Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet
hunter orange?
necromancer
>He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't
>miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet
>hunter orange?
Why don't you paint, "Highway killing machine," on that beater of
yours.
OBTW, I don't wear a helmet when bicycling.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj
Bob Burns
helmet. Not only increases visibility, but also keeps me warm in the
cold and dry in the rain. I ride a rail-trail through hunting areas.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
"Every day is Saturday when you're retired."
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA
(email is a spamtrap)
ilaboo
>
suicidal--good hunters look for objects that are parallel to the ground such
as a deers back
there are a lot of hunters out there who in actuality want the chance to
kill the ultimate mammal--humans and of course get away with it
nb--i hunted literally every am--worked on resevations with open season all
the time
now i no longer hunt/fish
hth
peter
frkr...@gmail.com
If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
slowing down and paying more attention.
- Frank Krygowski
N8N
Yes, all of the cyclists in my area are responsible and never, ever do
stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or
non-reflective clothing. (snort)
If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had
death wishes (in addition to the above, I actually saw a cyclist at
least slow down - not stop, just slow - for a stop sign the other
day. It was noteworthy because that was the first time I'd seen that
happen in months,) you might have a point, but my general impression
of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and
I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing
the rules of the road. It is only a matter of time before one of
these idiots ends up getting flattened by a car, and I'm sad to say
that my sympathy will be with the driver of the car.
nate
Leo Lichtman
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote: If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange)
> pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
> slowing down and paying more attention.
Frank, the population of drivers and the population of riders are both
statistical distributions (bell curve). By making yourself more visible, a
you put yourself on a better part of your curve, so it is less likely that
you will have a problem with a drivers on the bad part of their curve.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:478eb4fb-4902-47f1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
It would help if the cyclists would obey the laws and stop running red
lights and stop driving on the left side of the road. Cyclists are always
showing up where they're not supposed to be and that's why drivers don't
see them.
frkr...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote: If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange)
I don't disagree with that. And if a cyclist chooses to be extra-
visible, I certainly won't object. However, as long as the cyclist is
legal, he has no obligation to dress funny so motorists can exert less
care.
Lights and reflectors at night? Sure. Day-glo orange when riding to
work? No. It's the driver's responsibility to see where he's going,
see who or what is on the road, and control his vehicle accordingly.
- Frank Krygowski
necromancer
>frkr...@gmail.com wrote in
>news:478eb4fb-4902-47f1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Feb 27, 1:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you
>>> couldn't miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least
>>> paint their helmet hunter orange?
>>
>> If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
>> pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
>> slowing down and paying more attention.
>>
>
>It would help if the cyclists would obey the laws and stop running red
>lights and stop driving on the left side of the road.
Cyclists are riding, you idiot, *not* driving.
>Cyclists are always
>showing up where they're not supposed to be and that's why drivers don't
>see them.
I don't have any problems seeing cyclists even at night. ISTM that the
one who needs to get off the road is you and your scud, you blood
thirsty degenerate.
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 27, 10:58 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
> > pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
> > slowing down and paying more attention.
>
> stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or
> non-reflective clothing. (snort)
Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
be respected.
But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
should not be.
> If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had
> death wishes ... you might have a point, but my general impression
> of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and
> I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing
> the rules of the road.
I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
reason.
For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
How many cyclists kill themselves by their mistakes? Only about 700
American cyclists die per year, total. That's a tiny number compared
to most other causes of death. The per-hour risk is also low. And at
least half those fatalities are caused by motorist mistakes, not
cyclist mistakes.
- Frank Krygowski
N8N
> On Feb 27, 11:21 am, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:58 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
> > > pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
> > > slowing down and paying more attention.
>
> > Yes, all of the cyclists in my area are responsible and never, ever do
> > stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or
> > non-reflective clothing. (snort)
>
> Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
> be respected.
Agreed.
> But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
> should not be.
Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
for anything that might happen to you.
> > If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had
> > death wishes ... you might have a point, but my general impression
> > of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and
> > I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing
> > the rules of the road.
>
> I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
> motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
> lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
> should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
> reason.
Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
> For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
> one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
> right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
> hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
> post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
> know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
> America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
Mostly cyclists kill themselves. But my car will still be damaged.
> How many cyclists kill themselves by their mistakes? Only about 700
> American cyclists die per year, total. That's a tiny number compared
> to most other causes of death. The per-hour risk is also low. And at
> least half those fatalities are caused by motorist mistakes, not
> cyclist mistakes.
I don't believe that at all, as as I've stated, bicyclists seem to
think themselves completely exempt from the rules of the road and
quite a few rules of common sense, as well.
I'm not anti-cyclist as a principle; I actually enjoy riding. It is
observation of the behavior of cyclists that has shaped my opinions so
that I probably appear to be anti-cyclist. Basically, I just don't
like the particular cyclists that I have to interact with on the
roads.
nate
Larry Farrell
[snip]
>
> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>
>
> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
N8N
> N8N wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> > or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> > something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
> > lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
> > violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>
> [snip]
>
> > 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't.
You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of
cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road.
Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It
sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride
like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around
where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike
trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off
the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving.
nate
Larry Farrell
Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing
illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were
doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong.
I stand by *my* statement.
Brent P
> For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
> one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
> right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
> hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
That said we've been over this before and you didn't believe it then and
I doubt you do now.
Brent P
> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
I don't. I take the lane and stop at them. For some reason motorists
don't like this very much. Although it's amusing when they try to pass
me before the stop sign (to cut me off and slam on the brakes I guess)
and end up stuck in the oncoming lane at the stop sign.
N8N
So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
that.
nate
Leo Lichtman
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote: (clip) as long as the cyclist is
> legal, he has no obligation to dress funny so motorists can exert less
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frank, it looked to me like you were chewing out bad drivers, blaming them
for driving habits that make cyclists less safe. My response did not
suggest that cyclists have an obligation to "dress funny." First, the bad
drivers you hold responsible--and they are certainly out there--are not
affected appreciably by what you say here. Blaming them and telling them to
drive better has virtually no effect. What does have an effect is how I
control my own behavior. I say, if I can make myself live longer by
"dressing funny," it's a personal choice, and I choose it. I'm 80 years old
and I place great value on whatever years I have left.
Stephen Harding
> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
[...]
> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
Where on earth do you live?
How much viewing time are we talking about with this
observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time?
Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently
large, I would have to predict a significant number of the
700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their
end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming
you are in the US)!
SMH
Leo Lichtman
"Larry Farrell" wrote: Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably closeer to 95%.>
Larry Farrell
No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do
illegal things, and that is clearly false.
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
> > be respected.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
> > should not be.
>
> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
> for anything that might happen to you.
Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
they're dressed should not matter.
> > I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
> > motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
> > lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
> > should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
> > reason.
>
> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> something. I'm still inconvenienced...
Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
Wrong.
>
> > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
> > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
> > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
> > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>
> Mostly cyclists kill themselves.
Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)
> But my car will still be damaged.
:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
around!
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
> N8N wrote:
>
>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>
>
> [...]
>
>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
>
> Where on earth do you live?
Falls Church, VA
> How much viewing time are we talking about with this
> observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time?
I've lived here for over a year. I see anywhere from 1-5 cyclists every
morning, and often a few more in the evening.
> Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently
> large, I would have to predict a significant number of the
> 700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their
> end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming
> you are in the US)!
I'm honestly surprised that more don't.
Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
road to get around parked cars.) Now the other cyclist that I saw was
wearing a reflective vest, so he gets props for that, but making a left
turn a little closer to oncoming traffic than I would have considered
prudent kinda negates that.
The only conclusion I can draw is that either a) cyclists are idiots or
b) the act of getting on a bicycle causes one to become an idiot.
Of course, it's not *just* cyclists - just that it seems that they are
more universally idiotic. Within the same two mile drive home from the
Metro station, I also saw a motorcycle cop pull a U-turn and immediately
make a left turn onto Leesburg Pike and I seriously thought he was going
to run straight into a pedestrian; I slowed in case I would end up
having to stop give a statement/help if I could.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel
I said "my observations are 100%." That is a 100% true statement.
frkr...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <e2ee074e-2670-476e-9cf2-9dea20d6b...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
> > one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
> > right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
> > hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
>
> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
> that's the reason people don't respect it.
Brent, you've apparently edited our previous discussions to meet your
preconceptions.
