Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Never be so dumb to follow a bike lane
21 views
Skip to first unread message
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 19, 2012, 3:21:16 PM5/19/12
to
We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
their own.
We got three types of bike facilities around here:
1- bike lanes that don't connect,
2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
They launched a full blown bike sharing program without proper
facilities. That's evil idiocy.
But that's only my humble opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
their own.
We got three types of bike facilities around here:
1- bike lanes that don't connect,
2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
They launched a full blown bike sharing program without proper
facilities. That's evil idiocy.
But that's only my humble opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Ian Field
May 19, 2012, 3:59:59 PM5/19/12
to
"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandan...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> their own.
A recent story in UK newspapers:
> would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> their own.
Workers painting road markings couldn't get to the kerb because of parked
cars - so they painted the cycle lane markings just inside the line down the
middle of the road.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 19, 2012, 6:15:35 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 3:59 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
they have those bicycle counters.
wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> > would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> > particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> > the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> > driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> > system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> > their own.
>
> A recent story in UK newspapers:
>
> Workers painting road markings couldn't get to the kerb because of parked
> cars - so they painted the cycle lane markings just inside the line down the
> middle of the road.
They figure nobody is going to use them anyway. Good thing in Denmark
> > We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> > would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> > particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> > the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> > driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> > system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> > their own.
>
> A recent story in UK newspapers:
>
> Workers painting road markings couldn't get to the kerb because of parked
> cars - so they painted the cycle lane markings just inside the line down the
> middle of the road.
they have those bicycle counters.
Dan O
May 20, 2012, 1:21:26 AM5/20/12
to
Never say never.
Ian Field
May 20, 2012, 12:48:18 PM5/20/12
to
news:c0496f1b-31b0-4c3f...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Either that or the local council is run by dumbasses that don't know any
better than hire even dumber dumbasses as workmen!
Either that or the local council is run by dumbasses that don't know any
better than hire even dumber dumbasses as workmen!
Ian Field
May 20, 2012, 12:49:51 PM5/20/12
to
news:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> their own.
>
> We got three types of bike facilities around here:
>
> 1- bike lanes that don't connect,
>
> 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
You have to go on the sidewalk to bump into pedestrians?!
> would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> their own.
>
> We got three types of bike facilities around here:
>
> 1- bike lanes that don't connect,
>
> 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
Sir Ridesalot
May 20, 2012, 1:00:53 PM5/20/12
to
On May 19, 3:21 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
I wonder about some ofthe people who design so called bike lanes. We
have one here in town that has jut-outs in it at some of the
intersections. If you ride to the right of the jut-out drivers think
you're going to turn right and if you ride to the left of the jut-out
you have to ride inthe traffic lane. Then further along the bike lane
goes downhill and it's remarkably easy to hit 40 kms/hr (@25 mph) even
if you just coast *BUT* the bike land suddenly ends at a parking lot
entrance! Where do they expect the bicyclist to go? If you're not
aware that the bike lane is about to end youcan be caught in a very
bad situation if there is much traffic to your left. This is a route
where it's far better to ignore the so called bike lane and stay in a
traffic lane.
Or how about the bike lanes that have you go part way onto the traffic
lane that is the on-ramp lane to a 400 series highway and then expects
the bicyclist to stop and walk their bicycle across the lane? The so
called bicycle crossing is located just about where a car going to the
400 series highway would be accelerating to be at highway speed.
That's another bike lane I refuse to ride in as it's the extreme right
lane and you have to cross the right hand on-line lane to continue to
ride straight ahead. I use the left lane through-traffic lane next to
it.
Lousy designs on both of those bicycle lanes and in my opinion bothe
are very dangerous. I shudder to think of what it must be like for
newbie or inexperienced bicyclists to get caught in either of those
lanes at rush hour.
Cheers
have one here in town that has jut-outs in it at some of the
intersections. If you ride to the right of the jut-out drivers think
you're going to turn right and if you ride to the left of the jut-out
you have to ride inthe traffic lane. Then further along the bike lane
goes downhill and it's remarkably easy to hit 40 kms/hr (@25 mph) even
if you just coast *BUT* the bike land suddenly ends at a parking lot
entrance! Where do they expect the bicyclist to go? If you're not
aware that the bike lane is about to end youcan be caught in a very
bad situation if there is much traffic to your left. This is a route
where it's far better to ignore the so called bike lane and stay in a
traffic lane.
Or how about the bike lanes that have you go part way onto the traffic
lane that is the on-ramp lane to a 400 series highway and then expects
the bicyclist to stop and walk their bicycle across the lane? The so
called bicycle crossing is located just about where a car going to the
400 series highway would be accelerating to be at highway speed.
That's another bike lane I refuse to ride in as it's the extreme right
lane and you have to cross the right hand on-line lane to continue to
ride straight ahead. I use the left lane through-traffic lane next to
it.
Lousy designs on both of those bicycle lanes and in my opinion bothe
are very dangerous. I shudder to think of what it must be like for
newbie or inexperienced bicyclists to get caught in either of those
lanes at rush hour.
Cheers
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 20, 2012, 1:33:34 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 12:48 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote in messagenews:c0496f1b-31b0-4c3f...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
They don't know they are up against the smartest people on Earth --
that's us.
> wrote in messagenews:c0496f1b-31b0-4c3f...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
that's us.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 20, 2012, 1:32:24 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 1:21 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Never say never.
True. We just got to question authority.
> Never say never.
True. We just got to question authority.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 20, 2012, 1:42:50 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 12:49 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
sidewalks are really narrow, others have a higher likelihood of a car
bumping you.
My route here --I'm sitting at a burger joint eating ice cream--
involves either riding on a wide sidewalk with plenty of cars coming
in and out of driveways OR the narrow sidewalk across the street where
you must squeeze with pedestrians. Most of the time they just step out
to the grass to let you through. Pedestrians are not aggressive like
drivers for the most part.
By the way the ice cream is my reward for riding a bike. My motto "Out
of the cage no matter what" is put into practice.
wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> > would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> > particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> > the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> > driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> > system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> > their own.
>
> > We got three types of bike facilities around here:
>
> > 1- bike lanes that don't connect,
>
> > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> You have to go on the sidewalk to bump into pedestrians?!
Once you are within inches of pedestrians anything can happen. Some
> > We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> > would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> > particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> > the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> > driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> > system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> > their own.
>
> > We got three types of bike facilities around here:
>
> > 1- bike lanes that don't connect,
>
> > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> You have to go on the sidewalk to bump into pedestrians?!
sidewalks are really narrow, others have a higher likelihood of a car
bumping you.
My route here --I'm sitting at a burger joint eating ice cream--
involves either riding on a wide sidewalk with plenty of cars coming
in and out of driveways OR the narrow sidewalk across the street where
you must squeeze with pedestrians. Most of the time they just step out
to the grass to let you through. Pedestrians are not aggressive like
drivers for the most part.
By the way the ice cream is my reward for riding a bike. My motto "Out
of the cage no matter what" is put into practice.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 20, 2012, 2:03:41 PM5/20/12
to
they are doing a lot for cyclists. I was just having a conversation
with someone who says they are making bike lanes in some particular
part of town but doesn't know if they connect or not. She never
thought that was important. They never ride a bike or if they do they
are happy with a few blocks of bike lane. I could be using probably
the fanciest mixed path in the world, but 12 blocks is not what I
consider worth cycling. And we are mixing with dogs and people, not
exactly safe. At night it's just a blinding nightmare having excessive
lighting.
On the other hand, it takes me some 30 blocks to get to the place I'm
sitting at and I consider it the minimal workout. Yes, it's winding
and grinding but "a man gotta do what a man gotta do." My girlfriend's
place is just 1 mile away and sometimes I hesitate to go. Well, she
lives with me, no logistic nightmare. ;)
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 20, 2012, 2:28:54 PM5/20/12
to
If you think about it the title is proper. It doesn't say "never
ride..." It says never "never follow..."
You must research it first. Maybe this gives you a hint that things
are awfully stupid...
http://www.themiamibikescene.com/2011/07/new-sharrows-bike-lanes.html
"People riding against traffic." Maybe the bike lanes defy "common
sense" and people just ignore every single one.
ride..." It says never "never follow..."
You must research it first. Maybe this gives you a hint that things
are awfully stupid...
http://www.themiamibikescene.com/2011/07/new-sharrows-bike-lanes.html
"People riding against traffic." Maybe the bike lanes defy "common
sense" and people just ignore every single one.
Lou Holtman
May 20, 2012, 3:12:45 PM5/20/12
to
The problem is they try to squeeze in a bikelane in an existing infrastructure. That is always a bad idea. If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
Lou
Lou
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dan O
May 20, 2012, 4:53:43 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 10:32 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
Exactly.
Dan O
May 20, 2012, 4:57:30 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 12:12 pm, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is they try to squeeze in a bikelane in an existing infrastructure. That is always a bad idea. If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
Absolutely right. Not happening here (yet).
> The problem is they try to squeeze in a bikelane in an existing infrastructure. That is always a bad idea. If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
Dan O
May 20, 2012, 4:56:57 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 11:28 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> You must research it first. Maybe this gives you a hint that things
> are awfully stupid...
>
Yeah, they're stupid - mostly just there to keep bikes out of the way
of cars, but they can still be useful.
> http://www.themiamibikescene.com/2011/07/new-sharrows-bike-lanes.html
>
> "People riding against traffic." Maybe the bike lanes defy "common
> sense" and people just ignore every single one.
