospects
>of a future could take a "risk it all" gamble and deliberately ride around
>in a rich suburb and try to get hit by a Lexus or BMW owner just to sue.
>Of course, there's the danger of losing his life, hence "risk it all". I
>suspect a lot of idiots do just that.
>
Man, where do people get ideas like this? There are much safer ways
of engaging in insurance fraud, if that were a person's intent.
Perhaps it is the case that the streets are so dangerous to cyclists,
that the only ones who will ride on them are the daredevils?
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Bill Zaumen
In article 7...@hpscit.sc.hp.com, dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) writes:
> Mary E Knadler says...
> >In Massachusetts the pedestrion always has the right of way & I think
>
> ............................................................... Thirty or so
> pedestrians. Today, the rule is bicycles are vehicles like cars. I have never
> found out why the switch over was made but your idea was the original policy
> and was changed.
>
I don't know if this claim about what the rules were in Boston is true,
but we do know that treating bicycles like vehicles leads to
significant reductions in the accident rate.
When I was going to school in Cambridge (right next to Boston), I used
a bicycle for transportation and just assumed that the rules were the
same: most people rode on the street. The de facto right-of-way rules
in Boston were something else :-(, and seemed to base right-of-way on
an estimate of who had the most to lose. When these estimates
conflicted a crash would occur (or so it seemed).
California (or at least the Bay Area) is getting to be as bad, with red
lights being now advisory. There is now a recommendation to count to
three after getting a green light just in case, and the situation is
bad enough for the state legislature to notice: As of January 1 of next
year (1998), fines for red-light running will go up substantially---red
light runners can expect to pay nearly $300 for a first offense, and a
lot more if they have a bad record.
In the last 4 days, I've seen 3 incidents of drivers running stop signs
at 25 mph, and have seen drivers treat red lights as stop signs, making
left turns once they thought there was no cross traffic (and after they
had stopped, so it isn't a case of not noticing the light). Something
really has to be done about this.
Bill
Brent A. Peterson
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Jason O'Rourke (j...@best.com) wrote:
>
> : wise for both cagers and cyclists. When driving, I proceed with the
> : expectation that the cyclist will obey traffic law. When cycling, I hope
>
> I assume the cyclist _WON'T_. That's becuse 9 out of 10 don't. In
> Illinois, the pedestrian has the right-of-way even if in the wrong. Becuse
> a cyclist is using an unpowered (by petrol) vehicle, it's quite likely the
> cyclist will be deemed a pedestrian. Result? Cyclists have the opportunity
> to play the Lawsuit Lotto. Thus, becuse they don't have to take
> responcibility for their actions, they ride any way they want, and do so
> with reckless abandon. I cynically think most of them do it hoping to get
> nailed but not killed by a Beamer driver with a tonne of money.
I never saw the above in any IL rules of the road book.
Please quote directly.
9 out of 10 cyclists are children on subdivison streets,
not out in real traffic. On major streets where conflict
with automobile traffic is much more likely,
I have found that 9/10 cyclists following those
paths do not even use the roadway, but rather parallel
sidewalks and dirt trails. The remaining I have seen
obey the traffic laws. And this has been true of my
experiences in the suburbs as well as the city of chicago.
As far as your lawsuit comment goes, try driving on
state street from 19th street down to 50th street
or so some time.... You'll find the interesting
behavior of people who look, see a car then step
in front of it from 19th-31st and again from
35th - to 50th or so.
That is of course if the stray bullets don't get
ya.
Brent A. Peterson
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> The problem with a law like that is it ends up encouraging recklessness on
> the part of the cyclists. In Illinois it's the same way, and what few
> cyclists we have, most of them are plain idiots. Someone with no prospects
> of a future could take a "risk it all" gamble and deliberately ride around
> in a rich suburb and try to get hit by a Lexus or BMW owner just to sue.
> Of course, there's the danger of losing his life, hence "risk it all". I
> suspect a lot of idiots do just that.
Lexus, BMW et al drivers are the worst out there. In the rich
burbs they feel their high priced car gives them the right
of way over those in anything that costs less it seems.
The contrast in their behavior between when I drive one
of my cars vs the other is well evident.
If I wanted to play lawsuit lotto, it would be far more
worthwild for me to build my Urban Assult Vehicle.
A '75 Tbird, rusted and well dented with a big V8 and
extra protection for the radiator. Should be no more
that $400 total... About the same price as decent steel
road bike. 5000lbs of auto for protection and quack and
some lawyer scum and its bonus time in your lawsuit
lotto.
Your assumption that someone using a bicycle has no
other form of transportation is well, insane.
I ride my bicycle often, yet I own two cars for just
myself, and I intend to get more, cause I like
cars, especially old ones. But that doesn't mean
I am going to drive one for every minor trip.
And I am surely not going to cut out the rides
I do for simply the enjoyment of it because I
have a car to use.
John David Galt
The very name of "Critical Mass" comes from a Chinese term for the situation
where there are so many bicycles on the road that auto traffic comes to a
complete halt. In my view, the group's use of this name shows intent to
create that situation; therefore they should all be in jail.
John David Galt
Sebastian
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:35:27 -0700, Stan Rothwell
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wayne Pein wrote:
>totally consistent with the bicycle observation.
>
Not to be confused with racing to get in front of a bikes just to stop
at a red light. Or possibly speed pass just to pull into a driveway
or make a right hand turn right in front of a bicycle. Totally
consistent with a car enthusiast...
Patrick Scheible
"John David Galt" (j...@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com) wrote:
: The very name of "Critical Mass" comes from a Chinese term for the situation
: where there are so many bicycles on the road that auto traffic comes to a
: complete halt. In my view, the group's use of this name shows intent to
: create that situation; therefore they should all be in jail.
