Bikes vs. cars *again* was Re: God Damn Drunk Drivers!!!
Daniel J. Stern
> It would also be nice if bicyclists had the brains let alone the
> consideration to actually use bike lanes. I've lost count of the times
> I've been on a four lane, one-way street, with one of those lanes
> reserved for bikes, and a bicyclist is riding blissfully and ignorant,
> in the opposite direction of traffic, across the street from the bike
> lane (and the correct flow of traffic only one block away). And before
> Brent chimes in with his dogmatic rantings, those bike lanes, at least
> the ones I use, are swept regularly and are cleared of debris, at least
> when I use them. So there is no excuse other than stupidity and
> arrogance.
This battle between cyclists and drivers is incessant. Bicyclists complain
of motorists hellbent on denying bicyclists their right to use the roads.
"Share the road" campaigns aren't sufficient to quiet this lot; they feel
that such an imperative implies that motorists have priority on the roads
and are only grudgingly deigning to cede a bit of the roadway to
cyclists. They argue vociferously amongst themselves over the merits and
drawbacks of dedicated bicycle lanes. They claim it's safer for them not
to obey traffic laws, and smarmily assert that it's impossible for a
cyclist to cause a crash; it's always the motorist's fault because the
bicycle offers less protection than the car. The more ridiculous extension
of this "argument" is that because bicycles emit no pollution, they are
morally superior to cars and therefore needn't follow the rules. (Yes,
I've actually heard this profferred in total seriousness!)
Motorists, for their part, complain of bicyclists' unpredictable and
spastic behaviour on the roads, darting in and out, holding up traffic,
failing to comply with traffic laws, failing to make themselves adequately
visible (LIGHTS!), their "now I'm a motorist, now I'm a pedestrian, now
I'm a motorist again" use of lanes and paths, and that there's no
incentive for cyclists to behave properly since they're not required to
hold a licence, registration or insurance.
Who's right? Both, to some degree, in that ensuring traffic safety is
every road user's job. But before there can be any meaningful discussion
of equitable roadsharing between these two very different modes of
transportation, we need much better compliance from the cyclists. Without
this, they have no leg to stand on complaining about unfair or improper
rules. How the hell is a motorist to avoid a crash when a cyclist wearing
black and riding an unlit, unreflectorised bike at night decides red
lights are only for cars and blows through directly in front? Heads, the
cyclist gets creamed. Tails, the motorist gets rear-ended.
Bottom line, while there are certainly plenty of badly-behaved motorists
on the road, there's a well established system in place to see that not
*too* many of them are not *too* badly-behaved not *too* often. It starts
with a licence plate and driving licence, and ends with a driving record
and insurance bill. Until there's some uniform and responsive incentive
for bicyclists to behave properly on the road, motorists are somewhat
justified in regarding bicycles as toys that have no right to the road.
DS
Da Parrot-chick
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.03062...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Arif Khokar
[about cyclists]
> They claim it's safer for them not
> to obey traffic laws,
I've never seen that argument advocated by any of the pro-cyclist
regulars on r.a.d.
Daniel J. Stern
I didn't confine my comments to r.a.d.
DS
Brandon Sommerville
<qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:35:50 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich>
>wrote:
>
>>How the hell is a motorist to avoid a crash when a cyclist wearing
>>black and riding an unlit, unreflectorised bike at night decides red
>>lights are only for cars and blows through directly in front? Heads, the
>>cyclist gets creamed. Tails, the motorist gets rear-ended.
>
>I pick heads.
>
>"Sorry, officer, never saw 'im."
>
>He will, however, earn a posthumous Darwin Award.
And how.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
Dave Morrison
the right to kill and maim people, even if those people don't have
licenses and insurance. 42,000 of us are getting killed a year on the
roads out there. That's almost a Vietnam Memorial Wall each year. More
people died in traffic this Memorial Day weekend than died in both
Gulf Wars combined. We need a Memorial Day for Memorial Day.
The line right above the bottom line is that our automobile-centric
lifestyle is massively wasteful, inefficient and destructive to the
planet as a whole. We as Americans don't have the right to continue
using resources the way we are. In fact, we simply won't be able to
use resources the way we are. Because of that, folks who are getting
around town without being wasteful, inefficient and destructive --
cyclists -- should be prioritized above motorists by law and by
infrastructure. Motorists who kill and hurt people in "accidents"
should be jailed.