The importance of common sense shoul dnot be understimated. I have a
concept of common sense, but being in many significant ways an
uncommon individual, have a different sort of sense of my own. Works
for me, though.
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 1:21 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Never say never.
>
> If you think about it the title is proper. It doesn't say "never
> ride..." It says never "never follow..."
>
Point taken.
> On May 20, 1:21 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Never say never.
>
> If you think about it the title is proper. It doesn't say "never
> ride..." It says never "never follow..."
>
> You must research it first. Maybe this gives you a hint that things
> are awfully stupid...
>
of cars, but they can still be useful.
> http://www.themiamibikescene.com/2011/07/new-sharrows-bike-lanes.html
>
> "People riding against traffic." Maybe the bike lanes defy "common
> sense" and people just ignore every single one.
concept of common sense, but being in many significant ways an
uncommon individual, have a different sort of sense of my own. Works
for me, though.
Joy Beeson
May 20, 2012, 6:51:04 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Joy Beeson
May 20, 2012, 6:54:56 PM5/20/12
to
Never say never.
About thirty years ago, I saw a place where a bike lane would have
been a really-good idea.
About thirty years ago, I saw a place where a bike lane would have
been a really-good idea.
Message has been deleted
Jay Beattie
May 20, 2012, 9:03:02 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 3:51 pm, Joy Beeson <jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
>
> <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
> Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
A bike lane in the intersection invites right hook problems, and thus
> > If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
> Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
the green box solution in Portland where cyclists are placed ahead of
the car traffic. Then the bike lane resumes on the other side of the
intersection in the usual place, and as Lou suggested, if the roadway
has not been widened, the usual place is in the door zone.
There are also clear rules about how to behave when the bike lane just
ends, at least in my state. For example, where a bike lane ends
because the traffic lane hits a fork, with traffic exiting to the
right or continuing straight, the VC says that bicyclists can take the
lane and continue straight. Drivers, however, don't know that, and I
often get yelled at one spot on my commute where this happens --
motorists believing that I should go to the right hand side of the
road, get off my bike and then get into a crosswalk to get back to the
through portion of the road way. In fact, there are lots of rules
that make bicycle lanes a good idea, but drivers don't know them --
which makes bike lanes dangerous, at least in some places.
-- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
May 20, 2012, 11:19:36 PM5/20/12
to
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On May 20, 3:51 pm, Joy Beeson<jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
>>
>> <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>>
>> Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
>
> A bike lane in the intersection invites right hook problems, and thus
> the green box solution in Portland where cyclists are placed ahead of
> the car traffic.
Not that they actually help, of course.
> On May 20, 3:51 pm, Joy Beeson<jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
>>
>> <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>>
>> Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
>
> A bike lane in the intersection invites right hook problems, and thus
> the green box solution in Portland where cyclists are placed ahead of
> the car traffic.
> Then the bike lane resumes on the other side of the
> intersection in the usual place, and as Lou suggested, if the roadway
> has not been widened, the usual place is in the door zone.
>
> There are also clear rules about how to behave when the bike lane just
> ends, at least in my state. For example, where a bike lane ends
> because the traffic lane hits a fork, with traffic exiting to the
> right or continuing straight, the VC says that bicyclists can take the
> lane and continue straight. Drivers, however, don't know that, and I
> often get yelled at one spot on my commute where this happens --
me. It doesn't happen often, though. And when it happens it doesn't
make me behave any differently.
Sometimes I mutter quietly "Why do you think _you_ know more about
bicycling than I do?"
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
May 20, 2012, 11:19:59 PM5/20/12
to
Joy Beeson wrote:
> Never say never.
>
> About thirty years ago, I saw a place where a bike lane would have
> been a really-good idea.
:-)
> Never say never.
>
> About thirty years ago, I saw a place where a bike lane would have
> been a really-good idea.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
May 21, 2012, 12:27:44 AM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 8:19 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> > Then the bike lane resumes on the other side of the
>
> > intersection in the usual place, and as Lou suggested, if the roadway
> > has not been widened, the usual place is in the door zone.
>
> > There are also clear rules about how to behave when the bike lane just
> > ends, at least in my state. For example, where a bike lane ends
> > because the traffic lane hits a fork, with traffic exiting to the
> > right or continuing straight, the VC says that bicyclists can take the
> > lane and continue straight. Drivers, however, don't know that, and I
> > often get yelled at one spot on my commute where this happens --
>
> Sometimes I get yelled at when cycling, too. Or get a horn honked at
> me. It doesn't happen often, though. And when it happens it doesn't
> make me behave any differently.
>
> Sometimes I mutter quietly "Why do you think _you_ know more about
> bicycling than I do?"
>
So it *does* make you *feel* differently. It affects your
experience. Must be hard to suppress your feelings like that. (Quiet
muttering is behavior, BTW.)
I do appreciate that you would educate people, but surely most of them
*know* bikes belong and should be accommodated; it's just their
attitude that's messed up. The whole car power trip thing -
frustrated on top of *all* the other psychological and social problems
- doesn't help.
wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On May 20, 3:51 pm, Joy Beeson<jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
>
> >> <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
> >> Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
>
> > A bike lane in the intersection invites right hook problems, and thus
> > the green box solution in Portland where cyclists are placed ahead of
> > the car traffic.
>
> Not that they actually help, of course.
>
Got data?
> > On May 20, 3:51 pm, Joy Beeson<jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
>
> >> <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
> >> Is there a solution for carrying a bike lane through an intersection?
>
> > A bike lane in the intersection invites right hook problems, and thus
> > the green box solution in Portland where cyclists are placed ahead of
> > the car traffic.
>
> Not that they actually help, of course.
>
> > Then the bike lane resumes on the other side of the
>
> > intersection in the usual place, and as Lou suggested, if the roadway
> > has not been widened, the usual place is in the door zone.
>
> > There are also clear rules about how to behave when the bike lane just
> > ends, at least in my state. For example, where a bike lane ends
> > because the traffic lane hits a fork, with traffic exiting to the
> > right or continuing straight, the VC says that bicyclists can take the
> > lane and continue straight. Drivers, however, don't know that, and I
> > often get yelled at one spot on my commute where this happens --
>
> Sometimes I get yelled at when cycling, too. Or get a horn honked at
> me. It doesn't happen often, though. And when it happens it doesn't
> make me behave any differently.
>
> Sometimes I mutter quietly "Why do you think _you_ know more about
> bicycling than I do?"
>
experience. Must be hard to suppress your feelings like that. (Quiet
muttering is behavior, BTW.)
I do appreciate that you would educate people, but surely most of them
*know* bikes belong and should be accommodated; it's just their
attitude that's messed up. The whole car power trip thing -
frustrated on top of *all* the other psychological and social problems
- doesn't help.
John B.
May 21, 2012, 6:53:14 AM5/21/12
to
automobiles", isn't it?
But more seriously, there was a post on another site that probably
goes a long way to describe the auto - bike controversy. The poster,
certainly a car driver said, in essence:
Why aren't those things licensed and inspected - how do we know that
they are safe.
Why aren't those guys tested and licensed - how do we know that they
know what they are doing?
Why do they believe that they can break highway laws, run stop signs,
etc., without penalty.
Why don't they gets points on their licenses and lose their licenses
if they keep breaking the law.
The various replies that the chap got all boiled down to "Hear, Hear!"
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
May 21, 2012, 8:23:46 AM5/21/12
to
doing NASCAR.
> But more seriously, there was a post on another site that probably
> goes a long way to describe the auto - bike controversy. The poster,
> certainly a car driver said, in essence:
>
> Why aren't those things licensed and inspected - how do we know that
> they are safe.
>
> Why aren't those guys tested and licensed - how do we know that they
> know what they are doing?
>
> Why do they believe that they can break highway laws, run stop signs,
> etc., without penalty.
>
> Why don't they gets points on their licenses and lose their licenses
> if they keep breaking the law.
>
> The various replies that the chap got all boiled down to "Hear, Hear!"
public is a privilege requiring licensing and insurance, while
non-motorized travel is a right. Many motorists have the false belief
that the roads exist only for their convenience. Most motorists think
their constant disobedience of traffic laws is reasonable, yet similar
behavior by others is despicable.
"Anyone who drives faster than me is a raving maniac. Anyone who drives
slower than me is a doddering fool."
Motorists who hold those views most strongly are the ones most likely to
post on the internet.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
May 21, 2012, 8:02:04 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:23:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that there is
need for highway regulations? That testing vehicles for safety
features, like brakes, steering, lighting is unnecessary? That
establishing some sort of minimum skill level that is necessary before
being allowed to operate a vehicle on the public highways is
unnecessary?
--
Cheers,
John B.
need for highway regulations? That testing vehicles for safety
features, like brakes, steering, lighting is unnecessary? That
establishing some sort of minimum skill level that is necessary before
being allowed to operate a vehicle on the public highways is
unnecessary?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
May 21, 2012, 8:31:07 PM5/21/12
to
the high points:
1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
should be logically obvious.
4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
repeat: This should be logically obvious.
5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
May 22, 2012, 11:22:10 AM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 5:31 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
So, to summarize, it's logically obvious that riding a bike is not
like driving a car, right?
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:23:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:23:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
like driving a car, right?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 22, 2012, 11:41:49 AM5/22/12
to
On May 20, 3:12 pm, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is they try to squeeze in a bikelane in an existing infrastructure. That is always a bad idea. If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
> Lou
And our SUVs have been getting wider, so the situation has been
> The problem is they try to squeeze in a bikelane in an existing infrastructure. That is always a bad idea. If you account them in from the beginning of the design you get beter and consisting solutions.