First, I've never, not once, been involved in putting in a stop sign
to slow people down. Neither has the bike-pedestrian committee I've
been a member of.
Second, the stop sign is at a T intersection, and visibility isn't
particularly good, due to shrubbery. It's a very normal and practical
place for a stop sign. No reasonable person would doubt its
appropriateness. (True, the local teeny-bopper would disagree, the
one with the daddy-bought car with the "aerodynamic" wing and fart-can
muffler, but those boys are pretty unreasonable.)
> That said we've been over this before and you didn't believe it then and
> I doubt you do now.
We've been over this before, but you've forgotten most of it.
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> Frank... the bad
> drivers you hold responsible--and they are certainly out there--are not
> affected appreciably by what you say here.
I agree that my words won't cause miracles. But discussion is one of
the ways that changes are prompted in society. And the privileged
attitudes of typical motorists certainly needs to be changed.
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
>>>be respected.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
>>>should not be.
>>
>>Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>>reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>>for anything that might happen to you.
>
>
> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> they're dressed should not matter.
It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors. If I can't
reasonably be expected to see them while I'm standing still, I'm
certainly not going to see them from my car either. I'm sick of the
attitude that the cyclist is always right and the motorist is always
wrong. I knew at a very young age if I were going to be walking along a
street at night that I should be wearing something that would be easily
visible to motorists, or else carrying a light. I don't see how any
cyclist could say with a straight face that he's somehow exempt from
this same common-sense rule.
>
>>>I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
>>>motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
>>>lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
>>>should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
>>>reason.
>>
>>Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
>
> Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period. Most
recently just a couple months ago on Dolley Madison, a busy multi-lane
road, at the intersection with Anderson Road and the I-66 ramp. Which
is just stupidity to begin with; you'd have to have balls of brass to
ride a bike on Dolley Madison, especially when there's a much more
suitable parallel road less than half a mile away.
>
>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
>
> Wrong.
Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
>>>Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
>>>post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
>>>know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
>>>America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>>
>>Mostly cyclists kill themselves.
>
>
> Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
> commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
> risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
> in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
> find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)
>
>
>>But my car will still be damaged.
>
>
> :-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> around!
It does to me. If you're going to be a stupid asshole, fine, but don't
be surprised or offended when people call you a stupid asshole. And if
you cause damage to me or my property due to your own carelessness and
disregard for the law, I don't give a shit if you're on life support, I
still will have no sympathy for you and will sue for the damages you
rightfully owe me (not aimed directly at you, but at the dipshit
cyclists I share the road with.)
Brent P
Oh yeah, that's right you achieve the same ends (rapid acceleration and
braking point to point) with frequent speed humps instead of stop signs.
David Poole
I don't know that I would restrict that statement to cyclist; it seems
a fair number of motorists in my stretch of the woods have death
wishes as well. That's one of the reasons I don't give a crap that 110
idiots check out on a daily basis. In fact, it's my personal belief
that society as a whole would improve if that number grew to 1100.
--
People don't confuse me with someone who cares.
Nate Nagel
Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
N8N
As awful as the skills/behavior/courtesy/awareness of the average
driver around here are, the cyclists are significantly worse. I can't
honestly say that all motorists blow stop signs or half of them drive
around after dark with their lights off, for example.
But you're right, there's a whole lotta stupid on both sides. Just
more so with cyclists, it seems. Not sure why; I don't actually know
any serious cyclists in this area personally, so I haven't had the
opportunity to try to figure it out - and to be perfectly honest,
their behavior is kind of a disincentive to take up cycling seriously
again, although this area is actually more bike-friendly than any I've
lived in the last decade or so.
nate
Zoot Katz
wrote:
>
>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
>nate
So you still don't understand how those things work.
Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
--
zk
frkr...@gmail.com
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> > should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
lights, and never require clothing.
There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!
> >> If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> >>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> >>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
> > Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> > motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> > can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> > his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>
> Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
and from all the people I know. I suspect that's because yours
includes a large measure of fantasy.
But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
fine.
> >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
clear, find someone who can explain it to you.
> >>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> > :-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> > around!
>
> It does to me.
What a small, simple world you inhabit!
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>>>should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>>>right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>>>(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>>>motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>>>are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>>>they're dressed should not matter.
>>
>>It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
>
> Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
> as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
> lights, and never require clothing.
>
> There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!
Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
be visible?
Is that better?
>
>>>>If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>>
>>>Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
>>>motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
>>>can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
>>>his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>>
>>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
>>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
>
> Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> and from all the people I know.
Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
> I suspect that's because yours
> includes a large measure of fantasy.
I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.
> But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> fine.
You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
>>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
>
> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
> do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
> clear, find someone who can explain it to you.
I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.
>
>
>>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>>
>>>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
>>>around!
>>
>>It does to me.
>
>
> What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>
Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?
Most people will value the integrity of their own posessions over the
well being of a negligent stranger. They just don't care to say it in
public. I'm not particularly ashamed of my view; my greatest concern is
simply avoiding collecting one of these idiots.
Paul M. Hobson
>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
>> Wrong.
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.
How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
Do you ever roll through stop signs?
.
.
.
I thought so.
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Nate Nagel
I understand perfectly well how they work, they don't.
And that will be my last word on the subject, as I believe didn't I say
"please let us not resurrect this thread?"
Ed Pirrero
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> > > should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> > > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> > It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
> Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
boot.
If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
Why do cycling shoes have reflectorized materials in them? Why do
people attact reflector tape to their helmets or caps?
What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
non-sensical.
> > Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> > the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> and from all the people I know.
So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
logic use, Frank.
> I suspect that's because yours
> includes a large measure of fantasy.
Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
> > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> counterexample to prove you wrong.
Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
it's *your* proposal, after all.
From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
> The cyclists you claim to observe
> do not make up the total population of cyclists.
He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
> >an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
> >nate
>
> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.
Explain that, if you please.
E.P.
Zoot Katz
wrote:
>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>>>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>>>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>
>> So you still don't understand how those things work.
>> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
>
>I understand perfectly well how they work, they don't.
>
>And that will be my last word on the subject, as I believe didn't I say
>"please let us not resurrect this thread?"
>
>nate
Still touchy about all those busted plastic air-dams you've left
littering the road, I guess.
Maybe next time you can wipe out the exhaust so you can replace it
with something that doesn't sound like a leaf blower in a footlocker.
Gosh, that's such a sexy car you're married to.
--
zk
Nate Nagel
>>> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>
>>>
>> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong.
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
>
> So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
> too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.
I don't really ride anymore. But no, I wouldn't.
> How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
Of course.
> Do you ever roll through stop signs?
NO.
Arif Khokar
> Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
> wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
> did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
> narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
> road to get around parked cars.)
It is possible that he had one of those crappy bicycle headlights. If
he was in range of your vehicle's headlamps, the light from them would
easily overpower the bicycle light.
My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one
time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars :)
Nate Nagel
No, he had no headlight at all. At one point I passed him and checked
my rearview, I could just barely see a figure on a bike. I'm really not
sure how he could see when there wasn't a car behind him or approaching.
Arif Khokar
> So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
> too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.
>
> How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
> Do you ever roll through stop signs?
The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
Arif Khokar
> But you're right, there's a whole lotta stupid on both sides. Just
> more so with cyclists, it seems. Not sure why; I don't actually know
> any serious cyclists in this area personally, so I haven't had the
> opportunity to try to figure it out - and to be perfectly honest,
> their behavior is kind of a disincentive to take up cycling seriously
> again, although this area is actually more bike-friendly than any I've
> lived in the last decade or so.
Most cyclists where I live aren't any different. When I ride, I follow
the rules of the road as much as I do in my car (though I don't speed
quite as much ;)
Zoot Katz
<gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>
>> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
>Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
>From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
the rules.
It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
--
zk
Nate Nagel
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> <gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>>>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>>
>>Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>>it's *your* proposal, after all.
>>
>
>>From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>
>>of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>>light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
>
> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>
> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
> law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
> the rules.
Nope. I just don't see them because cyclists obeying the letter of the
law don't exist in my area.
>
> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>
> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>
> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
I'd like to cordially invite you to take your attitude and shove it up
your ass. It's not like I needed yet *another* reason to think the
average cyclist was a self-important asshole.
Zoot Katz
Drivers are petulant brats.
What's new?
--
zk
Ed Pirrero
Nice cause and effect you have going there.
Logic, much?
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
> >> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> >> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
> >Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
> >it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
> >From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> >of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> >light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
As a former vehicular cyclist, I am always careful. And not just
around bicyclists.
> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
> law.
What about we clown who used to ride bikes, and now pay very close
attention to all traffic, just out of habit?
> They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
> the rules.
Except that seeing bicycles riding correctly on the roads is a rare,
noteworthy event.
> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
Which is it - there are so many you can't keep track, or they are
rare? You are being contradictory.
> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
And the lawful one, in their rarity, is not noticed at all.
Uh -huh - you're making a whole lot of sense now. (not)
> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
Just like fools on bikes who can't be bothered to make themselves even
partially visible at night, or who ignore traffic control devices.
Got it.
E.P.
Zoot Katz
wrote:
>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>> <gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>>>>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>>>
>>>Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>>>it's *your* proposal, after all.
>>>
>>
>>>From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>>
>>>of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>>>light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>>
>>
>> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
>> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>>
>> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
>> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
>> law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
>> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
>> the rules.
>
>Nope. I just don't see them because cyclists obeying the letter of the
>law don't exist in my area.
>
Amazingly they manage to survive to piss you off again another day.
Given current trends, their numbers are growing and it's not because
you've learned to compensate for their behaviour. Likely they've
learned to avoid your predictable stupidity.
>>
>> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
>> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>>
>> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
>> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
>> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>>
>> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
>> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
>> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
>I'd like to cordially invite you to take your attitude and shove it up
>your ass. It's not like I needed yet *another* reason to think the
>average cyclist was a self-important asshole.
>
Get out your bike, pump up the tires and go for a ride. If that
doesn't rekindle your soul then you've buried it in that coffin you
love.
Get well soon.
--
zk
Jim Yanik
99920e...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
>> > be respected.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
>> > should not be.
>>
>> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>> for anything that might happen to you.
>
> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> they're dressed should not matter.
>
>> > I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
>> > motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
>> > lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
>> > should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
>> > reason.
>>
>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>> something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
> Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>
>
>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> Wrong.
>
>>
>> > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
>> > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
>> > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
>> > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>>
>> Mostly cyclists kill themselves.
>
> Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
> commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
> risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
> in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
> find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)
>
>> But my car will still be damaged.
>
>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> around!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
depending on auto drivers to keep you bicyclists safe is about as sensible
as expecting police to protect you from criminals 24/7/365.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
David Poole
>>It would help if the cyclists would obey the laws and stop running red
>>lights and stop driving on the left side of the road.
>
>Cyclists are riding, you idiot, *not* driving.
What I don't understand is how sfb can judge what intelligence is,
considering that it doesn't possess the attributes necessary to make
such a judgement.
Jim Yanik
news:vtpxj.5095$7d1....@news01.roc.ny:
I ALWAYS stop for stop signs.No matter what time of day/night,or traffic
conditions. The same goes for red lights.
I often exceed the posted speed limits,where it's reasonably safe.
IMO,there are far more "amateur" bicyclists out on the roads than the
"skilled,law-abiding semi-pros" that you bicyclists seem to believe inhabit
the roads.
And both types of bicyclists *always lose* in a car-bike collision,no
matter who's at fault.
Arif Khokar
> I ALWAYS stop for stop signs.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't (both in a car and on a bike). I'm
capable of making sound judgments about which stop signs are necessary
and which aren't. The ones that are necessary are at intersections
where I would stop even if there wasn't a stop sign simply because I
can't see cross traffic before I get there. The one's that aren't are
at intersections that one can see for hundreds of feet in either
direction and don't have much cross traffic.
> I often exceed the posted speed limits,where it's reasonably safe.
So what makes stop signs so special? There are quite a few unnecessary
stop signs and quite a few under posted roadways. In many other
countries, stop signs are rarely used as a traffic control device. The
rule for roads that don't have the right-of-way is to *yield* to other
traffic prior to proceeding. It doesn't mean that one needs to come to
a full stop when no traffic is approaching.
Larry Farrell
> Larry Farrell wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, Larry Farrell <farrl...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, Larry Farrell <farrl...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>>>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
>>>>>>> flagrantly
>>>>>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't.
>>>>> You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of
>>>>> cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road.
>>>>> Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It
>>>>> sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride
>>>>> like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around
>>>>> where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike
>>>>> trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off
>>>>> the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving.
>>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>> Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing
>>>> illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were
>>>> doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong.
>>>> I stand by *my* statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
>>> that.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>>
>> No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do
>> illegal things, and that is clearly false.
>>
>
> I said "my observations are 100%." That is a 100% true statement.
>
> nate
>
This has dragged on long enough so I will concede that I overstated the
situation a *bit.* Your initial statements are reproduced above exactly
as they appeared in your original message. Granted, you did state
initially that, "Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
flagrantly violate the rules of the road," and my calling that 100% BS
was out of line (although I really doubt that *every* bicyclist you have
ever seen has done as you suggest). However, you followed that later
with the statement that, "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs."
Clearly, you are not in a position to judge what 100% of bicyclists
do, even in your local area, and you did not limit that comment to apply
only to your observations.
One for you, one for me.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Zoot Katz
<gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>
>> >> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>> >> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>>
>> >Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
>> >it's *your* proposal, after all.
>>
>> >From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
>> >of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
>> >light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>>
>> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
>> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>
>As a former vehicular cyclist, I am always careful. And not just
>around bicyclists.
>
>> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
>> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
>> law.
>
>What about we clown who used to ride bikes, and now pay very close
>attention to all traffic, just out of habit?
I didn't really learn to drive until after taking a motorcycle safety
course. I'd already had a license for ten years, owned two cars,
three motorcycles and three road bikes. An evasive driving course
later in life was rehashing most of what I already knew and threw in
a few twists suited to 4 wheels and more mass. Rarely am I required
to drive these days but the survival habits are ingrained. As a
passenger I'm usually uncomfortable as the driver's skill and
attention level is comparably lower than mine.
Face it; any idiot can drive. . . and they usually do.*
>
>> They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
>> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
>> the rules.
>
>Except that seeing bicycles riding correctly on the roads is a rare,
>noteworthy event.
You're kidding. As a cyclist riding daily throughout the city the
rarest observation is riders riding counterflow. Completely unlit
cyclists averages less than 10%. Most of them have tail lights.
Rolling stop signs is commonly observed by both cars and bicyclists.
Whether or not they have the prescribed bell, most bikes are not in
compliance with that law. Helmet use, mandatory here, is about 60%.
I probably only stop and dab for fewer than ten percent of the stop
signs along my usual routes. I and most cyclists I know approach
intersections with restricted vision prepared to stop not trusting
the stop sign to stop the cross-traffic. I've done my usual
momentary semi-stop in front of cops without hassle. They don't
hassle drivers for that move either. If the traffic is backed up,
I'll filter forward and cross with a car at a four way stop or red
light and I guess that's what really pisses off the caged stooges.
They're envious.
>
>> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
>> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>
>Which is it - there are so many you can't keep track, or they are
>rare? You are being contradictory.
>
I mean that individually they're entirely forgettable because there
are too many idiots pulling the same stunned stunts or selfishly
applying the laws of gross tonnage instead of normal ROW rules.
You can't keep track of them all and they're best forgotten though
always anticipated.
>> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
>> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
>> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>
>And the lawful one, in their rarity, is not noticed at all.
>
>Uh -huh - you're making a whole lot of sense now. (not)
The attentive attuned driver causes no conflict, is quickly processed
and forgotten. The next driver is still an unknown quantity but
initially regarded as a potential threat.
>
>> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
>> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
>> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
>Just like fools on bikes who can't be bothered to make themselves even
>partially visible at night, or who ignore traffic control devices.
>Got it.
Traffic control devices? You're making me gag now.
If the cops could write 100 citations per hour they'd write 350
between 3pm and six thirty, five days per week for drivers making
prohibited turns at just one intersection I cross daily.
What part of "except bicycles" appended to signs restricting
automobile entry you clowns not understand? Surely driving over the
diverter curbs and swerving around the signs must have gotten your
attention.
Quit touching yourself.
>
>E.P.
* meaning they're too stupid or lazy to figure out how to get around
without their motorised carapace. The genuinely handicapped are a
minority compared to those who have handicapped themselves by their
devoted dependance on their plastic lined cages.
--
zk
Zoot Katz
Speed humps aren't well tolerated by petulant brats so they speed up
to express their disproportionate annoyance over a trifling matter.
Thus: the average speed on the road goes up.