For six to ten hours a day every day there are so many autos on the
road that auto traffic comes to a complete halt. Should every auto
driver be in jail for deliberately contributing to that situation?
-- Patrick Scheible
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <6237du$8cs$1...@bigdog.eli.net>,
j...@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com (John David Galt) wrote:
>
> The very name of "Critical Mass" comes from a Chinese term for the situation
> where there are so many bicycles on the road that auto traffic comes to a
> complete halt. In my view, the group's use of this name shows intent to
> create that situation; therefore they should all be in jail.
I don't know where you got that idea. Someone made a film documenting
bicycling as transportation and in that film he showed Chinese building
up at an intersection with heavy traffic until it got so thick that
it flowed out into the intersection and stopped the cross traffic.
The _film_maker_ described that build-up as needing a "critical mass" to
stop the traffic and _that_ is where the term came from.
I used to disregard Critical Mass but after reading so many
comments from people like yourself I have switched over and
support the Critical Mass and what they are trying to do. And
if you don't understand what their message is then I suggest
you make an effort to find out because you will be afoot in
20 years yourself as the price of gasoline and insurance make
owning a private automobile prohibitive even if the astounding
price tag on the newest cars doesn't.
In the last 25 years the price of a car has grown about an order
of magnitude while wages have grown about 1/3 of that. That puts
the real cost of owning a car in 2017 at about $160,000 for a
standard mid-sized sedan like the Dodge Intrepid of today. But
don't worry, you'll be able to pay a measley $100,000 for a new
econo-box like the Plymouth Neon. Insurance, at about 10% will
run $1000 a month in today's dollars. Who can guess what gasoline
will cost? Another oil embargo could drive prices into the $10/gallon
price easily. And maintenance today can only be done in a garage
with hundreds of thousands of dollars in test equipment and runs
about $60-70/hr or more. What is this likely to cost in the very near
future? In the last 10 years this has gone from $40/hr to the present
$70/hr so a guess would make it around $250/hr. Good luck with your
car John. Another round of environmental laws will guarantee that
every car will need work at least once a year. I'm spending $1,500
to get my 1993 truck to pass the latest standards. Can you pay that?
So look into the future John, bicycles and public transportation
are coming your way and if you think they aren't then you aren't
going to be ready for it when you can't move yourself any other
way.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brian Gray
"John David Galt" wrote:
: The very name of "Critical Mass" comes from a Chinese term for the situation
: where there are so many bicycles on the road that auto traffic comes to a
: complete halt.
Well, I guess you learn something new every day. Here I always thought
"critical mass" was a physics term referring to the minimum mass of
radioactive material required to initiate a sustainable fission reaction.
I guess they just borrowed that from the bicycle thing, right?
-- Brian
Jym Dyer
> The very name of "Critical Mass" comes from a Chinese term
> for the situation where there are so many bicycles on the road
> that auto traffic comes to a complete halt.
=o= Wow, did this ever get mangled in the translation. But
many's the slip 'twixt the truth and the Randroid.
=o= The name "critical mass" comes from Ted White's documentary,
_Return_of_the_Scorcher_. White interviews an American cyclist
who'd observed traffic patterns in a crowded Chinese city.
=o= Bikes and cars are both allowed on the road, as in America,
and as in America, motorists are inclined to ignore this. The
road conditions and motorist attitudes make it dangerous for a
single cyclist to venture into traffic on some roads, or even
to cross an intersection.
=o= So the cyclist will stop, and wait. There are many cyclists
so it's not very long until another cyclist shows up, and stops,
and waits. More cyclists stop, and wait.
=o= Finally, when a "critical mass" of cyclists develops, they
all venture out onto the road, where they can now travel safely,
together. There is no "complete halt" of auto traffic, simply
a cessation of brute force domination.
<_Jym_>
Dave
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote in message
>I used to disregard Critical Mass but after reading so many
>comments from people like yourself I have switched over and
>support the Critical Mass and what they are trying to do. And
>if you don't understand what their message is then I suggest
>you make an effort to find out because you will be afoot in
>20 years yourself as the price of gasoline and insurance make
>owning a private automobile prohibitive even if the astounding
>price tag on the newest cars doesn't.
>
>In the last 25 years the price of a car has grown about an order
>of magnitude while wages have grown about 1/3 of that. That puts
>the real cost of owning a car in 2017 at about $160,000 for a
>standard mid-sized sedan like the Dodge Intrepid of today.
<snip>
Nice try, but I don't buy your math. This is the same kind of reasoning
that was used to predict that we would run out of food back in the 1400s or
so, etc. etc. You can't just apply a straight-line extrapolation to today's
prices and expect that to be a valid prediction of future events. I won't
argue that your scenario is not a possibility, because it is. I just don't
see it as likely.
Let's consider your scenario further: The costs of automobile ownership
rise astronomically. Nobody can afford to buy a new car, and many can
barely keep their current car running. Detroit announces record low sales.
Do you really think that the Big 3 are just going to sit there with loads of
surplus inventory? They'll be pounding on Congress for some sort of
resolution long before things get that bad. What'll they do? Hard to say;
maybe clamor for opening up drilling off the CA coast and in Alaska to lower
oil prices, lowering of emmisions and safety standards so that a cheaper car
can be made, etc.
As for insurance reaching $1000/month; right now the insurance statistics in
CA are horrible. I've got un-insured on my policy, and I've had to use it
(not my fault!) At your predicted rates,most people would drive un-insured.
Especially when you factor in your predicted shop rates, most minor damage
would just be left as-is. You'd see even more primer colored cars than you
do today!
Dave