>
> Lou
getting worse. Notice European SUVs never come close to maximum width.
The original Land Rovers were very narrow, but I think we can
accommodated one way or another.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 22, 2012, 11:53:00 AM5/22/12
to
On May 20, 3:27 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Sat, 19 May
> 2012 20:59:59 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote in message
> >news:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Those were sharrows, and were never intended to be by the kerb.
> An ignoramus who believed all farcilities should be in the gutter
> "broke" the "story" and the paper were too stupid to realise how
> idiotic it proved them to be by publishing it.
> Of course, "tabloid journo is moron" isn't news, so selling that rag
> as a newspaper may well have been a breach of the trade descriptions
> act.
Sharrows can also be evil or smart. We find them here after a long
winding and grinding causeway --which you better do on sidewalks-- and
then "appear" on a blind curve. Again it "disappears" in half a mile.
What engineer could have pitched such a curve?
CONSISTENCY IS THE KEY WORD.
Now, what happens where there are no sharrows. Don't cyclists belong
anyway?
Oh, another causeway does something similar. Is the Devil loose around
here?
> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Sat, 19 May
> 2012 20:59:59 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote in message
> >news:f025e747-2d61-4485...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >> We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> >> would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> >> particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> >> the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> >> driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> >> system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> >> their own.
>
> >> would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> >> particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> >> the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> >> driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> >> system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> >> their own.
>
> >A recent story in UK newspapers:
>
> >Workers painting road markings couldn't get to the kerb because of parked
> >cars - so they painted the cycle lane markings just inside the line down the
> >middle of the road.
>
> Repeating it doesn't make the ill-informed "journalism" right.
>
> >Workers painting road markings couldn't get to the kerb because of parked
> >cars - so they painted the cycle lane markings just inside the line down the
> >middle of the road.
>
> Those were sharrows, and were never intended to be by the kerb.
> An ignoramus who believed all farcilities should be in the gutter
> "broke" the "story" and the paper were too stupid to realise how
> idiotic it proved them to be by publishing it.
> Of course, "tabloid journo is moron" isn't news, so selling that rag
> as a newspaper may well have been a breach of the trade descriptions
> act.
Sharrows can also be evil or smart. We find them here after a long
winding and grinding causeway --which you better do on sidewalks-- and
then "appear" on a blind curve. Again it "disappears" in half a mile.
What engineer could have pitched such a curve?
CONSISTENCY IS THE KEY WORD.
Now, what happens where there are no sharrows. Don't cyclists belong
anyway?
Oh, another causeway does something similar. Is the Devil loose around
here?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 22, 2012, 12:21:50 PM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 8:23 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
I like what you say and yet I'm for some kind of "certification."
Whether it's 20 bucks a year or something, cyclists should be
certified to ride on the road. That would clean our image and help
separate the cyclists from the "survivors" on department store bikes.
Hey, some of those bikes are OK --I own some-- but won't skip on
lights and gear that places an extra burden on the driver.
I do NOT think we must stop at red lights and stop signs, but we
assume the risk.
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:19:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:19:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
Whether it's 20 bucks a year or something, cyclists should be
certified to ride on the road. That would clean our image and help
separate the cyclists from the "survivors" on department store bikes.
Hey, some of those bikes are OK --I own some-- but won't skip on
lights and gear that places an extra burden on the driver.
I do NOT think we must stop at red lights and stop signs, but we
assume the risk.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 22, 2012, 12:33:29 PM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 8:31 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
Pedestrians should be required to make a dash across the street in 5
seconds or less. Drivers should pass a test to make sure the horn is
loud enough, say 120 decibels. A train horn is better. The pedestrian
must learn that drivers can block the sidewalk because they are
important people on business. Nobody, but nobody, should interrupt the
frantic pace of life.
We cyclists are pedestrians on wheels, so we must learn the rules.
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:23:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:23:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
seconds or less. Drivers should pass a test to make sure the horn is
loud enough, say 120 decibels. A train horn is better. The pedestrian
must learn that drivers can block the sidewalk because they are
important people on business. Nobody, but nobody, should interrupt the
frantic pace of life.
We cyclists are pedestrians on wheels, so we must learn the rules.
John B.
May 22, 2012, 8:02:22 PM5/22/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
competent to do so? The ones complaining about your running stop
signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
described by someone a while ago on this site.
You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
van, was it? Or do you argue that as soon as you get behind a steering
wheel you become a stupid driver and unable to critique bicycle
activities?
>2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>
And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
right? Or are you simply using that as an argument that these stupid
auto drivers cannot possibly be superior to your good self, the
elitist cyclist?
>3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>should be logically obvious.
>
So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
Frank.
>4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>
You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
other lane to avoid them?
>5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
at will and generally hazard themselves? You forget your Momma telling
you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
safety admonishments for pedestrians?
As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
bet that guy would disagree with you.
--
Cheers,
John B.
competent to do so? The ones complaining about your running stop
signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
described by someone a while ago on this site.
You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
van, was it? Or do you argue that as soon as you get behind a steering
wheel you become a stupid driver and unable to critique bicycle
activities?
>2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>
right? Or are you simply using that as an argument that these stupid
auto drivers cannot possibly be superior to your good self, the
elitist cyclist?
>3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>should be logically obvious.
>
Frank.
>4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>
whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
other lane to avoid them?
>5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
at will and generally hazard themselves? You forget your Momma telling
you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
safety admonishments for pedestrians?
As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
bet that guy would disagree with you.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
May 22, 2012, 10:26:13 PM5/22/12
to
John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
>> the high points:
>>
>> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
>> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
>> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
>> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
>> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
>> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
>> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>>
> Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
> competent to do so?
A person criticizing me for using the only available straight-ahead lane
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
>> the high points:
>>
>> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
>> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
>> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
>> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
>> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
>> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
>> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>>
> Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
> competent to do so?
to go straight ahead? That person is not competent.
> The ones complaining about your running stop
> signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
> described by someone a while ago on this site.
detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
> You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
> sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
> van, was it?
>> 2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>> the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>> on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>> the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>> by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>> encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>> glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>
>
> And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
> right?
observe, plus many other law violations. Behavior at the stop sign
closest to my house was given only as one example.
>> 3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>> Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>> Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>> should be logically obvious.
>>
> So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
> Frank.
interested in its feasibility!
>> 4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>> skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>> more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>> repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>
> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
> other lane to avoid them?
that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
geometry should make this fact obvious.
>> 5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>> shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>> pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>> that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>
> So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
> at will and generally hazard themselves?
are caused by people sitting on their asses on soft seats, unwilling to
move their foot from the accelerator to the brake.
> You forget your Momma telling
> you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
> safety admonishments for pedestrians?
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
May 23, 2012, 7:58:03 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:26:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
about a bike riding straight down the road.
> > The ones complaining about your running stop
>> signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
>> described by someone a while ago on this site.
>
>You're very confused. I don't ride that way. In fact, Dan O seems to
>detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
Frank, Frank. You are back to cherry picking and editing posts to make
your arguments sound better.
>> You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>> sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>> van, was it?
>
>No, I do not drive a van. You're very confused.
>
Sorry, but in your posts about your recent argosy you mentioned a van
a number of times. I mistakenly had believed that you were referring
to YOUR van.
>>> 2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>>> the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>>> on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>>> the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>>> by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>>> encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>>> glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>>
>>
>> And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
>> right?
>
>Anyone can monitor low-traffic stop signs and see the same behavior I
>observe, plus many other law violations. Behavior at the stop sign
>closest to my house was given only as one example.
>
>>> 3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>>> Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>>> Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>>> should be logically obvious.
>>>
>> So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
>> Frank.
>
>John, explain to me your plan to prevent ALL traffic deaths. I'm very
>interested in its feasibility!
>
I'm not arguing vehicle safety. Merely responding to your replies. but
I do find it rather odd that when we were discussing guns, a while
ago, you were hell for removing guns from society if for no other
reason they people can commit suicide easier with a gun.
Now you don't seem to give a hoot how many kill themselves.
>>> 4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>>> skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>>> more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>>> repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>>
>> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>> other lane to avoid them?
>
>Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
>that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
>great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
>Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
>any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
>geometry should make this fact obvious.
>
>>> 5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>>> shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>>> pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>>> that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>>
So much for logic. See ASTM F2413-05 and ANSI Z41-PT99, both safety
standards for shoes.
As for pedestrian safety, I can only say that both my children and my
grand children have referred to instructions given in school about the
safe way to walk.
>> So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
>> at will and generally hazard themselves?
>
>Pedestrians don't usually "hazard themselves." The hazards they endure
>are caused by people sitting on their asses on soft seats, unwilling to
>move their foot from the accelerator to the brake.
>
Frank, you are being ridiculous. People do it all the time. For all
your rhetoric about drivers and asses it is a fairly common type of
accident - pedestrian steps on curb in path of auto. Pedestrian steps
off bus and runs across street in path of truck.
Why else do you think that they have the laws about stopping when a
school bus is loading or unloading, if not to protect the little
darlings when they charge out from behind the bus (without looking) to
cross the street.
> > You forget your Momma telling
>> you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
>> safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>
>Try reading _Fighting Traffic_ by Norton. You need education.