--
zk
Tom Keats
frkr...@gmail.com writes:
>> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>> for anything that might happen to you.
>
> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> they're dressed should not matter.
I believe you (Frank) and I concur.
As I see it, there is no substitute for active lighting,
not even reflectors. A rider with active lighting is,
well, /lit-up/. No sweat. Reflectors should be adjuncts
and supplementary to active lighting. But when you have
good active lighting, you're already pretty much covered.
Non-reflective clothing is no substitute for passive
lighting (reflectors) no matter what the colour.
In the dark, all cats are grey. I sure wouldn't rely
on a pair of white Dockers and a white London Fog
golf jacket for my safety on an unlit country highway
on a moonless, overcast-sky night (and I hope to never
even be caught dead in such an outfit. I'll wear a
powder blue leisure suit first. Well, may not.)
Even in the city there can be pockets of darkness
where light but non-reflective clothing can't cut
the mustard.
Reflective clothing /is/ reflectors, not a substitute
for bike-mounted reflectors.
But it's certainly not a substitute for active lighting.
I guess it's slightly better than nothing, in that if
circumstances are with one during an incipient collision,
one /might/ be seen & avoided.
As for obscurity: when I'm riding along past a line
of parked cars and I see one with tinted windows,
I'll swing a little further away from the door zone
as I pass by it. I can't tell if there's a driver
in there about to open his door and step into my line,
or even pull-out in front of me (although I can tell
by the running lights coming on, but car lights don't
always work.) I'm very leery of parked cars with
tinted windows. Drivers with tinted windows force
cyclists to have to take even more of the lane.
Right now I'd like to give all drivers w/ the selfish
affectation of having tinted windows an hearty
Bronx cheer and an heartfelt "thanx a lot".
So here yez go :-p :-p :-p
Tinted side/rear windows should be prohibited.
Outright banned like illegal drugs or kidnapping.
Tinted windows are a bain on all that's good.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Tom Keats
tkeat...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes:
> Tinted windows are a bain on all that's good.
^^^^
I meant: "bane".
Please don't bug me.
Okay, go ahead, if ya wanna.
At least I didn't try to do math on Usenet.
Trying to do math on Usenet always goes awry too.
Usually in the simple arithmetic.
I need a copper bain-marie. Just the thing
for making custards. And a good dessert is
good for forgetting about math problems or
homonyms & synonyms.
Anyways, back to tinted windows -- there's something
sinister about folks who like to do stuff while
cloaked in darkness. Except maybe astronomers and
photographic film developers.
What's going on in those tinted-windowed cars
anyway, that the occupants of which fear discovery?
Coitus? Drug deals? Nose-picking?
--
Why can't anything ever go right?
Stephen Harding
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>> they're dressed should not matter.
>
> It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors. If I can't
> reasonably be expected to see them while I'm standing still, I'm
> certainly not going to see them from my car either. I'm sick of the
> attitude that the cyclist is always right and the motorist is always
> wrong. I knew at a very young age if I were going to be walking along a
> street at night that I should be wearing something that would be easily
> visible to motorists, or else carrying a light. I don't see how any
> cyclist could say with a straight face that he's somehow exempt from
> this same common-sense rule.
It might be better that a bicyclist wear a florescent glowing
jumpsuit at night for better visibility, but the generally
required safety equipment (lights, reflectors) required for
riding a bicycle at night should be more than adequate by
themselves.
A bicyclist isn't being irresponsible if he chooses dark clothing
in which to ride a bike at night, asl long as his "vehicle" is up
to proper night time safety equipment. Just like motorists.
A pedestrian probably is being personally irresponsible (assuming
no sidewalk and dark roads) if he doesn't wear brighter clothing
at night, although it should be more than adequate for him to have
a flashlight or reflectors to indicate his presence to motorists.
Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! That's the real problem
in most negative interactions between cars and others on the road
whether they be bicyclists, pedestrians or other cars.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>>>>should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>>>>right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>>>>(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>>>>motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>>>>are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>>>>they're dressed should not matter.
>>
>>>It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>>
>>Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
>
> No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
> boot.
>
> If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> Why do cycling shoes have reflectorized materials in them? Why do
> people attact reflector tape to their helmets or caps?
>
> What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> non-sensical.
I don't think he's saying it doesn't matter. He's saying
it isn't required for adequate night time detection of a
bicyclist.
I think all states require head and tail lighting for night
time bicycle operation. On top of that, most bikes come with
reflectors front and rear and possibly reflectorized areas of
the bike itself.
It certainly can't hurt for a bicyclist to wear bright glowing
clothing while pedaling his bike at night. It certainly can't
hurt for a motorist to wear a helmet while he drives.
But such things aren't additional *requirements* simply because
what *is* required is deemed sufficient for the purpose.
>>>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
>>>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>>
>>Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
>>and from all the people I know.
>
> So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
> logic use, Frank.
Each perceives his world somewhat in his way.
I don't find dead/dying bicyclists lying about the roads I ride
(or drive). I don't see 100% of bicyclists running stops where
I live.
That's my world to some extent, but I've bicycled a lot of roads
in the US and this view has been consistent everywhere I've been.
>> I suspect that's because yours
>>includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
close scrutiny. Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
we know.
>>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>>
>>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
>>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
> Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
> it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
> From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
One "problem" with bicyclist behavior is that there is a significant
number of individuals riding bikes that are young; kids actually.
This demographic isn't necessarily known for driving "properly" on
the road, just as the 18-25 year old motoring demographic is known
to be a dangerous one in cars.
I understand the number of you bicyclists is in decline, so perhaps
when the roads are more dominated by older [wiser?] individuals, you
and other motorists will see fewer two wheeled traffic scofflaws on
the road.
>> The cyclists you claim to observe
>>do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.
No but the OP did say 100% of bicyclist he has observed don't stop
at stop signs/lights, then proceeded to apply that generalization
to "bicyclists".
That's a common thing to do but is still a broad sweeping negative
generalization that IMHO is incorrect.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>
>>
>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
>
> Falls Church, VA
OK. Suburbia on steroids.
Not certain I'd want to bike commute in that area although I was
quite surprise last summer how bike friendly DC was!
>> How much viewing time are we talking about with this
>> observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time?
>
> I've lived here for over a year. I see anywhere from 1-5 cyclists every
> morning, and often a few more in the evening.
Maybe it's the same incompetent/irresponsible group you see over
and over.
My bike commute involves 10-11 miles each way with perhaps 8-10
lights along the primary route. I doubt there is a day that goes
by without *at least* one *blatant* running of a red light by a
motorist.
I'm talking the light is red and cars with the green have to wait
for the jerk to pass through before going. The motorists passing
through the light as it turns red are too numerous to bother
counting.
>> Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently
>> large, I would have to predict a significant number of the
>> 700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their
>> end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming
>> you are in the US)!
>
> I'm honestly surprised that more don't.
>
> Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
> wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
> did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
> narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
> road to get around parked cars.) Now the other cyclist that I saw was
> wearing a reflective vest, so he gets props for that, but making a left
> turn a little closer to oncoming traffic than I would have considered
> prudent kinda negates that.
Statistically, bicyclists involved in accidents with cars don't
get run down from behind. It's most likely the bicyclist running
a light, being on the wrong side of the road or riding at night
without adequate lighting that does him in.
Not certain what you mean by the cyclist making a left turn "a little
closer to oncoming traffic" means. That he was too far to the left
in the lane or crossed in front of oncoming traffic with insufficient
distance from traffic (cutting them off)?
If too far to the left side of the road, the bicyclist may have been
trying too hard to accommodate the motor traffic behind him. I
sometimes do this myself, moving to the near center of the road to
make a left turn rather than being farther to the right, just so
I give cars behind me more clearance to get around me.
I think too often, motorists feel a bicyclist should ride in a fashion
that causes motorists no inconvenience. That means be on the very
edge of the roadside, with pedals scraping the curbing.
The safe way is to actually "take the lane" which too many motorists
feel is "in your face" bicycling. It's really not meant to be.
> The only conclusion I can draw is that either a) cyclists are idiots or
> b) the act of getting on a bicycle causes one to become an idiot.
Interestingly, I have found this to be the case for motorists (and
I myself am a motorist who drives a big V-8, 4WD 1/2 ton Dodge pickup)!
I *personally know* people who are fine, intelligent and considerate
who become absolute jerks behind the wheel of their motor vehicles.