Jim Yanik
news:1e7e968d.03070...@posting.google.com:
> The bottom line is that a car is a weapon. And motorists don't have
> the right to kill and maim people, even if those people don't have
> licenses and insurance. 42,000 of us are getting killed a year on the
> roads out there. That's almost a Vietnam Memorial Wall each year. More
> people died in traffic this Memorial Day weekend than died in both
> Gulf Wars combined. We need a Memorial Day for Memorial Day.
>
> The line right above the bottom line is that our automobile-centric
> lifestyle is massively wasteful, inefficient and destructive to the
> planet as a whole. We as Americans don't have the right to continue
> using resources the way we are. In fact, we simply won't be able to
> use resources the way we are. Because of that, folks who are getting
> around town without being wasteful, inefficient and destructive --
> cyclists -- should be prioritized above motorists by law and by
> infrastructure. Motorists who kill and hurt people in "accidents"
> should be jailed.
Ah,the 'Earth First' argument.
I presume you have already given up your driver's license and sold or
permanently parked your autos.Perhaps you don't buy products that were
delivered by truck or IC-engined vehicles.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me
Matthew Russotto
A car is only a weapon when used as such. This does not include
accidental (including, but not limited to, negligent and reckless)
actions, but only intentional ones.
>And motorists don't have
>the right to kill and maim people, even if those people don't have
>licenses and insurance. 42,000 of us are getting killed a year on the
>roads out there. That's almost a Vietnam Memorial Wall each year. More
>people died in traffic this Memorial Day weekend than died in both
>Gulf Wars combined. We need a Memorial Day for Memorial Day.
Waaaahhh. Besides, Gulf War Part Deux ain't over until the garrison
comes home. Of course, few motorists kill and maim people on purpose,
and there are already laws against those doing it negligently and
recklessly, so your implication that these 42,000 deaths are somehow
considered rightful is nonsense.
>use resources the way we are. Because of that, folks who are getting
>around town without being wasteful, inefficient and destructive --
>cyclists -- should be prioritized above motorists by law and by
>infrastructure. Motorists who kill and hurt people in "accidents"
>should be jailed.
All this for a bicycle troll? You've got to get more efficient yourself.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Da Parrot-chick
news:1e7e968d.03070...@posting.google.com...
> The bottom line is that a car is a weapon.
Your entire argument fell into the tar pit with this one opening line. A
car is not a weapon, it's a transportation device.
DTJ
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <1e7e968d.03070...@posting.google.com>,
>Dave Morrison <firep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>The bottom line is that a car is a weapon.
>
>A car is only a weapon when used as such. This does not include
A gun is only a weapon when I blow your head off with it.
Da Parrot-chick
"DTJ" <d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o28bgvoccgqlqrckr...@4ax.com...
That's what the gun was designed and built for; it has no other purpose
other than to kill people and other animals. Do you see the distinction?
Jim Yanik
news:BAhNa.79214$Io.72...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Untrue;there are many guns solely designed for Olympic target
shooting.Flare guns,for launching a flare.Nail guns.
Guns are designed to propel a projectile at high velocity,what purpose that
projectile is put to is a HUMAN's choice.
Knives are another item(tool) that may or may not be used as weapons.
Da Parrot-chick
news:Xns93AE91AABE5...@204.117.192.21...
> Untrue;there are many guns solely designed for Olympic target
> shooting.Flare guns,for launching a flare.Nail guns.
> Guns are designed to propel a projectile at high velocity,what purpose
that
> projectile is put to is a HUMAN's choice.
> Knives are another item(tool) that may or may not be used as weapons.
This is true. I should have been more specific in referring to the guns
that Brent was talking about: handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Those weapons
are built specifically for what the military calls "personnel reduction".
Knives are multipurpose and don't count. Flare guns, nail guns, etc. can
be used as weapons but aren't intended as such, unlike handguns, rifles, and
shotguns. I was answering his assertion that a car is a weapon; it isn't
any more than a rolled up newspaper is a weapon even though both can kill.
Jim, thanks for pointing out this very important distinction.
I don't include collector-type guns, like Colt .45s and such, but their
original purpose was the same: wiping out your opponent before he wiped you
out.
Matthew Russotto
DTJ
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <o28bgvoccgqlqrckr...@4ax.com>,
>DTJ <d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:06:19 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1e7e968d.03070...@posting.google.com>,
>>>Dave Morrison <firep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>The bottom line is that a car is a weapon.
>>>
>>>A car is only a weapon when used as such. This does not include
>>
>>A gun is only a weapon when I blow your head off with it.
>
>Oooh, Usenet threats. I'm shaking in my boots here.
Why? Someone mimics your ignorance and you get scared?