Your Momma teach you about walking in the street? You obviously come
from a dysfunctional family if you had to buy a book to tell you about
traffic.
But "fighting Traffic"? I live in a city with some of the most chaotic
traffic there is. I think I am fairly conversant with how to get
around the streets.
--
Cheers,
John B.
<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
>>> the high points:
>>>
>>> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
>>> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
>>> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
>>> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
>>> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
>>> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
>>> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>>>
>> Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
>> competent to do so?
>
>A person criticizing me for using the only available straight-ahead lane
>to go straight ahead? That person is not competent.
>
No Frank, you are imagining things. I didn't quote anyone bitching
>John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
>>> the high points:
>>>
>>> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
>>> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
>>> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
>>> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
>>> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
>>> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
>>> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>>>
>> Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
>> competent to do so?
>
>A person criticizing me for using the only available straight-ahead lane
>to go straight ahead? That person is not competent.
>
about a bike riding straight down the road.
> > The ones complaining about your running stop
>> signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
>> described by someone a while ago on this site.
>
>You're very confused. I don't ride that way. In fact, Dan O seems to
>detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
your arguments sound better.
>> You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>> sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>> van, was it?
>
>No, I do not drive a van. You're very confused.
>
a number of times. I mistakenly had believed that you were referring
to YOUR van.
>>> 2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>>> the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>>> on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>>> the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>>> by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>>> encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>>> glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>>
>>
>> And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
>> right?
>
>Anyone can monitor low-traffic stop signs and see the same behavior I
>observe, plus many other law violations. Behavior at the stop sign
>closest to my house was given only as one example.
>
>>> 3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>>> Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>>> Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>>> should be logically obvious.
>>>
>> So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
>> Frank.
>
>John, explain to me your plan to prevent ALL traffic deaths. I'm very
>interested in its feasibility!
>
I do find it rather odd that when we were discussing guns, a while
ago, you were hell for removing guns from society if for no other
reason they people can commit suicide easier with a gun.
Now you don't seem to give a hoot how many kill themselves.
>>> 4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>>> skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>>> more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>>> repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>>
>> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>> other lane to avoid them?
>
>Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
>that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
>great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
>Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
>any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
>geometry should make this fact obvious.
>
>>> 5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>>> shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>>> pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>>> that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>>
standards for shoes.
As for pedestrian safety, I can only say that both my children and my
grand children have referred to instructions given in school about the
safe way to walk.
>> So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
>> at will and generally hazard themselves?
>
>Pedestrians don't usually "hazard themselves." The hazards they endure
>are caused by people sitting on their asses on soft seats, unwilling to
>move their foot from the accelerator to the brake.
>
your rhetoric about drivers and asses it is a fairly common type of
accident - pedestrian steps on curb in path of auto. Pedestrian steps
off bus and runs across street in path of truck.
Why else do you think that they have the laws about stopping when a
school bus is loading or unloading, if not to protect the little
darlings when they charge out from behind the bus (without looking) to
cross the street.
> > You forget your Momma telling
>> you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
>> safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>
>Try reading _Fighting Traffic_ by Norton. You need education.
from a dysfunctional family if you had to buy a book to tell you about
traffic.
But "fighting Traffic"? I live in a city with some of the most chaotic
traffic there is. I think I am fairly conversant with how to get
around the streets.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Duane
May 23, 2012, 8:46:01 AM5/23/12
to
On 05/22/2012 10:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
<snip>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/14/quebec-cycling-accident.html
Fuck you Frank. People are rear ended on straight clear highways. Why
would a winding road prevent that? You are an idiot who spouts crap
just to justify your own misguided and ill informed point of view.
<snip>
> Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
> that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of great
> hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods. Fact
> is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on any
> road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
> geometry should make this fact obvious.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/17/quebec-cycling-accident.html
> that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of great
> hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods. Fact
> is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on any
> road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
> geometry should make this fact obvious.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/14/quebec-cycling-accident.html
Fuck you Frank. People are rear ended on straight clear highways. Why
would a winding road prevent that? You are an idiot who spouts crap
just to justify your own misguided and ill informed point of view.
Sepp Ruf
May 23, 2012, 10:20:21 AM5/23/12
to
John B. wrote:
with the posted speed limit, and can even experience surprise? I really
need to read Robocar & Passenger magazine more frequently.
> I live in a city with some of the most chaotic
> traffic there is.
Sure. And the concept of stopping sight distance is unknown in Delhi?
Interesting.
>> John B. wrote:
>>> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>> other lane to avoid them?
These days, cars travel autonomously, are wired to equate safe speed
>>> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>> other lane to avoid them?
with the posted speed limit, and can even experience surprise? I really
need to read Robocar & Passenger magazine more frequently.
> I live in a city with some of the most chaotic
> traffic there is.
Interesting.
Message has been deleted
Sir Ridesalot
May 23, 2012, 1:01:06 PM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 10:26 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
>
Snipped
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
A lot of your posts make some sense Frank but not this comment. Even
on this group there have been links to articles about a bicyclist or
group of bicyclists getting hit by a vehicle that came up from behind
them. There was a case a few years ago, in the Montreal, Quebec area
iirc, where a group of bicyclists on a training ride were struck from
behind. There are other cases but you can take the time to find them.
The sad fact is that bicyclist do get hit from behind by motor
vehicles even on good roads in daylight.
Cheers
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>
Snipped
> > You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
> > whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
> > posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
> > other lane to avoid them?
>
> Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
> that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
> great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
> Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
> any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
> geometry should make this fact obvious.
>
Snipped
> > whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
> > posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
> > other lane to avoid them?
>
> Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
> that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
> great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
> Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
> any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
> geometry should make this fact obvious.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
A lot of your posts make some sense Frank but not this comment. Even
on this group there have been links to articles about a bicyclist or
group of bicyclists getting hit by a vehicle that came up from behind
them. There was a case a few years ago, in the Montreal, Quebec area
iirc, where a group of bicyclists on a training ride were struck from
behind. There are other cases but you can take the time to find them.
The sad fact is that bicyclist do get hit from behind by motor
vehicles even on good roads in daylight.
Cheers
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 23, 2012, 1:09:35 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 11:35 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 12:52 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in messagenews:a512fba7-d423-4a2a...@a1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 22, 12:33 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote in
> > > messagenews:9abb9335-690a-4591...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 20, 6:56 pm, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Le 5/20/2012 8:18 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher a
> > > > écrit
> > > > :
>
> > > > > 1- bike lanes that don't connect,
>
> > > > > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > > > > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> > > > > They launched a full blown bike sharing program without proper
> > > > > facilities. That's evil idiocy.
>
> > > > > But that's only my humble opinion.
>
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> > > > personally I prefer environments that keep people on their toes,
> > > > alive and responding to events as they occur, like that of riding a bike
> > > > in Paris where all the above applies. And not just biking; in life
> > > > too :)
>
> > > "Welcome to the jungle." It's a deadly game though. Something like
> > > Russian roulette. I saw the movie 'El Topo' the other day where they
> > > play this game in church --to prove "miracles"-- until one kid shoots
> > > himself. Yes, kids can ride bikes in traffic too and die because they
> > > got no place. So the metaphor is perfect.
>
> > > Europeans are less inclined to road rage too. At least their traffic
> > > is more organized and have cameras everywhere. Different game.
>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> > > you could try riding your
> > > bike on the autobahn
> > >Wait, I'm certified to walk and ride a bike in America. That's an
> > >international permit, right?
>
> > you need a permit to walk
> > in america now ? damn, i just
> > can't keep up anymore.
>
> You need to be a member of AARP --seniors make up 90% of pedestrians--
> and the rest is just homeless and idiots.
>
> Well, you don't find pedestrians in America so this is a moot point.
Sorry, I don't want to put anyone down that doesn't deserve it.
I used to be one of those idiots walking on American sidewalks. Half
the time the sidewalks weren't even there, but I walked miles and
miles just for the hell of it --to keep it balanced. Some ancestral
reason told me that humans are made to move not to drive. It was the
roots of my now legendary Wisdom of the Jungle.
But I was stupid, even more so than those drivers who take a car to
the grocery store. The difference is that I was a harmless idiot while
they were harmful idiots. Then the MIGHTY BICYCLE enlightened my path.
It's not an easy path but certainly not idiotic. The bicycle means a
beast of burden as well as a comfortable ride through the mean streets
of America. Then I started struggling with it and the Wisdom of the
Jungle dawned on me. The lion hardly gives you space to breathe and
you must be looking over your shoulder all the time, but you must be
OUT OF THE CAGE no matter what. It's a philosophy that today makes me
take out my chihuahua --Tequila-- with me. He makes himself
comfortable in a basket but he's not missing out the action. Anyway he
likes it better than walking.
A new era is dawning where the stupidity of the car and walking is
left behind. The cargo bike is here...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_uTrSARmyvI/T5Whxk6edVI/AAAAAAAAADQ/9sd4IhcY3ZM/s1600/halsted.jpg
Communities are revived and SUVs are junked.
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 12:52 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in messagenews:a512fba7-d423-4a2a...@a1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 22, 12:33 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote in
> > > messagenews:9abb9335-690a-4591...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 20, 6:56 pm, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Le 5/20/2012 8:18 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher a
> > > > écrit
> > > > :
>
> > > > > We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> > > > > would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> > > > > particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> > > > > the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> > > > > driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> > > > > system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> > > > > their own.