People will happily hop in front of a line of waiting cars because
they don't want to wait, but would never think of doing such a thing
(perhaps out of physical self-preservation) on foot, say for a line
outside a restaurant or theatre. But they'll do it in their
automobiles!
The list of selfish or irresponsible behaviors I have seen performed
by motorists is substantial. My general belief in the goodness of
humanity leads me to believe that most of these "automobile jerks"
are in fact pretty fine people outside their car.
> Of course, it's not *just* cyclists - just that it seems that they are
> more universally idiotic. Within the same two mile drive home from the
> Metro station, I also saw a motorcycle cop pull a U-turn and immediately
> make a left turn onto Leesburg Pike and I seriously thought he was going
> to run straight into a pedestrian; I slowed in case I would end up
> having to stop give a statement/help if I could.
Well we all have our bad days.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
> has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
> yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>
> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
just to generate revenue).
However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
can be ignored under certain conditions.
Surveys show virtually every driver thinks *they* are a good
driver while *everyone else* is incompetent.
SMH
N8N
All of your points are valid. However, I think you're confusing two
completely seperate issues. The first is the posting of speed limits,
and the second is the skill and awareness of the average motorist.
Even a marginally capable driver in a car meeting the minimum
requirements for street legality in the US ought to be able to handle
driving on an Interstate highway at a speed significantly greater than
55 MPH without any perceptible increase in risk. Anyone not able to
do so shouldn't have a license, and any car not capable of doing so
probably shouldn't be on the road.
That said, yes, there are an awful lot of drivers doing stupid stuff
every day. However, they seem to be just as likely to do something
dumb on a residential street as on an Interstate, and honestly, when I
see someone on a highway driving significantly *slower* than the rest
of traffic, that's often a flag to me that I ought to pay special
attention to them because they might be inattentive and do something
that normally would be unexpected.
nate
Doug Smith W9WI
> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them. One hopes that
lesson will be learned by way of an expensive ticket, rather than by way
of an injury "accident".
While cycling, I really haven't had a whole lot of trouble with bad
drivers. (12,000 miles and only two close calls - both in bright
sunshine. Unfortunately that doesn't include close calls with
illegally loose dogs. I wish sawed-off shotguns were legal, I could use
one.)
While driving, on the other hand...
Here in Northern Middle Tennessee we have a frustrating, dangerous
combination:
- Lots of hills.
- Lots of semis. (which usually can't climb Tennessee hills at the speed
limit)
- Two-lane Interstates. (which means either you follow the slow semis in
the right-hand lane, or you pass them in the left)
- Too many motorists who believe they're *entitled* to drive as fast as
they want.
Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you try
to pass the semis.
Now that they've learned the speed limit can be ignored with impunity,
(sometimes...) they're branching out. To running stop signs & lights.
(not only speed-control stop signs) To ignoring oncoming traffic when
pulling out from driveways and sideroads. To passing in no-passing zones
- and even no-traffic zones.
(worst case: last winter, guy on I-24 so convinced he was entitled to go
90mph he passed me *on the right-hand shoulder*, *at an exit*, the day
after a snowstorm, when the shoulder *had frequent patches of ice & snow*.
He couldn't wait ten seconds for the other guy to finish passing me.)
Motorists have got to learn to respect traffic rules. If not for
cyclists' sakes, for each other's sakes!
Brent P
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
>> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
>> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
>> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
> and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
That's nice. it's about as effective as pounding sand in these parts and
many others. BTW, I don't ignore stop signs, I am only stating what the
results of misusing stop signs is.
Speed control stop signs are especially annoying when biking. I am far
more annoyed by them when bicycling than driving. on the order of several
times more if I am at the end of a long ride.
> Ignoring stop signs is not the proper way to protest them. One hopes that
> lesson will be learned by way of an expensive ticket, rather than by way
> of an injury "accident".
> - Lots of semis. (which usually can't climb Tennessee hills at the speed
> limit)
> - Two-lane Interstates. (which means either you follow the slow semis in
> the right-hand lane, or you pass them in the left)
> - Too many motorists who believe they're *entitled* to drive as fast as
> they want.
Interesting... that list puts you as the subject of that famous George
Carlin bit about driving.
> Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
> over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
> semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
> your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you try
> to pass the semis.
Pass, get back right... why is that so difficult for most people?
> Now that they've learned the speed limit can be ignored with impunity,
> (sometimes...) they're branching out. To running stop signs & lights.
> (not only speed-control stop signs) To ignoring oncoming traffic when
> pulling out from driveways and sideroads. To passing in no-passing zones
> - and even no-traffic zones.
Maybe the speed limits should have made sense in the first place. See
that's the problem with law that's based only on authority, eventually
you get laws that don't make sense and people lose respect for
similiar laws, even ones that make sense, because of it.
> (worst case: last winter, guy on I-24 so convinced he was entitled to go
> 90mph he passed me *on the right-hand shoulder*, *at an exit*, the day
> after a snowstorm, when the shoulder *had frequent patches of ice & snow*.
> He couldn't wait ten seconds for the other guy to finish passing me.
That may be shocking for you, but that's everyday driving in c(r)ook
county, IL.
> Motorists have got to learn to respect traffic rules. If not for
> cyclists' sakes, for each other's sakes!
Rules need to make sense to be respected. The problem with speed limits
is they are often pulled from some so called authority's ass and worthy
the same respect as anything that came out of that ass.
Paul M. Hobson
55 mph speed limits were set to increase the national fuel economy.
Power required to propel a vehicle is proportional to the to cube of the
velocity. Gas starts getting burned really fast above 55 mph.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
SMS
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If
>> one has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only
>> have to yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>>
>> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>
> I see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>
> Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
> aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
> don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.
>
> I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
> yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
> low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
> just to generate revenue).
>
> However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
> traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
> can be ignored under certain conditions.
The reason that they are becoming interpreted as "guidelines" is because
so many of them make no sense.
Changing stop signs to yield signs would probably be a big benefit to
cyclists. The problem is that many stop signs are just to slow traffic,
not to control intersections. We have one street in my city which was
used as a major commute route prior to a new freeway being built.
Someone requested that the stop signs that were put in to control speeds
be removed. While the city council agreed that the stop signs were
unnecessary, they wouldn't remove them because they were worried that if
a bad accident then occurred at one of those intersections the city
would be liable because they removed the stop signs.
SMS
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>> that's the reason people don't respect it. It is a well known fact that
>> misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are not well
>> respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the consquence of
>> 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
>
> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional elections
> and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
Good theory anyway. Getting a stop sign removed is extremely difficult,
even when the city council admits that it is not properly placed, or was
needed at one time, but not needed any longer. They're terrified of
removing a stop sign then there being an accident at that spot.
> While cycling, I really haven't had a whole lot of trouble with bad
> drivers. (12,000 miles and only two close calls - both in bright
> sunshine. Unfortunately that doesn't include close calls with
> illegally loose dogs. I wish sawed-off shotguns were legal, I could use
> one.)
All you need is a police whistle. Works on all dogs except pit bulls for
some reason.
Doc O'Leary
Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> be visible?
Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
moving at high velocities. When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that
even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.
> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
of actions that promote traffic flow.
> You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
> presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like
you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.
> I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
> yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
> year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
> obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.
Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a
motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more
vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason.
Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
"Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
out.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
pdl...@gmail.com
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't
> miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet
> hunter orange?
He was driving a bright lime green small SUV and you couldn't miss
them. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their car hunger
orange?
Pat
frkr...@gmail.com
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
> > lights, and never require clothing.
>
> > There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!
>
> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> be visible?
>
A little. Much better would be "Why do many cyclists consistently not
use lights at night?" Again, the clothing item is negligible. Drop
it.
Why don't they? It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
they go totally car crazy.
> >>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> >>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> > and from all the people I know.
>
> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
>
> > I suspect that's because yours
> > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.
That was not an assertion; as I said, it was merely a suspicion.
>
> > But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> > check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> > fine.
>
> You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
> presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
>
>
>
> >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> > counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
> > do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
> > clear, find someone who can explain it to you.
>
> I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> observations are 100%."
I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
> >>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> >>>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> >>>around!
>
> >>It does to me.
>
> > What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>
> Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
> You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?
Time for more help, Nate. Get someone to explain to you that
regretting a dent in your car is NOT the same thing as thinking the
entire universe revolves around your car!
The former is normal care for your possession. The latter is
unhealthy obsession.
- Frank Krygowski
N8N
wrote:
> In article <fq55li01...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> > make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> > be visible?