>
> > > > > We got three types of bike facilities around here:
> > > > > We've got dozens of them, but none are connected. You may think it
> > > > > would get you through and find out that you are stuck with no
> > > > > particular place to go, a sidewalk perhaps if you are lucky. They are
> > > > > the product of "evil idiocy," to quote someone who was describing
> > > > > driver behavior. This type of idiocy though is the design of the
> > > > > system --the engineers to be exact-- not the idiots having a mind of
> > > > > their own.
>
>
> > > > > 1- bike lanes that don't connect,
>
> > > > > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > > > > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> > > > > They launched a full blown bike sharing program without proper
> > > > > facilities. That's evil idiocy.
>
> > > > > But that's only my humble opinion.
>
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> > > > personally I prefer environments that keep people on their toes,
> > > > alive and responding to events as they occur, like that of riding a bike
> > > > in Paris where all the above applies. And not just biking; in life
> > > > too :)
>
> > > "Welcome to the jungle." It's a deadly game though. Something like
> > > Russian roulette. I saw the movie 'El Topo' the other day where they
> > > play this game in church --to prove "miracles"-- until one kid shoots
> > > himself. Yes, kids can ride bikes in traffic too and die because they
> > > got no place. So the metaphor is perfect.
>
> > > Europeans are less inclined to road rage too. At least their traffic
> > > is more organized and have cameras everywhere. Different game.
>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> > > you could try riding your
> > > bike on the autobahn
> > >Wait, I'm certified to walk and ride a bike in America. That's an
> > >international permit, right?
>
> > you need a permit to walk
> > in america now ? damn, i just
> > can't keep up anymore.
>
> You need to be a member of AARP --seniors make up 90% of pedestrians--
> and the rest is just homeless and idiots.
>
> Well, you don't find pedestrians in America so this is a moot point.
Sorry, I don't want to put anyone down that doesn't deserve it.
I used to be one of those idiots walking on American sidewalks. Half
the time the sidewalks weren't even there, but I walked miles and
miles just for the hell of it --to keep it balanced. Some ancestral
reason told me that humans are made to move not to drive. It was the
roots of my now legendary Wisdom of the Jungle.
But I was stupid, even more so than those drivers who take a car to
the grocery store. The difference is that I was a harmless idiot while
they were harmful idiots. Then the MIGHTY BICYCLE enlightened my path.
It's not an easy path but certainly not idiotic. The bicycle means a
beast of burden as well as a comfortable ride through the mean streets
of America. Then I started struggling with it and the Wisdom of the
Jungle dawned on me. The lion hardly gives you space to breathe and
you must be looking over your shoulder all the time, but you must be
OUT OF THE CAGE no matter what. It's a philosophy that today makes me
take out my chihuahua --Tequila-- with me. He makes himself
comfortable in a basket but he's not missing out the action. Anyway he
likes it better than walking.
A new era is dawning where the stupidity of the car and walking is
left behind. The cargo bike is here...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_uTrSARmyvI/T5Whxk6edVI/AAAAAAAAADQ/9sd4IhcY3ZM/s1600/halsted.jpg
Communities are revived and SUVs are junked.
Dan O
May 23, 2012, 6:47:48 PM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 7:26 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> > The ones complaining about your running stop
>
> > signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
> > described by someone a while ago on this site.
>
> You're very confused. I don't ride that way. In fact, Dan O seems to
> detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
>
Where do you get that? I don't care in the least how you ride; wear
purple riding shorts while you do it for all I care. What I detest is
your disdain for me keeping my options open, as opposed to "the only
available straight-ahead lane".
> > You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
> > sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
> > van, was it?
This is Frank, remember? *Everybody* is less competent and
knowledgeable (many if not most abysmally so) - except a very select
few, who happen to agree with him.
>
> No, I do not drive a van. You're very confused.
>
Never driven a van? Never mentioned it? And what does it have to do
with anything anyway except you saying he's wrong? (Boy, this *is*
very confusing :-)
> >> 2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
> >> the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
> >> on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
> >> the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
> >> by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
> >> encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
> >> glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>
> > And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
> > right?
>
> Anyone can monitor low-traffic stop signs and see the same behavior I
> observe, plus many other law violations. Behavior at the stop sign
> closest to my house was given only as one example.
>
I'm with you on that point, but can't resist: Hall monitor? ;-)
> >> 3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
> >> Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
> >> Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
> >> should be logically obvious.
>
> > So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
> > Frank.
>
> John, explain to me your plan to prevent ALL traffic deaths. I'm very
> interested in its feasibility!
>
(I guess I'm on your side here.)
> >> 4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
> >> skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
> >> more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
> >> repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>
> > You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
> > whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
> > posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
> > other lane to avoid them?
>
> Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
> that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
> great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
> Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
> any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
> geometry should make this fact obvious.
>
Don't forget, though - idiocy abounds. Bad stuff happens all the time
that "obviously" *shouldn't* have. I try to do whatever I can to
minimize my exposure to the potentially harmful effects of the
abundant idiocy.
> >> 5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
> >> shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
> >> pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
> >> that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>
> > So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
> > at will and generally hazard themselves?
I'm okay with that, though I certainly recommend due care; the less
capable and more vulnerable should be accommodated. I'm essentially
with you on this whole issue. Cars and bicycles are vastly different
vehicles.
>
> Pedestrians don't usually "hazard themselves." The hazards they endure
> are caused by people sitting on their asses on soft seats, unwilling to
> move their foot from the accelerator to the brake.
>
> > You forget your Momma telling
>
> > you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
> > safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>
> Try reading _Fighting Traffic_ by Norton. You need education.
>
Hey! Now you're talkin' - "Fighting Traffic" :-) I might just have
to check that one out!
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:31:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>
> >> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
> >> the high points:
>
> >> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
> >> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
> >> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
> >> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
> >> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
> >> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
> >> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>
> > Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
> > competent to do so?
>
> A person criticizing me for using the only available straight-ahead lane
> to go straight ahead? That person is not competent.
>
Well, they are an idiot, but there's always no shortage of that.
> >> I'm not sure which part of my writing you're confused about. But to hit
> >> the high points:
>
> >> 1) I think it's laughable for motorists to criticize my biking, as if
> >> they know more than I do. Like, for example, the woman in the
> >> right-turn-only-lane to my right, when I was in the center
> >> straight-ahead lane because I was, naturally, going straight head. She
> >> said something about me thinking I'm a car. Yep, she's probably never
> >> bothered to learn fact #1 about riding on the road - but she felt
> >> confident enough to criticize, despite total ignorance.
>
> > Are you sure that those drivers who critique your biking are not
> > competent to do so?
>
> A person criticizing me for using the only available straight-ahead lane
> to go straight ahead? That person is not competent.
>
> > The ones complaining about your running stop
>
> > signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
> > described by someone a while ago on this site.
>
> You're very confused. I don't ride that way. In fact, Dan O seems to
> detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
>
purple riding shorts while you do it for all I care. What I detest is
your disdain for me keeping my options open, as opposed to "the only
available straight-ahead lane".
> > You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
> > sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
> > van, was it?
knowledgeable (many if not most abysmally so) - except a very select
few, who happen to agree with him.
>
> No, I do not drive a van. You're very confused.
>
with anything anyway except you saying he's wrong? (Boy, this *is*
very confusing :-)
> >> 2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
> >> the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
> >> on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
> >> the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
> >> by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
> >> encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
> >> glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>
> > And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
> > right?
>
> Anyone can monitor low-traffic stop signs and see the same behavior I
> observe, plus many other law violations. Behavior at the stop sign
> closest to my house was given only as one example.
>
> >> 3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
> >> Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
> >> Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
> >> should be logically obvious.
>
> > So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
> > Frank.
>
> John, explain to me your plan to prevent ALL traffic deaths. I'm very
> interested in its feasibility!
>
> >> 4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
> >> skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
> >> more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
> >> repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>
> > You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
> > whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
> > posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
> > other lane to avoid them?
>
> Do you have, perhaps, the Google Street View showing a location where
> that's likely? Seems to me it's as implausible as Duane's claim of
> great hit-from-behind danger from riding on winding roads in the woods.
> Fact is, a lane-centered cyclist is quite visible in plenty of time on
> any road driven at anywhere near appropriate (or legal) speed. Simple
> geometry should make this fact obvious.
>
that "obviously" *shouldn't* have. I try to do whatever I can to
minimize my exposure to the potentially harmful effects of the
abundant idiocy.
> >> 5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
> >> shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
> >> pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
> >> that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>
> > So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
> > at will and generally hazard themselves?
capable and more vulnerable should be accommodated. I'm essentially
with you on this whole issue. Cars and bicycles are vastly different
vehicles.
>
> Pedestrians don't usually "hazard themselves." The hazards they endure
> are caused by people sitting on their asses on soft seats, unwilling to
> move their foot from the accelerator to the brake.
>
> > You forget your Momma telling
>
> > you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
> > safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>
> Try reading _Fighting Traffic_ by Norton. You need education.
>
to check that one out!
John B.
May 23, 2012, 7:27:42 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:28:54 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 23 May 2012 07:02:22
>You mean changing into the correct lane for the direction he intends
>to go?
>Yes, someone who criticises that IS incompetent.
>>
No, I mean the riding in curves back and forth across the road width
as described by Andre, I believe, as part of a day dream sort of
sequence that he envisioned.
>>You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>>sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>>van, was it? Or do you argue that as soon as you get behind a steering
>>wheel you become a stupid driver and unable to critique bicycle
>>activities?
>
>It isn't a matter of the vehicle they are using, it's the nature of
>the criticism.
I see. Or perhaps I don't. You mean there is no necessity for
certifying the qualifications of bicycle riders although it seems that
there are reasons for them to go to a driving school (as exemplified
by Frank's Bicycle School). That all bike are safe to ride on the
public highway? Even the ones ridden on the road with no brakes at
all? That cyclists never, never break the traffic laws? Or that
traffic laws do not apply to bikes?
And it is only the nasty and unwashed that would stoop to critique of
these acts?
>>
>>>2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>>>the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>>>on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>>>the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>>>by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>>>encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>>>glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>>
>>
>>And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
>>right? Or are you simply using that as an argument that these stupid
>>auto drivers cannot possibly be superior to your good self, the
>>elitist cyclist?
>>
>>>3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>>>Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>>>Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>>>should be logically obvious.
>>>
>>So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
>>Frank.
>
>What on earth does that have to do with what Frank wrote?
Prior to Frank (I assume) editing the previous post it included a
remark by him which said, in effect, that because only a few get
killed by bicycles it wasn't worth noticing.
>slow moving vehicle in their own lane (and even a single bicycle is
>entitled to be using all of the lane) then yes, those drivers are
>dangerous incompetents, not the cyclists who are sharing a single lane
>instead of using several.
>The posted speed is a LIMIT, not a target.
>You should always be able to stop within the distance that you can see
>to be clear.
>If you can't even slow down, you are not just going too fast, you are
>going MUCH too fast.
>
Exactly my thoughts when someone complains about hitting a car door.
Someone riding close to a line of parked cars too fast to stop in the
event that a door opens. People getting out of autos is hardly an
unusual occurrence.
>>>5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>>>shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>>>pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>>>that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>>
>>So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
>>at will and generally hazard themselves? You forget your Momma telling
>>you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
>>safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>
>Motorists (who have chosen to use dangerous machinery in public)
>should always be prepared to drive in such a way as not to present
>danger to others.
>If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be driving.
And cyclists are somehow exempted from these rather logical safety
policies?
>>
>>As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
>>Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
>>his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
>>bet that guy would disagree with you.
>
>Protective work boots and ordinary walking shoes are rather different
>animals.
I hate to shake the ivory tower but people who wear (usually mandated)
protective work boots, as you refer to them, don't carry them about in
a brown paper sack and only don them at the edge of the work area,
they wear them all the time. I might add that protective foot wear is
made in both shoe and boot forms.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 23 May 2012 07:02:22
>to go?
>Yes, someone who criticises that IS incompetent.
>>
No, I mean the riding in curves back and forth across the road width
as described by Andre, I believe, as part of a day dream sort of
sequence that he envisioned.
>>You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>>sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>>van, was it? Or do you argue that as soon as you get behind a steering
>>wheel you become a stupid driver and unable to critique bicycle
>>activities?
>
>the criticism.
I see. Or perhaps I don't. You mean there is no necessity for
certifying the qualifications of bicycle riders although it seems that
there are reasons for them to go to a driving school (as exemplified
by Frank's Bicycle School). That all bike are safe to ride on the
public highway? Even the ones ridden on the road with no brakes at
all? That cyclists never, never break the traffic laws? Or that
traffic laws do not apply to bikes?
And it is only the nasty and unwashed that would stoop to critique of
these acts?
>>
>>>2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>>>the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>>>on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>>>the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>>>by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>>>encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>>>glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>>
>>
>>And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
>>right? Or are you simply using that as an argument that these stupid
>>auto drivers cannot possibly be superior to your good self, the
>>elitist cyclist?
>>
>>>3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>>>Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>>>Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>>>should be logically obvious.
>>>
>>So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
>>Frank.
>
Prior to Frank (I assume) editing the previous post it included a
remark by him which said, in effect, that because only a few get
killed by bicycles it wasn't worth noticing.
>>
>>>4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>>>skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>>>more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>>>repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>>
>>You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>other lane to avoid them?
>>
>If drivers are going too fast to be able to slow when coming across a
>>>4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>>>skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>>>more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>>>repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>>
>>You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>other lane to avoid them?
>>
>slow moving vehicle in their own lane (and even a single bicycle is
>entitled to be using all of the lane) then yes, those drivers are
>dangerous incompetents, not the cyclists who are sharing a single lane
>instead of using several.
>The posted speed is a LIMIT, not a target.
>You should always be able to stop within the distance that you can see
>to be clear.
>If you can't even slow down, you are not just going too fast, you are
>going MUCH too fast.
>
Exactly my thoughts when someone complains about hitting a car door.
Someone riding close to a line of parked cars too fast to stop in the
event that a door opens. People getting out of autos is hardly an
unusual occurrence.
>>>5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>>>shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>>>pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>>>that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>>
>>So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
>>at will and generally hazard themselves? You forget your Momma telling
>>you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
>>safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>
>should always be prepared to drive in such a way as not to present
>danger to others.
>If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be driving.
And cyclists are somehow exempted from these rather logical safety
policies?
>>
>>As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
>>Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
>>his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
>>bet that guy would disagree with you.
>
>animals.
I hate to shake the ivory tower but people who wear (usually mandated)
protective work boots, as you refer to them, don't carry them about in
a brown paper sack and only don them at the edge of the work area,
they wear them all the time. I might add that protective foot wear is
made in both shoe and boot forms.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Király
May 23, 2012, 8:00:31 PM5/23/12
to
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
Go with #2. It isn't nearly as dangerous as many people believe. If
> 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
you're on the sidewalk you have to cross a road every block, which puts
one in conflict with turning cars. This situation results in greater
likelihood of being hit by a car than had you stayed on the road in the
first place.
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
Dan O
May 23, 2012, 9:05:04 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 5:00 pm, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:
pretty severe crosswind (strong enough that when I faced it I had to
work at moving forward *downhill*). I'm on the paved shoulder when a
roundish little bird flies up from the roadside. Flapping furiously
and squawking and struggling to get going, it flew alongside me -
right alongside (actually I was overtaking it) - alongside for quite a
way, it drifted with the wind toward me. Then, from about four feet
away, it suddenly veered and bounced off my right shoulder. Kind of
freaked me out a bit (freaking big bug), but I stayed on the narrow
shoulder as a car whizzed by at my left.
> TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> Go with #2. It isn't nearly as dangerous as many people believe. If
> you're on the sidewalk you have to cross a road every block, which puts
> one in conflict with turning cars. This situation results in greater
> likelihood of being hit by a car than had you stayed on the road in the
> first place.
>
Speaking of bumping into people: Yesterday I was riding home in a
>
> > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> Go with #2. It isn't nearly as dangerous as many people believe. If
> you're on the sidewalk you have to cross a road every block, which puts
> one in conflict with turning cars. This situation results in greater
> likelihood of being hit by a car than had you stayed on the road in the
> first place.
>
pretty severe crosswind (strong enough that when I faced it I had to
work at moving forward *downhill*). I'm on the paved shoulder when a
roundish little bird flies up from the roadside. Flapping furiously
and squawking and struggling to get going, it flew alongside me -
right alongside (actually I was overtaking it) - alongside for quite a
way, it drifted with the wind toward me. Then, from about four feet
away, it suddenly veered and bounced off my right shoulder. Kind of
freaked me out a bit (freaking big bug), but I stayed on the narrow
shoulder as a car whizzed by at my left.
Duane
May 24, 2012, 8:25:18 AM5/24/12
to
On 05/23/2012 01:01 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
<snip>
> A lot of your posts make some sense Frank but not this comment. Even
> on this group there have been links to articles about a bicyclist or
> group of bicyclists getting hit by a vehicle that came up from behind
> them. There was a case a few years ago, in the Montreal, Quebec area
> iirc, where a group of bicyclists on a training ride were struck from
> behind. There are other cases but you can take the time to find them.
> The sad fact is that bicyclist do get hit from behind by motor
> vehicles even on good roads in daylight.
Apparently in Frank's world, which must consist of a drafting table with
a protractor handy, if there is the geometric possibility that the
cyclist is visible the motorist will see them. And in this world, if
the motorist sees them, they will not hit them. Therefore if the
cyclist is hit, it must be the rider's fault.
2 riders in my club went off that road that he's talking about last
weekend to avoid a car overtaking them. The car apparently saw them,
tried to pass only to see another car coming the other way around the
turn. He went back in his lane and slammed on his brakes, sliding into
the rear of the riders. (apparently in Frank's world cars always do the
speed limit) The last two riders went into the gravel hard and had a
trip to the hospital. The rest just had scrapes and bruises. They were
in the lane as there is no shoulder. None died so this is an
insignificant statistic that will never show up on one of Frank's
charts. One rider has a broken wrist and is under observation for neck
trauma. The other has 23 stitches in her elbow and will probably
require plastic surgery to repair the damage to her face. Both bikes are
seriously damaged.
I wouldn't have replied to Frank if it wasn't that he used my name and
his usual misquoting out of context bullshit in an argument the day
after this happened. And yes, cyclists get hit from behind on clear
straight roads on beautiful sunny mornings like the one you describe.
In that case, it appears that the driver fell asleep with the cruise
control on. Doesn't show up on that drafting table either. But only 3
dead riders is statistically insignificant I guess.
<snip>
> A lot of your posts make some sense Frank but not this comment. Even
> on this group there have been links to articles about a bicyclist or
> group of bicyclists getting hit by a vehicle that came up from behind
> them. There was a case a few years ago, in the Montreal, Quebec area
> iirc, where a group of bicyclists on a training ride were struck from
> behind. There are other cases but you can take the time to find them.