>
> Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> moving at high velocities.
Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for
you?
> When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that
> even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
> drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.
When you conceal yourself, you lose all reason to expect motorists to
yield to you. Just like if you do something unexpected like blow a
stop sign in front of a motorist that has the right of way.
>
> > Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
>
> What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
> said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
> around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
> of actions that promote traffic flow.
Well, if it were cyclists only blowing stop signs when no traffic was
around it wouldn't be an issue, kind of a tree falling in a forest
situation. But when they do it in front of a vehicle that's already
stopped and presumably preparing to proceed (or actually in the act of
proceeding) through the intersection, that's something else entirely.
>
> > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> > unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> > cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
> > presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> > truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like
> you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.
As bad as the drivers are, I can't say with 100% certainty that if I
follow a driver for a couple blocks that I WILL observe him violate
one or more traffic laws. I *can* say that about cyclists.
> > I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> > observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
> > yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
> > year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
> > obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.
>
> Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a
> motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
> see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
> that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more
> vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason.
> Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
> your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
> aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
> "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
> out.
I think that they just flagrantly violate the law. Their reasons for
doing so are of no concern to me; what *is* of concern to me is the
fact that I apparently need to be extra-vigilant as their actions are
for the most part unpredictable, and in the areas where I expect to
see cyclists I also have to be extra-vigilant because they are hard to
see due to not having the required safety equipment.
nate
Jim Yanik
news:47c6e1f2$0$36373$742e...@news.sonic.net:
can of pepper spray,or "bear" spray.
watch out,some states limit the quantity of pepper spray one can carry on
their person.Florida does; 2.1oz.
N8N
> On Feb 27, 9:17 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > > It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
> > > as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
> > > lights, and never require clothing.
>
> > > There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!
>
> > Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
> > make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
> > be visible?
>
> > Is that better?
>
> A little. Much better would be "Why do many cyclists consistently not
> use lights at night?" Again, the clothing item is negligible. Drop
> it.
OK, so why don't they?
>
> Why don't they? It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
> the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
> bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
> grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
> long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
> teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
> heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
> they go totally car crazy.
So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
not using due care and common sense.
>
> > >>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> > >>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> > > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> > > and from all the people I know.
>
> > Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
>
> Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
> being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
> world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
> live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
I don't know that it's all that special. I do know some serious
cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
here might be a *little* more careless and/or simply of the mindset
that they have priority over vehicular traffic (no matter what the law
actually says) but you're absolutely right that it is unreasonable to
assume that this is anything more than a small variation from the
norm.
>
> > > I suspect that's because yours
> > > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> > I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.
>
> That was not an assertion; as I said, it was merely a suspicion.
Well, come and visit and you will see that I am not exaggerating one
iota.
>
> > > But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> > > check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> > > fine.
>
> > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> > unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
> > cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
> > presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
> > truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
> > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
> course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
> > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > > Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> > > counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
> > > do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
> > > clear, find someone who can explain it to you.
>
> > I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
> > observations are 100%."
>
> I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet. A
cyclist simply slowing down and obviously looking both ways is rare
enough to be noteworthy. (and I really wouldn't complain if they did
that, and didn't come to a full stop, because I do understand that
accelerating from a full stop every block can become tiring.)
>
> > >>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> > >>>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> > >>>around!
>
> > >>It does to me.
>
> > > What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>
> > Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
> > You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?
>
> Time for more help, Nate. Get someone to explain to you that
> regretting a dent in your car is NOT the same thing as thinking the
> entire universe revolves around your car!
I don't think that the entire universe revolves around my car. I'm
simply stating that to me, in a case of someone damaging my property
due entirely to their lack of due care, the damage to my property is
of more importance to me than whatever damage they also incurred as a
result of their own actions. Just as if I rear-ended you in traffic,
you would be more concerned about the damage to your car or bike than
you would be about my well-being, and rightly so.
> The former is normal care for your possession. The latter is
> unhealthy obsession.
Much like many cyclists seem to have with their bikes.
nate
N8N
that's "hugger orange," and the answer is "the po-po."
nate
Jim Yanik
news:fq6lso$aup$1...@news-int.gatech.edu:
maybe in the older '60s-'70s autos.
Today's cars have a much lower drag coefficient.
Jim Yanik
news:droleary.usenet-9C...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <fq55l...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
>> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
>> be visible?
>
> Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> moving at high velocities.
The AMISH slow-moving horse-drawn carts have to have a large reflective
triangle.Why should slow-moving bicycles be any different?
If slow bikes want to mix in with the heavier and FASTER automotive
traffic(a really dumb idea),then they shouldn't complain about things to
make THEM safer.
> When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians.
Well,Whoop-de-do!
If you were smart,you'd respect heavier faster autos,as they can cause you
a lot more grief.
> Or are you going so far as to say that
> even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
> drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.
license bicyclists.
Then take away THEIRS when they don't follow the road laws.
>
>> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
>
> What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
> said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
> around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
> of actions that promote traffic flow.
A bicycle in auto traffic does NOT "promote traffic flow".
It makes it worse.
>
>> You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
>> attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
>> unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
>> cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up.
That oughta be a clue as to mixing bikes and motor vehicles on the roads.
>> Due to the
>> presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
>> truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
>> Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
>> my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like
> you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.
AH,without knowing the facts,you automatically *assume* it's the fault of
the auto.
>
>> I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
>> observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
>> yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
>> year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
>> obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.
>
> Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a
> motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
> see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
> that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more
> vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason.
> Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
> your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
> aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
> "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
> out.
>
--
necromancer
Now, for S&DDAM, that sounds like a good idea. Especially for those
parst that tend to drop off of cars that are ill maintained like
S&DDAM's beater.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj
Ed Pirrero
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:32:21 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 27, 7:21 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:32:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 27, 6:04 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
> >> >> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
> >> >> >an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
> >> >> >nate
>
> >> >> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> >> >> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
>
> >> >If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
> >> >right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
> >> >roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.
>
> >> >Explain that, if you please.
>
> >> Drivers are petulant brats.
>
> >Nice cause and effect you have going there.
>
> >Logic, much?
>
> Speed humps aren't well tolerated by petulant brats so they speed up
> to express their disproportionate annoyance over a trifling matter.
> Thus: the average speed on the road goes up.
Other than your logical fallacy (straw man), and your invalid
conclusion arising from your false premise, you are correct.
I'll leave to to figure out which part of your argument applies.
For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
their primary duty - slowing down traffic. Thus, they are not
indicated in any situation.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:36:56 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> >> >> counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
> >> >it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
> >> >From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> >> >of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> >> >light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
> >> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>
> >As a former vehicular cyclist, I am always careful. And not just
> >around bicyclists.
>
> >> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
> >> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
> >> law.
>
> >What about we clown who used to ride bikes, and now pay very close
> >attention to all traffic, just out of habit?
>
> I didn't really learn to drive until after taking a motorcycle safety
> course.
Which has nothing to do with the refutation of your illogical premise.
>
>
> >> They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
> >> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
> >> the rules.
>
> >Except that seeing bicycles riding correctly on the roads is a rare,
> >noteworthy event.
>
> You're kidding.
I am not. I see *very few* law-abiding vehicle operators of any type.
That includes bicyclists.
> >> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
> >> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
> >> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>
> >And the lawful one, in their rarity, is not noticed at all.
>
> >Uh -huh - you're making a whole lot of sense now. (not)
>
> The attentive attuned driver causes no conflict, is quickly processed
> and forgotten. The next driver is still an unknown quantity but
> initially regarded as a potential threat.
You're still not making sense. Even the fully law-abiding driver can
make a mistake.
ALL cars must be watched. Your lack of logic has made you blind.
> >> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
> >> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
> >> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
> >Just like fools on bikes who can't be bothered to make themselves even
> >partially visible at night, or who ignore traffic control devices.
> >Got it.
>
> Traffic control devices? You're making me gag now.
Yeah - like stop lights, stop signs, properly riding with traffic,
etc. Visible at night barely even makes the top ten of bicyclists
willfully ignoring traffic law, or more importantly, the laws of
common sense.
> If the cops could write 100 citations per hour they'd write 350
> between 3pm and six thirty, five days per week for drivers making
> prohibited turns at just one intersection I cross daily.
The vast number of drivers disobeying the law does not give cyclists
the right to break the law. If you spent any time in r.a.d. AT ALL
you'd see we don't like those folks, either.