> The sad fact is that bicyclist do get hit from behind by motor
> vehicles even on good roads in daylight.
a protractor handy, if there is the geometric possibility that the
cyclist is visible the motorist will see them. And in this world, if
the motorist sees them, they will not hit them. Therefore if the
cyclist is hit, it must be the rider's fault.
2 riders in my club went off that road that he's talking about last
weekend to avoid a car overtaking them. The car apparently saw them,
tried to pass only to see another car coming the other way around the
turn. He went back in his lane and slammed on his brakes, sliding into
the rear of the riders. (apparently in Frank's world cars always do the
speed limit) The last two riders went into the gravel hard and had a
trip to the hospital. The rest just had scrapes and bruises. They were
in the lane as there is no shoulder. None died so this is an
insignificant statistic that will never show up on one of Frank's
charts. One rider has a broken wrist and is under observation for neck
trauma. The other has 23 stitches in her elbow and will probably
require plastic surgery to repair the damage to her face. Both bikes are
seriously damaged.
I wouldn't have replied to Frank if it wasn't that he used my name and
his usual misquoting out of context bullshit in an argument the day
after this happened. And yes, cyclists get hit from behind on clear
straight roads on beautiful sunny mornings like the one you describe.
In that case, it appears that the driver fell asleep with the cruise
control on. Doesn't show up on that drafting table either. But only 3
dead riders is statistically insignificant I guess.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
May 24, 2012, 12:36:04 PM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 8:00 pm, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:
problem that drivers don't know we should be on the road. Or pretend
not to know --which proves they are idiots.
http://flyingpigeon-la.com/2012/05/why-it-should-be-raining-sharrows/
> TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> Go with #2. It isn't nearly as dangerous as many people believe. If
> you're on the sidewalk you have to cross a road every block, which puts
> one in conflict with turning cars. This situation results in greater
> likelihood of being hit by a car than had you stayed on the road in the
> first place.
Then why put all those sharrows? Maybe they are trying to fix the
>
> > 2- share the lane with the idiotic drivers,
>
> > 3- ride on sidewalks and bump into pedestrians.
>
> Go with #2. It isn't nearly as dangerous as many people believe. If
> you're on the sidewalk you have to cross a road every block, which puts
> one in conflict with turning cars. This situation results in greater
> likelihood of being hit by a car than had you stayed on the road in the
> first place.
problem that drivers don't know we should be on the road. Or pretend
not to know --which proves they are idiots.
http://flyingpigeon-la.com/2012/05/why-it-should-be-raining-sharrows/
Message has been deleted
John B.
May 24, 2012, 8:17:13 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:16:21 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 24 May 2012 06:27:42
>But that is not the behaviour that Frank was complaining about being
>criticised over.
>It isn't even a behaviour that Frank has ever described himself
>indulging in, or as far as I know, endorsing.
>>
Nope. You are a victim of Frank's selective editing.
I used the term swooping back and forth across the road to describe
malfeasance on the part of the cyclist. Frank seized on that and
re-described it as lane changing, in order to justify his defense of
the cyclist. I then elaborated on my original description. Which, I
might point out, Frank then deleted in order to make it look as though
I was, somehow, objecting to lane changing.
>>>>You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>>>>sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>>>>van, was it? Or do you argue that as soon as you get behind a steering
>>>>wheel you become a stupid driver and unable to critique bicycle
>>>>activities?
>>>
>>>It isn't a matter of the vehicle they are using, it's the nature of
>>>the criticism.
>>
>>I see. Or perhaps I don't. You mean there is no necessity for
>>certifying the qualifications of bicycle riders although it seems that
>>there are reasons for them to go to a driving school (as exemplified
>>by Frank's Bicycle School). That all bike are safe to ride on the
>>public highway? Even the ones ridden on the road with no brakes at
>>all? That cyclists never, never break the traffic laws? Or that
>>traffic laws do not apply to bikes?
>
>You seem to be scattering controversial comments at random in the hope
>that someone will respond to some of them.
>us who do.
>on anything like the sort of scale that would make any form of
>regulation necessary.
>
>Loose hearthrugs are a greater danger.
>to the car is because they have been forced to take evasive action
>from a dangerously driven motor vehicle?
>Or indeed, have been forced to do so with such frequency that they've
>given up on even trying to ride a safe distance away, because of the
>bullying and threats to their life that have come to be regarded as
>normal?
>Do you have any evidence at all that they do pose any significant
>threat?
>is there any need for them to be.
>I've only ever had one pair that were genuinely comfortable to walk in
>(and I spent a large part of my working life doing jobs that mandated
>protective footwear, so I am perfectly well aware of the types
>available and the required standards).
>With the exception of that one pair, I certainly didn't wear them
>except in the working environment - the toetector type are rarely much
>use for walking or driving in, and the electrically insulated type are
>sweaty.
I can't comment on your remarks except to say that for 20 years I wore
safety shoes/boots in the field and I never saw anyone that had an
extra set of shoes to wear when they were off the rig. Oh yes, we
might have had a set of "going to town shoes" to wear when we went on
break but not at the site.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 24 May 2012 06:27:42
>criticised over.
>It isn't even a behaviour that Frank has ever described himself
>indulging in, or as far as I know, endorsing.
>>
Nope. You are a victim of Frank's selective editing.
I used the term swooping back and forth across the road to describe
malfeasance on the part of the cyclist. Frank seized on that and
re-described it as lane changing, in order to justify his defense of
the cyclist. I then elaborated on my original description. Which, I
might point out, Frank then deleted in order to make it look as though
I was, somehow, objecting to lane changing.
>>>>You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>>>>sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>>>>van, was it? Or do you argue that as soon as you get behind a steering
>>>>wheel you become a stupid driver and unable to critique bicycle
>>>>activities?
>>>
>>>It isn't a matter of the vehicle they are using, it's the nature of
>>>the criticism.
>>
>>I see. Or perhaps I don't. You mean there is no necessity for
>>certifying the qualifications of bicycle riders although it seems that
>>there are reasons for them to go to a driving school (as exemplified
>>by Frank's Bicycle School). That all bike are safe to ride on the
>>public highway? Even the ones ridden on the road with no brakes at
>>all? That cyclists never, never break the traffic laws? Or that
>>traffic laws do not apply to bikes?
>
>that someone will respond to some of them.
>>
>>And it is only the nasty and unwashed that would stoop to critique of
>>these acts?
>>
>No, it's those who /think/ they know annoying the hell out of those of
>>And it is only the nasty and unwashed that would stoop to critique of
>>these acts?
>>
>us who do.
>
>>>>
>>>>>2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>>>>>the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>>>>>on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>>>>>the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>>>>>by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>>>>>encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>>>>>glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
>>>>right? Or are you simply using that as an argument that these stupid
>>>>auto drivers cannot possibly be superior to your good self, the
>>>>elitist cyclist?
>>>>
>>>>>3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>>>>>Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>>>>>Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>>>>>should be logically obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
>>>>Frank.
>>>
>>>What on earth does that have to do with what Frank wrote?
>>
>>Prior to Frank (I assume) editing the previous post it included a
>>remark by him which said, in effect, that because only a few get
>>killed by bicycles it wasn't worth noticing.
>
>There is certainly no evidence of bicycles being a danger to others,
>>>>
>>>>>2) Some motorists are very quick to complain that cyclists never obey
>>>>>the rules of the road. They complain especially when posting comments
>>>>>on the internet. I imagine that includes those motorists I watch run
>>>>>the stop sign in front of my house - i.e roughly 50% of those passing
>>>>>by. While I wish many cyclists did better (like the salmon rider I
>>>>>encountered this evening), I also think those who drive in
>>>>>glass-windowed vehicles shouldn't throw stones.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And, of course, the driver that I quoted drives by your house daily,
>>>>right? Or are you simply using that as an argument that these stupid
>>>>auto drivers cannot possibly be superior to your good self, the
>>>>elitist cyclist?
>>>>
>>>>>3) Do I think safe vehicle design is necessary? Yes, up to a point.
>>>>>Especially if the type of vehicle in question kills tens of thousands of
>>>>>Americans each year. More benign vehicles need much less testing. This
>>>>>should be logically obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>So, if we only kill a few there is no need to ensure safety. Right
>>>>Frank.
>>>
>>>What on earth does that have to do with what Frank wrote?
>>
>>Prior to Frank (I assume) editing the previous post it included a
>>remark by him which said, in effect, that because only a few get
>>killed by bicycles it wasn't worth noticing.
>
>on anything like the sort of scale that would make any form of
>regulation necessary.
>
>Loose hearthrugs are a greater danger.
>>>>
>>>>>4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>>>>>skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>>>>>more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>>>>>repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>>>whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>>>posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>>>other lane to avoid them?
>>>>
>>>If drivers are going too fast to be able to slow when coming across a
>>>slow moving vehicle in their own lane (and even a single bicycle is
>>>entitled to be using all of the lane) then yes, those drivers are
>>>dangerous incompetents, not the cyclists who are sharing a single lane
>>>instead of using several.
>>>The posted speed is a LIMIT, not a target.
>>>You should always be able to stop within the distance that you can see
>>>to be clear.
>>>If you can't even slow down, you are not just going too fast, you are
>>>going MUCH too fast.
>>>
>>
>>Exactly my thoughts when someone complains about hitting a car door.
>>Someone riding close to a line of parked cars too fast to stop in the
>>event that a door opens. People getting out of autos is hardly an
>>unusual occurrence.
>
>So what about the situation where the only reason they are too close
>>>>>4) I think those operating deadly vehicles on the roads need a higher
>>>>>skill level than what is now required in the U.S. Those operating much
>>>>>more benign vehicles need not be held to the same requirements. And I
>>>>>repeat: This should be logically obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>>>whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>>>posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>>>other lane to avoid them?
>>>>
>>>If drivers are going too fast to be able to slow when coming across a
>>>slow moving vehicle in their own lane (and even a single bicycle is
>>>entitled to be using all of the lane) then yes, those drivers are
>>>dangerous incompetents, not the cyclists who are sharing a single lane
>>>instead of using several.
>>>The posted speed is a LIMIT, not a target.
>>>You should always be able to stop within the distance that you can see
>>>to be clear.
>>>If you can't even slow down, you are not just going too fast, you are
>>>going MUCH too fast.
>>>
>>
>>Exactly my thoughts when someone complains about hitting a car door.
>>Someone riding close to a line of parked cars too fast to stop in the
>>event that a door opens. People getting out of autos is hardly an
>>unusual occurrence.
>
>to the car is because they have been forced to take evasive action
>from a dangerously driven motor vehicle?
>Or indeed, have been forced to do so with such frequency that they've
>given up on even trying to ride a safe distance away, because of the
>bullying and threats to their life that have come to be regarded as
>normal?
>>
>>>>>5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>>>>>shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>>>>>pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>>>>>that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>>>>
>>>>So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
>>>>at will and generally hazard themselves? You forget your Momma telling
>>>>you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
>>>>safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>>>
>>>Motorists (who have chosen to use dangerous machinery in public)
>>>should always be prepared to drive in such a way as not to present
>>>danger to others.
>>>If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be driving.
>>
>>And cyclists are somehow exempted from these rather logical safety
>>policies?
>>
>If they posed a similar threat, they would need similar regulation.
>>>>>5) To carry the logic one step further (so to speak): I don't think
>>>>>shoes need safety tests, and I don't think pedestrians should have to
>>>>>pass any test at all before using the public ways. In fact, I'd prefer
>>>>>that motorists be trained to stay out of their way.
>>>>
>>>>So pedestrians can walk where and when they want to - cross highways
>>>>at will and generally hazard themselves? You forget your Momma telling
>>>>you to only cross on Red Lights, walk facing traffic and all the other
>>>>safety admonishments for pedestrians?
>>>
>>>Motorists (who have chosen to use dangerous machinery in public)
>>>should always be prepared to drive in such a way as not to present
>>>danger to others.
>>>If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be driving.
>>
>>And cyclists are somehow exempted from these rather logical safety
>>policies?
>>
>Do you have any evidence at all that they do pose any significant
>threat?
>>>>
>>>>As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
>>>>Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
>>>>his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
>>>>bet that guy would disagree with you.
>>>
>>>Protective work boots and ordinary walking shoes are rather different
>>>animals.
>>
>>I hate to shake the ivory tower but people who wear (usually mandated)
>>protective work boots, as you refer to them, don't carry them about in
>>a brown paper sack and only don them at the edge of the work area,
>>they wear them all the time. I might add that protective foot wear is
>>made in both shoe and boot forms.
>
>Yes, but the boots (or shoes) aren't tested for walking safety - nor
>>>>As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
>>>>Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
>>>>his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
>>>>bet that guy would disagree with you.
>>>
>>>Protective work boots and ordinary walking shoes are rather different
>>>animals.
>>
>>I hate to shake the ivory tower but people who wear (usually mandated)
>>protective work boots, as you refer to them, don't carry them about in
>>a brown paper sack and only don them at the edge of the work area,
>>they wear them all the time. I might add that protective foot wear is
>>made in both shoe and boot forms.
>
>is there any need for them to be.
>I've only ever had one pair that were genuinely comfortable to walk in
>(and I spent a large part of my working life doing jobs that mandated
>protective footwear, so I am perfectly well aware of the types
>available and the required standards).
>With the exception of that one pair, I certainly didn't wear them
>except in the working environment - the toetector type are rarely much
>use for walking or driving in, and the electrically insulated type are
>sweaty.
I can't comment on your remarks except to say that for 20 years I wore
safety shoes/boots in the field and I never saw anyone that had an
extra set of shoes to wear when they were off the rig. Oh yes, we
might have had a set of "going to town shoes" to wear when we went on
break but not at the site.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 25, 2012, 11:52:39 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/22/2012 7:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> [...]
The highest rating for steel toes is only 75 pounds being dropped. Duh.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
> [...]
> As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
> Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
> his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
> bet that guy would disagree with you.[...]
> Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
> his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
The highest rating for steel toes is only 75 pounds being dropped. Duh.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 25, 2012, 11:53:47 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/22/2012 9:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> [...]
Or suffering from dementia.
> John B. wrote:
>> [...]
> > The ones complaining about your running stop
>> signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
>> described by someone a while ago on this site.
>
> You're very confused. I don't ride that way. In fact, Dan O seems to
> detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
>
>> You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>> sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>> van, was it?
>
> No, I do not drive a van. You're very confused.[...]
>> signs? Your swooping back and forth across the highway - aptly
>> described by someone a while ago on this site.
>
> You're very confused. I don't ride that way. In fact, Dan O seems to
> detest the fact that I ride legally and predictably.
>
>> You description of those in cars as not knowing simply shows how one
>> sided this conversation is. After all, you have mentioned driving a
>> van, was it?
>
Or suffering from dementia.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 25, 2012, 11:57:46 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/23/2012 9:20 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>>> John B. wrote:
>
>>>> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>>> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>>> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>>> other lane to avoid them?
>
> These days, cars travel autonomously, are wired to equate safe speed
> with the posted speed limit, and can even experience surprise? I really
> need to read Robocar & Passenger magazine more frequently.
>
John B. learned about these cars while doing collage.
> John B. wrote:
>>> John B. wrote:
>
>>>> You are talking about those ridding two or three abreast, taking up a
>>>> whole lane, just there, around the corner where a car traveling at the
>>>> posted speed will be surprised to see them and likely swerve into the
>>>> other lane to avoid them?
>
> These days, cars travel autonomously, are wired to equate safe speed
> with the posted speed limit, and can even experience surprise? I really
> need to read Robocar & Passenger magazine more frequently.
>
>> I live in a city with some of the most chaotic
>> traffic there is.
>
> Sure. And the concept of stopping sight distance is unknown in Delhi?
> Interesting.
understand).
<https://maps.google.com/maps?q=delhi,+iowa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Delhi,+Delaware,+Iowa&gl=us&t=h&z=14>
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 26, 2012, 12:02:43 AM5/26/12
to
On 5/23/2012 7:46 AM, Duane wrote:
> [...] Fuck you Frank. People are rear ended on straight clear
> highways. [...]
Stop advertising - ride a 'bent instead of a drop-bar road bike.
<http://www.webanswers.com/post-images/8/8C/EF270915-6080-4CE1-A51EABCD4D6B766A.jpg>
> [...] Fuck you Frank. People are rear ended on straight clear
> highways. [...]
Stop advertising - ride a 'bent instead of a drop-bar road bike.
<http://www.webanswers.com/post-images/8/8C/EF270915-6080-4CE1-A51EABCD4D6B766A.jpg>
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 26, 2012, 12:13:50 AM5/26/12
to
cars are too fat-arse to do it should not mandate against single-track
vehicles doing so.
problem. Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria would be proud.
</sarcasm?
themselves.
>>>
>>> As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
>>> Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
>>> his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
>>> bet that guy would disagree with you.
>>
>> Protective work boots and ordinary walking shoes are rather different
>> animals.
>
> I hate to shake the ivory tower but people who wear (usually mandated)
> protective work boots, as you refer to them, don't carry them about in
> a brown paper sack and only don them at the edge of the work area,
> they wear them all the time. I might add that protective foot wear is
> made in both shoe and boot forms.
Gee, and I have been taking mine off before going to bed!
>>> As for shoe safety standards and tests, well obviously being an Ivory
>>> Tower sort you've never seen a bloke drop a 150 lb. chunk of steel on
>>> his foot and have the steel toe shoe collapse and mash his toes. I'll
>>> bet that guy would disagree with you.
>>
>> Protective work boots and ordinary walking shoes are rather different
>> animals.
>
> I hate to shake the ivory tower but people who wear (usually mandated)
> protective work boots, as you refer to them, don't carry them about in
> a brown paper sack and only don them at the edge of the work area,
> they wear them all the time. I might add that protective foot wear is
> made in both shoe and boot forms.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 26, 2012, 12:17:25 AM5/26/12
to
On 5/24/2012 7:17 PM, John B. wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> I can't comment on your remarks except to say that for 20 years I wore
> safety shoes/boots in the field and I never saw anyone that had an
> extra set of shoes to wear when they were off the rig. Oh yes, we
> might have had a set of "going to town shoes" to wear when we went on
> break but not at the site.[...]
> safety shoes/boots in the field and I never saw anyone that had an
> extra set of shoes to wear when they were off the rig. Oh yes, we
> might have had a set of "going to town shoes" to wear when we went on
I wear different shoes in the office from the boots I wear to
construction sites. And different boots and shoes for motorized and
non-motorized cycles.
0 new messages