The above is yet another logical fallacy - the two wrongs fallacy.
> What part of "except bicycles" appended to signs restricting
> automobile entry you clowns not understand?
We don't have those here. And I certainly won't answer for those who
ignore them.
> Surely driving over the
> diverter curbs and swerving around the signs must have gotten your
> attention.
Logical fallacy - guilt by association.
You aren't really high on the reason scale, are you?
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
He's saying it should not matter - the quote is above. But it does
matter - the more visible you are at night, the better. Even for
those of us who actually pay attention, more visible is better.
> It certainly can't hurt for a bicyclist to wear bright glowing
> clothing while pedaling his bike at night.
This is true.
> It certainly can't
> hurt for a motorist to wear a helmet while he drives.
I do wear a helmet when I drive.
> But such things aren't additional *requirements* simply because
> what *is* required is deemed sufficient for the purpose.
Being a pedantic asshole does not make one more safe in low-light
conditions. Like those idiots who can't find their headlamp switches
when it's raining. Sure, it's optional, but that doesn't make it an
equal choice.
> >>>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> >>>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> >>Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> >>and from all the people I know.
>
> > So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
> > logic use, Frank.
>
> Each perceives his world somewhat in his way.
Which does not imply that one's own view is necessarily correct, or
that someone else's is incorrect.
> >> I suspect that's because yours
> >>includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> > Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
>
> I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
> There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
> close scrutiny. Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
distance.
> Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
> we know.
The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.
Don't be an idiot.
> >>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
> >>Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> >>counterexample to prove you wrong.
>
> > Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
> > it's *your* proposal, after all.
>
> > From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> > of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> > light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
> One "problem" with bicyclist behavior is that there is a significant
> number of individuals riding bikes that are young; kids actually.
> This demographic isn't necessarily known for driving "properly" on
> the road, just as the 18-25 year old motoring demographic is known
> to be a dangerous one in cars.
Which mean, in a backhanded way, that Nate's observation is logically
possible.
>> >> The cyclists you claim to observe
> >>do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> > He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.
>
> No but the OP did say 100% of bicyclist he has observed don't stop
> at stop signs/lights, then proceeded to apply that generalization
> to "bicyclists".
No. He was careful to set the parameters ahead of time. Your
sensitive feeling may not accept that, but it's true.
> That's a common thing to do but is still a broad sweeping negative
> generalization that IMHO is incorrect.
That conclusion is not a logical consequence of Nate's commentary.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
> Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
won't look like such a fool.
E.P.
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> > > > should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> > > > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > > > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> > > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > > > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > > > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> > > It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
> > Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
> boot.
One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."
>
> If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
For the same reason that J.C. Whitney sells these safety vests for
motorists: http://tinyurl.com/3auqhh
and these Red Cross recommended safety tools: http://tinyurl.com/2u9c2g
and these safety backup systems: http://tinyurl.com/379elh
and these "extra safety" extra brake lights: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbln
They sell them to make money. That doesn't mean they're necessary.
That' _certainly_ doesn't mean they should be required.
> What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> non-sensical.
Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
making. I've never claimed they don't "make a difference." I'm
saying they should not be required. Why? Because at night, their
beneficial effects are completely overpowered by the effect of already-
mandated lights and reflectors. And because in the day, cyclists and
pedestrians are adequately visible for any remotely competent
motorist. If some motorists aren't competent, they should be removed
from the road.
And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
permanent loss of driver's license.
> > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> > and from all the people I know.
>
> So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
> logic use, Frank.
>
> > I suspect that's because yours
> > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
Ed, my original statement was "I doubt you can cite five examples in
the last five years where a motorist damaged his precious car due to
avoiding a cyclist's illegal move." I was speaking of Nate's
supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.
His response was: "Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
time period."
Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
his car, not hurting anyone else.
But still: If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
reasonable to give _some_ evidence. No news reports? Fine. How
about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
injuries to bicyclists? Or more to the point, how about evidence that
an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
illegal cyclists? Hell, how about just listing the details of the
five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?
I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. I have connections
with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. I pay a _lot_ of
attention to cycling and cycling crashes. I haven't personally heard
of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.
How about you? Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
years? Do you think that's _really_ likely?
> From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Fine. You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." I'll
bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.
A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
unlikely, but not impossible, straws.
>
> > The cyclists you claim to observe
> > do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.
Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
stop signs." That was completely unqualified. In a later post, he
said "I stand by my statement. 100% of cyclists that I encounter
flagrantly violate the rules of the road." Later, there was this
exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> Wrong.
Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
the sample he sees and the total population - and exaggerating in
both cases. I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
statements differently.
- Frank Krygowski
Ed Pirrero
> On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > > > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> > > > > should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> > > > > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > > > > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> > > > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > > > > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > > > > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> > > > It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
> > > Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> > No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
> > boot.
>
> One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."
No, being pedantic is ignoring the other person's actual contention
while bolding trumpetting some fact, regardless of the logic of the
other person's contention.
> > If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> > Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> They sell them to make money.
That's the ONLY reason, Frank?
Of course not. The reason is that reflectorized vests *can help* a
cyclist be more visible in low-light situations.
> That doesn't mean they're necessary.
> That' _certainly_ doesn't mean they should be required.
Common sense dictates some additional care. Being pedantic and
legalistic is a fine way to try and dismiss Nate's argument, but he
does have a point. Your yelling about how you "shouldn't have to" is
a red herring.
> > What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> > non-sensical.
>
> Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
> making.
Actually, I'm not. I got his point, and so did you. You're being a
pedantic jerk, for no other reason than you can be.
> And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
> prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
> permanent loss of driver's license.
A legal pedestrian around here could wear black sweats at night, and
get run down by even the most careful driver. The lack of street
lighting and proper sidewalks make it a possibility.
Hiding behind the cover of "what's required" legally does not exempt a
person from having common sense.
On a bicycle it goes the same way - if you're going to ride at night,
it *might be a good idea* to wear some clothing that helps drivers see
you.
A "should" suggestion, rather than a "must" law. Even you can see the
subtle difference, right?
> > > Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> > > and from all the people I know.
>
> > So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
> > logic use, Frank.
>
> > > I suspect that's because yours
> > > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> > Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
>
> Ed, my original statement was "I doubt you can cite five examples in
> the last five years where a motorist damaged his precious car due to
> avoiding a cyclist's illegal move." I was speaking of Nate's
> supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.
>
> His response was: "Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
> laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
> time period."
>
> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
> his car, not hurting anyone else.
And that gives you license to say he's making it all up, how?
> But still: If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
> reasonable to give _some_ evidence. No news reports? Fine. How
> about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
> injuries to bicyclists? Or more to the point, how about evidence that
> an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
> illegal cyclists? Hell, how about just listing the details of the
> five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?
Or, instead of YOU justifying your own assholish behavior over the
internet, just acknowledge that behind the safety of a keyboard, it's
really very easy to call "bullshit" without any concern over what the
consequences might be.
> I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. I have connections
> with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. I pay a _lot_ of
> attention to cycling and cycling crashes. I haven't personally heard
> of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
> personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.
So, you live in the same area? Or could the conditions be different?
> How about you? Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
> years? Do you think that's _really_ likely?
In my area, no. I have seen three bicycle-related accidents here,
however. Two with cars, and one bike-pedestrian.
Our population here is around 3k persons.
So yes, in the D.C. metro area, and the surrounding 'burbs, I can
easily see how I might come across one per year.
> > From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
> > of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
> > light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.
>
> Fine. You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." I'll
> bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
> exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.
Or, he has seen correctly, and you, in another grand tradition of
Usenet, are exhibiting a lot of keyboard courage.
> A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
> unlikely, but not impossible, straws.
How ironic that you would notice that, Frank.
> > > The cyclists you claim to observe
> > > do not make up the total population of cyclists.
>
> > He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.
>
> Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
> stop signs." That was completely unqualified. In a later post, he
> said "I stand by my statement. 100% of cyclists that I encounter
> flagrantly violate the rules of the road." Later, there was this
> exchange:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > Wrong.
>
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
> the sample he sees and the total population - and exaggerating in
> both cases. I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
> statements differently.
Easily - by understanding the conditions set forth in the first
comment. I do not then extrapolate my own pedantic ideas on top and
just ASSume he's make a conflation.
Want to try again, Frank?
E.P.
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
> > bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
> > grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
> > long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
> > teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
> > heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
> > they go totally car crazy.
>
> So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
> not using due care and common sense.
Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. I can say that
because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.
Don't take that too far, though. Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. Extrapolating even to daytime
cyclists is a separate issue. (And I'll remind you that the original
post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)
> > Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
> > being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
> > world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
> > live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
>
> I don't know that it's all that special. I do know some serious
> cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
> overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
> here might be a *little* more careless [than others]...
I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.
> > > > But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> > > > check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> > > > fine.
>
> > > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> > > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> > > unreported. ...
> > > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > > my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> > Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
> > course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
>
> I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
> week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
I've been driving since 1964. I _know_ I've come across at least 100
car crashes - after the fact, as I said. That includes two I'm very
sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. The last
traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. And no, it
wasn't in any news report.
>
> > > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
>
> Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.
Then think back. A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
about 30 seconds. In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
intersection. IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
will see can't even be called part of the test.
Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
_never_ seen a cyclist stop? That would be an astounding situation.
If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.
And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
was clear, and then rolling through? That's what happens in front of
my house roughly 200 times per day. Most think it's a bit different
than "blatantly running the stop sign."
Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. Think carefully before posting.
- Frank Krygowski
Stephen Harding
> On Feb 28, 5:37 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
>>There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
>>close scrutiny. Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
>
> This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
> distance.
>
>>Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
>>we know.
>
> The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
> infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.
>
> Don't be an idiot.
But one doesn't even really know that is true.
The ultimate point is that reflective clothing on bicyclists
is not a requirement for individuals engaging in the activity
at night. It may be helpful, but persons choosing to wear
ninja black while riding are not being irresponsible. Bright
clothing isn't really a critical aspect of night bicycling as
would be for a pedestrian walking the road.
Reflectors and in particularly lights, are required for
responsible riding. Anything beyond that whether visible
clothing, flashing strobes or wailing fog horn blasts every
5 seconds doesn't need to be part of the deal.
SMH
N8N
> On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
> > > the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
> > > bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
> > > grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
> > > long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
> > > teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
> > > heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
> > > they go totally car crazy.
>
> > So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
> > not using due care and common sense.
>
> Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
> cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. I can say that
> because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
> of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.
>
> Don't take that too far, though. Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
> you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. Extrapolating even to daytime
> cyclists is a separate issue. (And I'll remind you that the original
> post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)
I was primarily referring to after dark; since it's winter, I'm not
likely to be encountering cyclists during the daytime (as most of the
ones that I see are near my house, as most of my commute is on the
toll road.)
>
> > > Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
> > > being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
> > > world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
> > > live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
>
> > I don't know that it's all that special. I do know some serious
> > cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
> > overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
> > here might be a *little* more careless [than others]...
>
> I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.
"People are mostly the same everywhere, with minor differences" is
generally a safe statement to make, unless you're talking about some
dramatic geographic and cultural differences, like trying to make
generalizations about the behavior of cyclists in China from observing
them in your neighborhood.
>
> > > > > But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> > > > > check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> > > > > fine.
>
> > > > You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
> > > > attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
> > > > unreported. ...
> > > > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > > > my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> > > Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
> > > course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
>
> > I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
> > week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
>
> I've been driving since 1964. I _know_ I've come across at least 100
> car crashes - after the fact, as I said. That includes two I'm very
> sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. The last
> traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. And no, it
> wasn't in any news report.
I thought you meant in a one year period. 100 over 40 years, counting
seeing them after the fact, is low, in my experience, but then again,
drivers around here don't seem to understand how to handle freak
occurrances like water falling from the sky, so that may explain some
of it. That, and there's just too damn many people. (I'd love to
move to somewhere a little less populated; I'm not sure how to make
that happen while maintaining my current salary however.)
> > > > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > > I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
>
> > Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.
>
> Then think back. A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
> about 30 seconds. In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
> simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
> intersection. IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
> will see can't even be called part of the test.
>
> Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
> _never_ seen a cyclist stop? That would be an astounding situation.
> If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
> intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.
Yes. Might be a little bit of a special situation however, as the
overwhelming majority of cyclists that I see are on fairly residential
streets. Not to start up the whole other thread that I'm trying very
hard to avoid, but the area in which I live has had some very ill-
advised traffic management choices, such as installing speed humps on
the main road connecting US-29 to the Metro station, despite the fact
that for half that travel distance there's a deserted industrial lot
on one side of the road. So most of the driving traffic to the Metro
station is diverted onto residential streets (myself included) part of
which is a posted "bike route." So I do not see cyclists intersecting
with main roads; I do see them however riding on residential streets,
albeit ones that are unnecessarily heavily traveled.
>
> And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
> commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
> was clear, and then rolling through? That's what happens in front of
> my house roughly 200 times per day. Most think it's a bit different
> than "blatantly running the stop sign."
>
> Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. Think carefully before posting.
I do occasionally see cyclists acting as you describe, which I agree
is technically an infraction but understandable and reasonably safe if
done with care and awareness. Far more often, however, I do not -
they simply proceed through the intersection at full speed; and I
can't tell if they're actually looking for cross traffic or not as I
don't see their heads move.
nate
Stephen Harding
You can't possibly be disagreeing with that statement...
or can you?
Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
of survey or study or is this personal observation?
Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
or collisions with other vehicles.
Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
to legal limits or are you getting them off the hook by simply
claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
speed?
[Yes I believe some speed limits are indeed set too low.
But most are within reason and not worth quibbling over.]
How shall we determine excessive speed then? Can such a
concept even exist? What's "fast" for you is pretty tame
for Mario Andretti or Jeff Gordon.
SMH
Brent P
> In article <fq55l...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
>> make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
>> be visible?
>
> Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> moving at high velocities. When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that
> even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
> drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.
So maybe they don't crash into me when I am bicycling too? How's that for
a reason? I get tired of playing chicken with unlighted wrong ways on the
street and dodging red light runners. The annoyance caused by poor
bicycle riders is much greater when I am riding than when I am driving.
>> Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.
> What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
> said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
> around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
> of actions that promote traffic flow.
And yet, let me guess, you expect drivers to obey the number on the
painted steet metal sign and not use their brains to figure out the world
around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs
under the same conditions that you go through them under too....
Brent P
> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
> his car, not hurting anyone else.
A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
Brent P
> Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
> if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
> of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
> factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
> or collisions with other vehicles.
> Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
> alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
You wouldn't be one of those pro bicycle helmet zealots too? Because
those figures from the 'speed kills' and 'MADD' crowds you spout off are
about as truthful as what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots. Actually
IMO what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots is really more truthful.
They don't massage their data and definitions nearly as much IME.
Anyway, the whole point I'm making is one of consistancy. You really
can't argue against the safety nazi stances when it comes to bicycling
and then argue for them when it comes to driving and remain consistant
IMO. It's just foolish. Either you accept that people can adjust to their
environment or you don't. It doesn't matter if they are driving or
biking.
Leo Lichtman
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote: (clip) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frank, have you ever heard this quotation: "He was right, dead right. But
he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."?
Bill Sornson
BS
Ed Pirrero
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> > won't look like such a fool.
>
> of survey or study or is this personal observation?
Years of traffic research in many industrialized nations.
> Drivers drive too fast!
Asserting it again doesn't make it more true.
E.P.
N8N
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> > won't look like such a fool.
>
> You can't possibly be disagreeing with that statement...
> or can you?
>
Yes.
> Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
> of survey or study or is this personal observation?
Both.
>
> Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
> if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
> of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
> factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
> or collisions with other vehicles.
Most of those that come to those conclusions are highly unscientific
and paid for by those with an agenda. "excessive speed" (or more
likely "speed related") often just means "someone involved was
exceeding the speed limit" - well, who isn't? The truth is, the
percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit is *higher* than the
number of crashes categorized as "speed related!"
>
> Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
> alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).
Again, that just means that someone involved, who may not even have
been the cause of the incident, was exceeding the speed limit.
> You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
> to legal limits
No.
> or are you getting them off the hook by simply
> claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
> speed?
Yes.
> [Yes I believe some speed limits are indeed set too low.
> But most are within reason and not worth quibbling over.]
You're not from around here, are you? (I mean geographically, not
Usenet-wise.) IME nearly ALL speed limits are too low, outside of
residential areas, and thus are universally ignored.
> How shall we determine excessive speed then? Can such a
> concept even exist? What's "fast" for you is pretty tame
> for Mario Andretti or Jeff Gordon.
85th percentile is a good place to start. Adjust from there if there
are non-obvious hazards.
nate